Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
November 10, 2012 at 1:27 am (This post was last modified: November 10, 2012 at 1:31 am by Kirbmarc.)
Quote:You have no objective basis to ground any real moral values or duties unless God exists as a grounding for an objective moral reality.
Your god doesn't provide any kind of logic reason for why his morality must be objective. What you do is simply declare that a certain morality is objective just because you believe it is.
An objective moral reality, on the other hand, must be based on the simple principle that we should increase pleasure and reduce pain. Let me show you why.
Morality, if it exists, must be coherent, otherwise it would be useless. To be coherent, this morality theory must be universal: all human beings share common needs and requirements, so having one rule for one person and the opposite rule for another is impossible; it is like proposing a physics theory that says that some rocks fall down, while others fall up.
We know that a morality must exist because morals are set of rules that deal with preferred behaviors, and we know that preferred behaviors exist because even though choices are almost infinite, most human beings make very similar choices, and therefore not all choices can be equal.
Human beings prefer pleasure to pain. The preferred behaviors therefore therefore is "pursue pleasure and avoid pain".
Therefore any universal moral maxim that increases pleasure and reduces pain is a preferred behavior for humanity as a whole. Therefore, an objective morality must be based on moral maxims that increase pleasure and reduce pain.
Quote:You have failed to disprove anything. You clearly don't even understand the arguments you claim are defeated.
Give me time, and I'll tear down your arguments in a more detailed fashion, one by one.
Quote:Fact is you can't. You are lying.
Have you read my post where I have examined all of your supposed "proofs"? I have given a brief explanation for why each one of them doesn't work. Read them again, before you accuse me of lying.
November 10, 2012 at 2:09 am (This post was last modified: November 10, 2012 at 2:18 am by Truth Matters.)
(November 10, 2012 at 1:27 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: Your god doesn't provide any kind of logic reason for why his morality must be objective. What you do is simply declare that a certain morality is objective just because you believe it is.
a) Irrelevant. God's moral nature is a perfectly sufficient as a Plausible grounding. No other logically possible - much less plausible and sufficient grounding exists to ground an objective moral reality.
YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE. You still need one or the premise stands.
b)False. It's not objective because 'I believe it'. I believe it because there is no other rationally possible - much less plausible and sufficient grounding apart from God's existence.
Quote:An objective moral reality, on the other hand, must be based on the simple principle that we should increase pleasure and reduce pain. Let me show you why.
Morality, if it exists, must be coherent, otherwise it would be useless. To be coherent, this morality theory must be universal: all human beings share common needs and requirements, so having one rule for one person and the opposite rule for another is impossible; it is like proposing a physics theory that says that some rocks fall down, while others fall up.
We know that a morality must exist because morals are set of rules that deal with preferred behaviors, and we know that preferred behaviors exist because even though choices are almost infinite, most human beings make very similar choices, and therefore not all choices can be equal.
Human beings prefer pleasure to pain. The preferred behaviors therefore therefore is "pursue pleasure and avoid pain".
Therefore any universal moral maxim that increases pleasure and reduces pain is a preferred behavior for humanity as a whole. Therefore, an objective morality must be based on moral maxims that increase pleasure and reduce pain.
This is silly
a) You have completely failed to establish any ontological basis to ground any objective moral reality. You don't even address the Ontology. The objective reality of moral values and duties is an ontological question.
b) You are talking epistemology that pre-supposes an established ontology while your ontology doesn't have any grounding.
You may as well be talking about the correct way to aim at a target that doesn't exist. You are aiming an epistemology at target ontology that you can't rationally claim exists under Atheism.
c) Give me your rationally coherent basis for claiming a serial killer 'ought not' pursue his pleasure to kill and torture others for his personal gratification. Where does that moral 'ought' come from under Atheism?
What makes your personal subjective illusion of a moral 'ought' binding of moral duties for the child rapist or serial killer?
Where is that objective grounding that binds moral 'oughts' irrespective of personal opinions?
d) I played football. I endured pain constantly. What makes causing pain bad - when there is no objective good or bad under Atheism? Are football players morally bad when they hit each other.
You need to ground an objective realm of moral values and duties consistent with Atheism. You haven't even addressed the ontological grounding of a moral reality.
Quote:You have failed to disprove anything. You clearly understand the arguments you claim are defeated.
Give me time, and I'll tear down your arguments in a more detailed fashion, one by one.
[/quote]
No you simply have not. You have provided a series of remarks that range from irrelevant to silly. I chose not to waste time commenting on your series of superficial remarks, but instead asked you to pick one argument and see if you can defeat it in serious reason. That's what we are doing now.
(November 10, 2012 at 2:00 am)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Are you claiming Atheists hold no belief position on whether or not God exists?
There is no evidence for your god or any of the others invented by men.
Find some and we can examine it.
( P.S. Your fucking bible is not evidence.)
Now try answering my question Spanky.
Provide me your evidence and arguments to justify your Atheist belief.
Don't cower, evade or offer excuses. Deliver those arguments and evidences to justify that Atheist belief.
I'de sure hate to think you're impotent.
Get busy Spanky.
BTW Here is a very cursory outline of some of the best evidences for God. The full arguments and evidences are not NOT adequately explained here. This is a very compacted outline I put together - not comprehensive.
Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.
Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.
Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.
Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.
Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.
Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?
Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.
Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.
Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.
Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena
Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.
Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…
(November 10, 2012 at 1:47 am)Kirbmarc Wrote:
Quote:Encyclopedia of Philosophy in my office
Be sure to check out the article on Immanuel Kant sooner or later.
November 10, 2012 at 2:24 am (This post was last modified: November 10, 2012 at 3:02 am by Kirbmarc.)
Quote:God's moral nature is a perfectly sufficient as a Plausible grounding.
Please explain how. You're just begging the question.
Quote:t's not objective because 'I believe it'. I believe it because there is no other rationally possible - much less plausible and sufficient grounding apart from God's existence.
You still haven't showed how you came to this conclusion. Do I simply have to trust you?
Quote:Give me your rationally coherent basis for claiming a serial killer 'ought not' pursue his pleasure to kill and torture others for his personal gratification
I know it is late and it's easy to miss a few words here and there, but if you read my argument carefully you'll realize that I am referring to the pleasure and pain of humanity as a whole.
No matter how much gratification a serial killer gets from murder and torture, he's still increasing pain.
Quote:I played football. I endured pain constantly.
Yet you found the amount of pleasure you received from baseball to be more than the amount of pain you endured, otherwise you'd have stopped playing.
Quote:What makes causing pain bad
Did you read what I wrote? Causing more pain than pleasure is bad because it goes against the preferred behavior of humanity as a whole.
Quote:Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. (a) Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime. (b)
a) In quantum mechanics, particles and anti-particles can arise from quantum vacuum. "Nothingness" doesn't exist.
b) This a classic example of "god of the gaps". We don't know what was there before the Big Bang (if we can talk about such a thing as "before the Big Bang") so let's call it god.
Quote:Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.
There is absolutely no need for the cause of our universe to be non-physical, space-less, timeless or willful. There are many hypothesis about how it could have happened (Lee Smolin's fecund universes springs to mind). None of them is about a non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful entity.
Quote:Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.
The theory of evolution explains life with no need for a design. And irreducible complexity has been completely refuted (once again, even beheadmitted he has no concrete evidence for it).
Design doesn't exist in nature. The evolution of life doesn't have a purpose.
Quote:Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.
Again with the Fine tuning. How many times do I have to write that universe is not fine-tuned for life, life is fine.tuned for the universe?
Plus Stenger's work has shown that the "infinitesimally narrow range" and the "razor's edge" are myths. You can change the contastants up to 25% of their value and you'll still have stars, and therefore carbon.
Quote:Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.
And since it's metaphysically possible that I have 1000 dollars in my pocket, I actually have them.
Kant refuted the ontological argument in 1781. You can't take the leap from a concept to a reality on the basis of the attributes of that concept. The existance is not a predicate.
Quote:Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
See above. There's no intelligence in nature. We find order in nature because we try to understand it through our mental schemes, but nature is inherently chaotic. Quantum mechanics show that clearly.
Quote:Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?
The evolution of religion is a fascinating subject. There are many possible reasons as to why religion evolved. Basically, religion is a tenative explanation of reality that humanizes nature, gives power to a chief, strengthen ities within a community and unites individuals against a common enemy.
Quote:Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul. Chemicals have no moral duties.
You're supposing that free will exists as something other than a byproduct of our brains.
Quote:Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies. Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena. Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.
OK, see below. Now where is your evidence and arguments to justify your Atheist BELIEF? None of you Atheists have introduced any. Why do you believe it?
Here is a very cursory outline of some of the best evidences for God. The full arguments and evidences are not NOT adequately explained here. This is a very compacted outline I put together - not comprehensive.
Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.
Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.
Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.
Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.
Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.
Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?
Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.
Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.
Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.
Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena
Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.
Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…
Not sure what everyone else thinks, but that was just an extremely drawn out version of the old "God exists because he has to" argument.
Now as for why we believe science, it all comes down to the individual. We believe it because it's what makes sense to us, much like why everyone else believes things. You believe what makes sense to you.
The difference between us and you, however, is that we actually make an effort to find out why we're right other than "Because it is."
Is that so, then why is it every time I hear a scientist of some profession asked, what is dark matter and dark energy, they say we do not know, we know it's there, we just do not know what it is, if that's not faith based I do not know what would be. It has not been seen, touched, tasted, smelled or proven in any way period, yet they know it's there, sort of sounds like God doesn't it.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
November 10, 2012 at 4:27 am (This post was last modified: November 10, 2012 at 4:55 am by Zen Badger.)
(November 10, 2012 at 3:34 am)Godschild Wrote:
(November 9, 2012 at 8:14 pm)JosephBowie Wrote:
Not sure what everyone else thinks, but that was just an extremely drawn out version of the old "God exists because he has to" argument.
Now as for why we believe science, it all comes down to the individual. We believe it because it's what makes sense to us, much like why everyone else believes things. You believe what makes sense to you.
The difference between us and you, however, is that we actually make an effort to find out why we're right other than "Because it is."
Is that so, then why is it every time I hear a scientist of some profession asked, what is dark matter and dark energy, they say we do not know, we know it's there, we just do not know what it is, if that's not faith based I do not know what would be. It has not been seen, touched, tasted, smelled or proven in any way period, yet they know it's there, sort of sounds like God doesn't it.
Not knowing what it is doesn't mean we don't know it exists.
We know gravity exists yet we don't know what it actually is.
No faith is required, just more scientific research.
Still no evidence for your god though.
(November 9, 2012 at 11:32 pm)Truth Matters Wrote:
(November 9, 2012 at 9:43 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: Outside of the bible, where is this recorded?
I think this single statement show your inability to to reason more than anything else.
Cannot prove gravity without arguing in circles?
You sir, have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Then prove what gravity is - without arguing in circles
Try to debate me Atheist. We'll see who gets shredded in reason.
The question wasn't what gravity is, it is about prove of its existence.
Stop trying to move the goal posts.
(November 9, 2012 at 10:20 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: A character that incidentally is loud mouthed, opinionated, obnoxious and ill informed.
Co-incidence much?
Quote:You and your faithful Atheist brethren have utterly failed to demonstrate a single flaw in my arguments.
I challenge you to demonstrate one.
You're a toothless rodent.
The fact that you have failed to offer up even of shred of evidence in support of your claims and assertions.
I'm guessing that you are only young(based on your ignorance)
So let me explain how science actually works.
A scientist will propose a theory based on ideas he has had or observations he has made.
Then that theory will be tested to see if its predictions work.
And even after it has been accepted as valid it is subject to new tests as new ways of testing are invented.
What you have done is declare "God must exist because he should"!!
Well, sorry lad, that is just not enough.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
November 10, 2012 at 6:29 am (This post was last modified: November 10, 2012 at 6:29 am by Welsh cake.)
(November 10, 2012 at 1:27 am)Truth Matters Wrote: No, idiot. I don't need to prove the premises of arguments.
Yes, you fucking do, actually. You smug little arsewipe. >.>
Quote:You need to defeat them.
NO.
The default position is disbelief until there is until sufficient evidence provided in support of that claim. This being an ontological dispute. You haven't presented any evidence at all, except tired old invalid arguments, that have been debunked or discounted long since before you were even born.
But don't even bother wasting your time bringing new material, being an apatheist, you can never hope to present me with enough material that could ever make me care.
Quote:That's the way arguments work. Otherwise, you end in infinite regress of proving the proof.
Try actually looking up what "infinite regress" means before applying the term so flippantly in a debate, otherwise you come off as an ignorant buffoon in front of your audience.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
