Secular Morality?

[shunyadragon]

Your position seems to be that the evidence is "good" enough to rule out the hypothesis that the universe was created, with a reasonable degree of certainty.

My view is the evidence is overwhelming that the cause and nature of our physical existence is Natural Laws and natural causes and effects.

I do not believe 'that the evidence is "good" enough to rule out the hypothesis that the universe was created, with a reasonable degree of certainty.' That issue would be beyond the scope of the Methodological Naturalism, which is the foundation of science.

[seer]

I believe God Created our physical existence, and Natural Law. Yes, there is a very good argument for a Natural explanation that Natural LAw determined the nature of our physical existence.

Your arguments being weak and bogus has nothing to do with what I believe. You cannot simple assert your beliefs as unsubstantiated demands and win arguments.

What are you talking about Shuny, I did not make any claim I just quoted from your religious thinkers. And according to THEM creation proves a Creator, and that this fact is evident. What, you don't believe what your own faith teaches?

[seer]

My view is the evidence is overwhelming that the cause and nature of our physical existence is Natural Laws and natural causes and effects.

I do not believe 'that the evidence is "good" enough to rule out the hypothesis that the universe was created, with a reasonable degree of certainty.' That issue would be beyond the scope of the Methodological Naturalism, which is the foundation of science.

But this is exactly opposite of what your faith teaches! Go back and look at my quotes, read them in context of the links.

[seer]

Sheesh Tass, how on earth can I trust anything you say? Everything you say, think or believe, is predetermined by the laws of nature, and the laws of nature are not rational - I might as well listen to a monkey grunting...

[shunyadragon]

But this is exactly opposite of what your faith teaches! Go back and look at my quotes, read them in context of the links.

No it is not, seer. The evidence of science is simply the evidence of science.

I believe, and the Baha'i Faith teaches that the Source our physical existence and Natural Law is the Creation of God as you cited. This my belief, and I would not argue your line of reasoning, which I consider highly flawed.

The question is; Can you argue Divine Creation based on the evidence of science? The answer is no.

[seer]

Seer, whether or not either of you, Tass or yourself, are determined or not, with regards to your convictions, one of you is going to be wrong and the other right. So, assuming determinism to be true, how can we assess who is correct and who wrong? The empirical evidence! You are, to a certain degree, and in accord with the physical laws, in so far as we understand them, like everything else in the universe, determined, but that doesn't mean that your mind can't be changed through observation and knowledge. Thats seems to be the point that Tass has you beat on. The empirical evidence, not just his belief, is on his side, whether you are able to accept that evidence or not. You can't just assert your convictions in the face of the evidence and think you've settled the argument, you have to actually refute the evidence.

This is nonsense Jim. Like I made clear to you before, if determinism is true it effects everything. There s no "empirical evidence" that is not filtered through subjective minds, and if those minds are predetermined then you can not know if your beliefs or how you process information is correct.

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about Shuny, I did not make any claim I just quoted from your religious thinkers. And according to THEM creation proves a Creator, and that this fact is evident. What, you don't believe what your own faith teaches?

What is evident and taught in scripture cannot be proved by a scientific argument alone. It is a metaphysical argument based on the WHOLE context of Baha'i scripture, and not a selective word game. One must be willing to accept ALL the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and the implications that our physical existence and our spiritual existence is a constantly evolving and changing Creation. You at present are not willing to accept science as it is a witness of God's progressive Creation, therefore it is questionable why you cite Baha'i scripture in your argument

[seer]

No it is not, seer. The evidence of science is simply the evidence of science.

I believe, and the Baha'i Faith teaches that the Source our physical existence and Natural Law is the Creation of God as you cited. This my belief, and I would not argue your line of reasoning, which I consider highly flawed.

The question is; Can you argue Divine Creation based on the evidence of science? The answer is no.

Shuny, your own faith teaches that creation proves a Creator, and that fact is evident. Do you believe that - yes or no?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, your own faith teaches that creation proves a Creator, and that fact is evident. Do you believe that - yes or no?

What is evident and taught in scripture cannot be proved by a scientific argument alone. It is a metaphysical argument based on the WHOLE context of Baha'i scripture, and not a selective word game. One must be willing to accept ALL the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and the implications that our physical existence and our spiritual existence is a constantly evolving and changing Creation. You at present are not willing to accept science as it is a witness of God's progressive Creation, therefore it is questionable why you cite Baha'i scripture in your argument

[seer]

What is evident and taught in scripture cannot be proved by a scientific argument alone. It is a metaphysical argument based on the WHOLE context of Baha'i scripture, and not a selective word game. One must be willing to accept ALL the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and the implications that our physical existence and our spiritual existence is a constantly evolving and changing Creation. You at present are not willing to accept science as it is a witness of God's progressive Creation, therefore it is questionable why you cite Baha'i scripture in your argument

Shuny, you are fudging again. Either your teachings are correct or they are false, either creation proves a Creator or it doesn't. And this is not a selective word game - it is actually what your religion teaches.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are fudging again. Either your teachings are correct or they are false, either creation proves a Creator or it doesn't. And this is not a selective word game - it is actually what your religion teaches.

No fudging . . ., you do not believe exactly what my faith teaches.

What is evident and taught in scripture cannot be proved by a scientific argument alone. It is a metaphysical argument based on the WHOLE context of Baha'i scripture, and not a selective word game. One must be willing to accept ALL the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and the implications that our physical existence and our spiritual existence is a constantly evolving and changing Creation. You at present are not willing to accept science as it is a witness of God's progressive Creation, therefore it is questionable why you cite Baha'i scripture in your argument

There is a problem here, the question is; 'What is an effective argument for God against atheism?' not what I believe. Neither the atheists nor you believe in the Baha'i Faith. A selective reading of the writings of the Baha'i Faith does not help your case, unless for some odd reason your arguing for the Baha'i Faith.

In terms of the argument for determinism with atheists you loose.

The problem of our physical existence be wholly deterministic is not as difficult as one may assume, because all the physical evidence available has effectively determined that Natural Laws have determined the nature of our physical existence. We have no evidence of any other cause.

[Truthseeker]

That one does not see any evidence that the Universe was created does not mean that there is no Creator.

[JimL]

That one does not see any evidence that the Universe was created does not mean that there is no Creator.

No it doesn't, but what it does mean is that "there is no evidence that the universe was created!" If there is no evidence, then you are left with no "reason" for believing it. The evidence that we do have however, is that from nothing, nothing comes, and that every cause is in its effect, and every effect is in its cause. This means that both cause and effect are of the same substance and the substance is itself is eternal.

[seer]

There is a problem here, the question is; 'What is an effective argument for God against atheism?' not what I believe. Neither the atheists nor you believe in the Baha'i Faith. A selective reading of the writings of the Baha'i Faith does not help your case, unless for some odd reason your arguing for the Baha'i Faith.

This is a lie Shuny, show me where I got your religious teachings wrong? All you are doing is to attempting to cloud the issue. Your faith, like mine, teaches that creation proves a Creator - that is either true or not. Are you going to deny your faith Shuny?

In terms of the argument for determinism with atheists you loose.

What argument - we know that they are wrong. The human soul and its rational abilities are not subject to the laws of nature

The problem of our physical existence be wholly deterministic is not as difficult as one may assume, because all the physical evidence available has effectively determined that Natural Laws have determined the nature of our physical existence. We have no evidence of any other cause.

But we know this is wrong. The human soul is not subject to this determinism.

[JimL]

This is nonsense Jim. Like I made clear to you before, if determinism is true it effects everything. There s no "empirical evidence" that is not filtered through subjective minds, and if those minds are predetermined then you can not know if your beliefs or how you process information is correct.

I respectfully disagree seer. The empirical evidence is what it is and it exists outside the mind. Your mind may be determined not to accept the evidence that is before it, but that doesn't change the nature of the evidence itself. People at one time subjectively believed the world to be flat, but because the empirical evidence existing outside of their minds contradicted those subjective beliefs their minds were changed. Sometimes our minds may be inclined, due to other factors, not to accept, and so rationalize away the evidence, particularly so being that the evidence is not proof positive. You could be right in the long run for all we know, there may be some point in the evolutionary process wherein free will emerges, or perhaps the world was willed into existence from out of nothing, but your argument is moot on that point. You don't really present an argument supporting your own convictions, all you are doing is trying to rationalize away the actual physical evidence that Tass is explaining to you.