Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Damn! I was just going to wrap it up for the night with a good book!

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    I wasn't referring to the 'objective/subjective' distinction there, but to the 'medium of thought/object of thought' distinction. The lens is not what the astronomer is aiming at; it is what she is aiming through or by means of. It is the medium of her aiming, not the object of her aiming. So what you're asking for is like demanding of the astronomer "Show me one finding you've gotten through your optical telescope that had nothing to do with your telescope lens."
    So now complete your analogy. In the moral world, what is the "lens" and what is the thing one is viewing?"

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    The images in your mind are the medium by which you imagine the Tower, but they are about the Eiffel Tower. The images= the medium of thought.
    The Tower= the object of thought
    Same question.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Your 'argument' if you can call it that, or the 'points' your position hangs on, basically boils down to 3, ASFiCT:
    1. Moral beliefs are always differing and changing.
    2. Moral reasoning is inseparable from subjective valuings.
    3. There is no evidence of an 'objective' moral framework or an objective moral principle that does not depend upon subjective valuings for its truth.

    As far as 1., even you admitted in your last post that this is not a strong reason for accepting subjectivism.
    It goes beyond this. I have NEVER suggested that #1 was any part of my argument. This is entirely your addition.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    2. is also a very poor reason to accept subjectivism. Just because we find two things together, in this case moral reasoning and subjective valuing, doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the relation of the two things. Much more has to be known. X and Y are seen in conjunction, but does X cause Y or does Y cause X, or do they merely correlate with each other? Is one the necessary condition for the other? The sufficient condition?The mere conjunction tells us next to nothing.
    It is not just inseparable, Jim. Inseparable suggests correlation and, as you note, that is not the same as causation. Subjective morality is not just "associated with" valuing/cherishing - it is explicitly rooted in it. Moralizing is the process of determining which actions will protect/nurture/enhance/promote what we most value/cherish (moral actions) and which will threaten/starve/diminish/demote what we most value/cherish (immoral). If you take any moral position, and ask "why is that moral?" you will eventually arrive at a subjectively determined "thing" the individual values/cherishes. It is not merely associated - it is the reason/justification for the moral position to that individual.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    3. Remember that 'objective' in the ethical sense means 'true for more than one person.' It does not mean "absolutely, timelessly true," or "true in a Platonic sense the way the truths of maths and logic are true." It does not mean "true even if there were no humans in existence." It means "true as in not depending on the opinion or belief of just one single individual."
    No. The term "objective" does not mean "true for more than one person." Two people can agree on the same thing and it can still be subjective to each (e.g., liking pizza, thinking the new Lion King is a terrible movie, hating people who make bubbling noises with their straw, etc.). The term objective, even in morality, means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." In the moral world, the moral subjectivist believes that "random killing is immoral" is a moral statement whose truth value is subjectively determined. The moral objectivist (or so-called moral realist) believes that "random killing is immoral" is a moral statement whose truth value is objectively true without recourse to any individual.

    "Absolute" is a reference to "unchanging." A moral subjectivist is rarely an absolutist because moral principles for individuals can and do change. The only way in which a subjectivist could also be an absolutists is if they believe in an unchanging deity. Presumably this deity would have a moral framework that is unchanging and so "absolute." A moral objectivist may also be an absolutist if they believe that moral principles are not only objectively true/false but also unchanging.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Lying is morally wrong because of the truth-normative nature of human language-use. Humans have a prima facie duty to tell the truth because of truth-dependent nature of language use; this dependence can be seen in the asymmetric nature of truth and lying. Lying is truth-dependent whereas truth is not similarly lying-dependent. This asymmetry is why liars ape truth tellers and why truth-tellers do not ape liars. Liars want to be believed but truth-tellers don't want to be doubted.
    We've been through this argument and (hopefully) you know why I find this argument flawed.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    This is the point you never got.
    There is a difference between "didn't get" and "didn't agree."

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    When we lie, we are violating the implicit logic of language use.
    No - we aren't. We are violating a basic foundation on which society operates: trust. If we value society/community, and recognize that a lack of trust undermines society/community, we will see lying as immoral. If we do not, then we will not see lying as immoral. Language is irrelevant to this. Language is merely one tool by which we communicate. We can lie without uttering a single word. As previously noted, you are associating with "language" what belongs to "communication."

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    Imagine a king decreeing that everyone in his kingdom must lie from now on. It wouldn't last an hour. Perhaps the opposite would have problems too, but it is conceivable. The problems with the first scenario are conceivability problems, the second with aplicability/practicability problems.
    See above

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    As I've been trying to tell you, your request is confused. It's like saying "Just try to think of something, anything, without any neuronal activity going on in your head. See, you can't! That proves your thoughts are nothing but neuron activity! I rest my case." We have to clarify what we're talking about first, but you're so absolutely certain you know already, that I'm not hopeful.
    The request is simple. My position is that ANY valuing/cherishing is subjectively derived. Moral positions are rooted in what we value/cherish, ergo they are also subjectively derived. We not only subjectively choose what we value/cherish, we subjectively choose the method of traversing from "value/cherish" to "moral statement" (e.g., reason, feeling, intuition, etc.) and may shift methodology from one moral position to another.

    Your position is, apparently, that moral statements are objectively true/false. So make that case. To do so, you must necessarily show how a moral statement's truth value is objectively derived. If you cannot, then I respectfully suggest you stop accusing me of being dogmatic, since you seem to be dogmatically holding to a position you cannot show to be correct.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Nonsense Tass, go back to my video.
      Oh right. A theologian like WL Craig would know all about physics. It’s not as if he had an agenda to sell religion or anything.

      Those constants had to be precisely right for one; a universe to exist, and two; for universe to be life permitting (to allow even the possibility of life).
      You have it back-to-front. “Life” on this planet evolved to meet the conditions where it arose, sea creatures evolved to live in water and mammals on land. And on the hypothesized life-bearing planets in alien solar-systems creatures utterly alien to us will have evolved according to the unique conditions of their planet.

      Again you are begging the question Tass, the universe with its laws and constants it what NEEDS to be explained. The universe itself does not explain how it got here. And there is no evidence that non-rational forces, non-intelligent forces of nature could or did create such a finely tuned cosmos.
      Yes, there is evidence that non-intelligent forces of nature create a cosmos in which life can exist. Our very existence in this universe is testament to that. What there is NO evidence for is the existence of an immaterial creator who 'did-it'.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        Lying is morally wrong because of the truth-normative nature of human language-use. Humans have a prima facie duty to tell the truth because of truth-dependent nature of language use; this dependence can be seen in the asymmetric nature of truth and lying. Lying is truth-dependent whereas truth is not similarly lying-dependent. This asymmetry is why liars ape truth tellers and why truth-tellers do not ape liars. Liars want to be believed but truth-tellers don't want to be doubted. This is the point you never got. When we lie, we are violating the implicit logic of language use. Imagine a king decreeing that everyone in his kingdom must lie from now on. It wouldn't last an hour. Perhaps the opposite would have problems too, but it is conceivable. The problems with the first scenario are conceivability problems, the second with aplicability/practicability problems.
        I already responded to this post, but I had a thought as I awoke this morning. It focuses on the emphasized line above. As noted, this is incorrect because there it places on "language" what is more properly placed on "communication" in general. But you have a larger problem. How on earth do you get from "violates the implicit logic of language use" to "moral" or "immoral?" You seem to be suggesting that anything that violates the implicit purpose of a thing is acting immorally? How on earth do you make THAT leap? Doesn't that make the person who takes a brand new automobile and beats it with a hammer to create a work of art (yeah...believe it or not...Museum of Modern Art, Paris) immoral?

        Furthermore, the entire construct of your argument fails to account for the places where we perceive lying as perfectly acceptable or even a moral obligation. The Allies sent out multiple lies about their attack plans to confuse Nazi Germany before D-Day. The fiancee lies to their intended so as to surprise their intended with that wedding shower. People lied about the presence of slaves in their homes on the underground railroad. You take one example (i.e., the king decreeing everyone lies) and you seem to forget all of the other places where we lie with intent and with no moral conflict.

        Now, you can work real hard to carve out all sorts of exceptions to your "implicit language" theory, but my approach far more elegantly deals with the issue. It is not about anything implicit to language. It is about valuing society/community. Society/community absolutely depend on trust to be functional. If we erode trust, we erode society/community. That is what is at work in the U.S. today, and what makes Trump such a dangerous individual. If you value society/community, you will recognize the importance of trust and see anything that erodes trust as an attack on society/community, and therefore immoral. Your moral framework will contain an "ought not lie" model, but tied to the valuing/cherishing of society/community. No exception is needed for the Allies, the fiance, or the stops along the underground railroad because those lies don't erode community - they protect something else that is valued: life - or happiness.

        Now I have to run.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Oh right. A theologian like WL Craig would know all about physics. It’s not as if he had an agenda to sell religion or anything.
          Tass, Craig did not make it up. Tell me one thing in that video that was mistaken.


          You have it back-to-front. “Life” on this planet evolved to meet the conditions where it arose, sea creatures evolved to live in water and mammals on land. And on the hypothesized life-bearing planets in alien solar-systems creatures utterly alien to us will have evolved according to the unique conditions of their planet.
          That is nonsense, the conditions to support life first needed to be there.


          Yes, there is evidence that non-intelligent forces of nature create a cosmos in which life can exist. Our very existence in this universe is testament to that.
          Tell me then about these non-rational forces that created the universe. That existedbefore the universe.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            So where if your evidence for this eternal universe? The one we live in began about 15 billion years ago. And of course you know, that a past eternal multiverse is not viable.:
            Our universe, which we most often think of in terms of "the universe" is expanding, and according to Borde, Guth and Vilenkin it must needs for that reason have had a beginning. But an infinite and eternal Cosmos, our universe possibly being only a section thereof, by the very nature of it's definition, is not expanding. It's infinite! Universes, patches of spacetime such as ours, would not be the same thing as the Cosmos that births them. So I believe that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, are analyzing the expanding part, "the universe" which exists within the infinite and unexpanding whole, "the Cosmos." At any rate, they certainly have not proven that the Cosmos is itself finite, or that some-thing, "a universe," can come from nothing.

            Neither of us can provide proof as to whether the universe was born of the greater Cosmos, or created by a God, but we have evidence of the material world, and none for the immaterial and so, that the universe was born of the material is more likely than that it was, from out of nothing, thought into existence by an immaterial mind for which there is zero evidence.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              It's not a strawman, Jim. It's the only way your argument makes sense.
              You haven't investigated many ways my argument can make sense then, only the ways you would prefer it to make sense.



              Because the sentient mind is a categorizer and decision maker. When we have a choice of actions, it is a natural process of sentience to sort actions into "should/ought" and "should not/ought not." "Morality" is nothing more than the name we give to that process when it relates to things we cherish/value deeply. Otherwise, it's the same process we use for things we cherish/value trivially (i.e., food preferences).
              This is a bunch of simplisitic hooey. It applies to all sentience. All sentient beings value things. Heliotropic plants 'value' sunlight, but they are not moral. The things you say are so general that they have no application to morality. We're interested in differentiating factors. What differentiates beings capable of morality from bacteria and grubworms and lice?



              All of those things are simply indicators of what we value/cherish deeply: freedom, life, relationship/community, love, happiness, etc.
              And none of those things are consciously the subjects of subjective individual choice or preference. Does anyone ever choose freedom? One would already have to be free in order to choose freedom. Or love? These are basic human needs. They're not subjective any more than breathing is, even though in some cases people deny themselves these things, just as people can deny themselves their next breath. Subjective choice and preference only enters in the planning and fufillment of secondary and tertiary desires about how to fulfill these core needs. So it's hard to see how the "valuing/cherishing" (to use your fetish phrase) of core values is subjective at all.



              I have no idea how you are distinguishing between "objective moral truths" and "fact of the matter."
              "Killing an innocent person is wrong" would be what some consider an objective moral truth.
              The ostensible existence of free will would be a "fact of the matter."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Our universe, which we most often think of in terms of "the universe" is expanding, and according to Borde, Guth and Vilenkin it must needs for that reason have had a beginning. But an infinite and eternal Cosmos, our universe possibly being only a section thereof, by the very nature of it's definition, is not expanding. It's infinite! Universes, patches of spacetime such as ours, would not be the same thing as the Cosmos that births them. So I believe that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, are analyzing the expanding part, "the universe" which exists within the infinite and unexpanding whole, "the Cosmos." At any rate, they certainly have not proven that the Cosmos is itself finite, or that some-thing, "a universe," can come from nothing.

                Neither of us can provide proof as to whether the universe was born of the greater Cosmos, or created by a God, but we have evidence of the material world, and none for the immaterial and so, that the universe was born of the material is more likely than that it was, from out of nothing, thought into existence by an immaterial mind for which there is zero evidence.
                Jim it was Guth and Vilenkin that showed a multiverse could not be past eternal since it violated the Hubble Constant. Go back and read my link.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  As I have shown multiple times now, it is not - unless you selectively pre-define terms to require "objective moral truths."
                  No. Metaphysics is one area where there are possible facts of the matter. We just don't know for sure, but there can still be constructive disagreement nonetheless. So you're wrong.



                  Jim - those are all things that enable articulating morality to one another. They are not the cause d'etre. The cause is our sentient need to categorize and, in the face of the ability to act and choose, we will necessarily sort our actions to select between them. It'
                  s no more complex than that.
                  No. Wrong again. It is more complex than that. Many species are sentient and need to categorize in the face of the ability to act and choose but are not moral unless you redefine "moral" by special pleading and question-begging to fit your definition.



                  Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

                  Why would I be offended? It's not economic or political, per se - but it is indeed a "system of ideas and ideals."



                  As shown, so too does subjective morality.



                  SO this paragraph does not make sense to me. On the one hand you agree that there is a subjective element that is ineliminable (you are sending me to my dictionary more than anyone else on this forum - which is a good thing! I love to learn. Then you say that there is a "best" according to a set of criteria held by "the art community." What on earth makes you think these criteria are any less subjective? Just because a significant number of people happen to agree on their subjective criteria does not make it less subjective. If you join such a group and disagree with their criteria, you will still be required to use the consensus criteria. That does not make it objective. It makes it inter-subjective.
                  So here you are equivocating on the meaning of the word "subjective" again. I can't believe we're going to go through this again. Do you remember the definition we agreed to? The subject of choice or preference by one individual person? On this definition, it wold make no difference if the source of the opinion were the art community or the mouth of God. It still would not depend upon the choice or preference of one individual person, in this case, ME, in this analogy.



                  So seem to be dedicated to the proposition that there are no "facts of the matter" when dealing with subjectivity in morality, but that there are when dealing with subjectivity in other venues. That smacks of special pleading, Jim, and I have no idea how to help you see it.
                  Because there's this ethical theory you might have heard about called "ethical subjectivism" which states that moral truth just is what the individual's moral beliefs are. There is no corresponding "aesthetic subjectivism" theory. In any case, that's not what we're talking about here.



                  There is no "actually the best" in any objective sense. There is only a "best" according to a specified set of subjectively arrived at criteria. That is the point. You cannot identify a set of criteria that is objectively true independent of individual subjective or collective inter-subjective criteria. That is the point.
                  I can and have pointed out why it's ridiculous, such as the fallibility argument. I have used the truth normative and the moral disagreement arguments which in all honesty you have badly misunderstood. I have used the argument from reason. I've argued for why core values are reason-based and why they are not subjective. I've beaten you seven ways from Friday. I'm just on here for amusement. You just don't know enough to lay down. That's okay, though. Keeps me out of trouble on a Saturday night.


                  I cannot believe I have to explain this again. Since morality is rooted in what we value/cherish, and those are subjectively derived, morality is necessarily subjectively derived as well. The fact that MOST of us reason from this basis to our moral framework does not alter that reality. And "MOST" is not "ALL." There is no requirement for us to arrive at our moral framework through reason. Indeed, each of us have moral principles we arrive at from various directions. I have heard people argue vehemently against same-sex intimacy and, when all is said in done, their core argument is "they find it disgusting." Each of us arrives at our own moral framework by our own route. There are wide commonalities, but also wide differences. Knowing how someone arrives at their moral framework helps in the moral discussion, and tells us if we even have a prayer of influencing a change in that framework.
                  And none of this has one whit to do with the fallibility argument. Nothing. Nada. You still have not given me what I asked for, which is a terse definition of subjectivism such that it would answer the fallibility argument. I take your failure to do so as an admission that the argument goes through.



                  And since all of your consequences, thus far, are basically about the absence of characteristics associated with an objective moral framework, and you are essentially arguing "it's not objective." That is the point I'm trying to show you. On the other hand, I have never once suggested that variation in moral frameworks, either between people or over time in the same person, is the basis for it being subjective. The basis for it being subjective is the rooting of moral principles in the things we value/cherish, which are subjectively determined.
                  No, once again, it's not about it not being objective. It's about it being fallible. It's about the logical consequences of your own words, in which you conceded that it was possible for subjectivists to be wrong in their moral assessments. It has to do with the logical entailments of your own words. Game over. What do you want to talk about next?



                  My definition hinges on the definition of the word "subjective." Moral subjectivism is the theory/observation that moral principles held by an individual are based on or determined by their beliefs, opinions, feelings, or tastes. Since morality serves to protect/enhance/nurture what I value/cherish, if I hold a moral position that does not achieve that, if I can be shown that is the case, I will see my moral position as "wrong" and it will be revised. Indeed, anytime someone successfully convinces me that their moral position is superior to mine, I will instantly abandon my existing position in favor of the new one.
                  Why do you put "wrong" in scare quotes, when you mean just plain wrong? And again, how can subjectivism accomodate being wrong? If you were wrong, there's some other standard for truth than your moral beliefs, opinions, feelings, or tastes at a certain time.


                  Wrong? We value/cherish what we value/cherish. Is the many who values money/wealth over all else "wrong?" The answer to that question will vary depending on who is answering it.
                  How do you know for sure? Who are you to tell us what the answer to questions depends on?



                  My moral principles can fail to achieve what morality tries to achieve - as noted above. In that respect, they can be "wrong" because they are disconnected from what I value/cherish, though I seem to believe they are connected. Example: I value all human life above all else, but I have a moral principle that permits random/wanton killing. My moral principle is not protecting what I value/cherish. Once I am convinced of that - it will probably change.
                  Okay. Here's the problem. Subjectivism is defined as the ethical theory that moral truth is what an individual's beliefs and desires are at a certain time. It is not the theory that ethical truth is what an individual 'values and cherishes.' Those can never be timed. Propositional states can be timed. I believed that X at time T. What are the things that I truly value? Is it a neat quantifiable list? Is it a list of things that I have chosen? How could such a question be answered? The timing is important because morality has to do with actions. What did I believe/desire when I did X? the motivational connection is much more direct at the time or just before the action occurs or during deliberation. So if I believe X is morally permissible at time t, and I perform X, on subjectivism, it is permissible. If I''m proven wrong later, then subjectivism is false. the end.




                  Jim, the "objective truths" associated with morality are analogous to the "objective truths" associated with assessing the skill of a painter. There is an objectively real act. There is an objectively real effect of the act. The intent of the actor is subjective to the actor, but objectively real to me. It is the basis for the moral assessment that is subjectively derived. There is no "objective moral truth" as in "a moral principle to which all OUGHT to align" that is independent of the subjective valuation of any individual. Appealing to the moral norm of a community does not help you because the moral norm of a community is essentially the inter-subjective norms of its membership. It is not properly "objective."
                  More question-begging. It can't be objective because then it wouldn't be subjective.

                  You have not made any argument that convinces me that my worldview related to morality is in error. Until you do - I will continue to see morality as a subjective enterprise. I sincerely doubt you will or can, but that is because no one has for the last three decades. And no - that is not because I am dogmatically linked to my position, but I have a feeling that assertion is not going to convince you (or anyone else here). I go where the arguments take me. So far the arguments convince me that morality is subjective. Similarly, so far the arguments convince me that the gods of humanity are entirely derived by humans, and do not exist outside of the human mind. Will I ever change that position? If someone provides an argument or evidence that overrides the arguments/evidence that have convinced me, yes. Until then...my beliefs will stay as they are.
                  Are the two things linked for you? That is, the denial of gods and the denial of objective morality? I see no necessary linkage.



                  Apology accepted. I hope I have not become "dogmatic," but I do not abandon a position in a whim if the position has been long-held and has a substantial body of evidence behind it, no matter how fervently I am attacked. I regularly challenge my own positions, which is actually one of the reasons I visit places like this one - one seldom learns by engaging solely with others that are already in agreement. But the arguments put forward have to make sense (i.e., be free of logical error). They also need to provide an explanation that seems more likely/possible than my existing position.

                  With respect to morality, why don't we try this. In a subjective worldview, the subjective moralist is essentially saying that all moral claims follow this simple logic:

                  P1) if one values/cherishes X, then you ought do (or not do) Y. (why/how this is true for an individual is based in how they get from value/cherish to "ought" - logic, feeling, intuition, rolling the die, etc.)
                  P2) I (or you) value X
                  C) I (or you) ought do (or not do) Y.

                  Because what is valued/cherished in P1 is subjectively determined, C is therefore subjectively determined.

                  So how does the objective moralist get to C) without any reference to subjectively derived valuing/cherishing?
                  How does the empiricist get to general inductive truths without any reference to subjectively derived individual observations?

                  Logic, reason, transitivity, induction, deduction, intuition, observation,...
                  Last edited by Jim B.; 09-07-2019, 09:25 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Jim it was Guth and Vilenkin that showed a multiverse could not be past eternal since it violated the Hubble Constant. Go back and read my link.
                    The multi-verse, spacetimes, are not the same thing as the Cosmos out of which they emerge. To say that the substance out of which universes are born can not be past eternal is not their claim.

                    Comment


                    • Seer may perhaps be glad I now subscribe to a moral lawgiver.

                      Source: Ravi Zacharias

                      You may ask, Why does assuming a moral law necessitate a moral lawgiver? Because every time the question of evil is raised, it is either by a person or about a person—and that implicitly assumes that the question is a worthy one. But it is a worthy question only if people have intrinsic worth, and the only reason people have intrinsic worth is that they are the creations of One who is of ultimate worth.

                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Seer may perhaps be glad I now subscribe to a moral lawgiver.

                        Source: Ravi Zacharias

                        You may ask, Why does assuming a moral law necessitate a moral lawgiver? Because every time the question of evil is raised, it is either by a person or about a person—and that implicitly assumes that the question is a worthy one. But it is a worthy question only if people have intrinsic worth, and the only reason people have intrinsic worth is that they are the creations of One who is of ultimate worth.

                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        Gobbledygook! No one argues that pain is immoral, but to cause pain and suffering would be, and the ultimate cause of pain and suffering, if for the sake of argument we assume he exists, would be god. Nature on the other hand is an amoral, unintentional cause, such as the cause of the pain and suffering in the Bahama's right now due to the Hurricane.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Tass, Craig did not make it up. Tell me one thing in that video that was mistaken.
                          The mistake is in his use of selected science to justify religious beliefs. In short, he begins with the conclusion that ‘god did it’ and spins the science to that end. You do the same.

                          That is nonsense, the conditions to support life first needed to be there.
                          Certainly, the right conditions need to be in place before life can evolve. And if the conditions that support life are NOT “there” then obviously there is no life, which is the case throughout the vast majority of the universe. OR utterly alien entities such as methane-based life forms have evolved to meet the conditions of their environment, which is quite probable.

                          Tell me then about these non-rational forces that created the universe. That existed before the universe.
                          There are many scientific scenarios hypothesizing the possible origins of the natural laws and constants of the universe including the infinite universe of multiverse theory. To argue that we don’t know for sure how it came about “therefore god”, is simply an argument from ignorance.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The mistake is in his use of selected science to justify religious beliefs. In short, he begins with the conclusion that ‘god did it’ and spins the science to that end. You do the same.
                            Tass, you may not agree that all this leads to God, but everything that was said about the fine tuning of constants was fact. That is not selective. Do what you will with it. You may have the last word.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Seer may perhaps be glad I now subscribe to a moral lawgiver.

                              Source: Ravi Zacharias

                              You may ask, Why does assuming a moral law necessitate a moral lawgiver? Because every time the question of evil is raised, it is either by a person or about a person—and that implicitly assumes that the question is a worthy one. But it is a worthy question only if people have intrinsic worth, and the only reason people have intrinsic worth is that they are the creations of One who is of ultimate worth.

                              Source

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              Hey Lee, great, I don't see any other rational option.
                              Last edited by seer; 09-08-2019, 08:28 AM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                The multi-verse, spacetimes, are not the same thing as the Cosmos out of which they emerge. To say that the substance out of which universes are born can not be past eternal is not their claim.
                                "
                                Jim, they are talking about EVERYTHING. And are you suggesting that this "Cosmos" does not exist in space time? Then where does it exist? Sounds like God who lives outside of spacetime. You are almost there Jim...
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                                10 responses
                                86 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
                                10 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by mattbballman31, 08-26-2020, 11:42 AM
                                23 responses
                                474 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 07-27-2018, 08:47 AM
                                2,045 responses
                                105,581 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Working...
                                X