If your car goes when it does have gas in the tank and does not go when it does not have gas in the tank, one can logically say that the gas in the tank causes the car to go.
That is an argument from consequences, which not necessarily true, but all things being equal is true.
Perhaps when the sun dies, the earth will continue to function as usual. Experience and research indicates that people cannot live without meaning and purpose. See Victor Frankel, Man’s Search for Meaning.
That is not an argument from consequences.
“Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for “argument to the consequences”), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. [1]This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise’s consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.”
For example, a mother might reject forensic evidence from a crime scene because she doesn’t want to believe that her son is a murderer. Someone might reject climate change because if it were true then they would feel responsible for changing the climate.[quote=“Relates, post:121, topic:36642”]
Perhaps when the sun dies, the earth will continue to function as usual. Experience and research indicates that people cannot live without meaning and purpose. See Victor Frankel, Man’s Search for Meaning.
[/quote]
People can live with subjective purposes and meanings that they create for themselves.
[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:122, topic:36642”]
For example, a mother might reject forensic evidence from a crime scene because she doesn’t want to believe that her son is a murderer. Someone might reject climate change because if it were true then they would feel responsible for changing the climate.
You might reject evidence for the spiritual because it would contradict your materialistic world view. My argument is not an appeal to consequences as you have defined it. It is one of cause and effect. Without purpose and meaning there would be no history and no humanity. Now maybe I cannot prove this empirically, but that does not mean that it is not true, just that you will not accept this fact.
Where is your evidence? Have you looked at the book by Victor Frankel as evidence?
You would have to actually present evidence in order for it to be rejected.[quote=“Relates, post:123, topic:36642”]
My argument is not an appeal to consequences as you have defined it. It is one of cause and effect. Without purpose and meaning there would be no history and no humanity. Now maybe I cannot prove this empirically, but that does not mean that it is not true, just that you will not accept this fact.
[/quote]
Here is what you said before:
You claim that it is wrong to insist on empirical evidence because in doing so it may lead to the conclusion that there is no real purpose or meaning in life. That is an argument from consequences.
Also, your claim that there has to be a real meaning and purpose to life in order for humanity to exist is just an assertion with no evidence behind it.[quote=“Relates, post:123, topic:36642”]
Where is your evidence? Have you looked at the book by Victor Frankel as evidence?
[/quote]
I am that evidence. I live with subjective meaning and purpose. I have no need for life to have an objective purpose or meaning. The purpose and meaning that I decide to give life is good enough for me.
On the contrary you are evidence that purpose and meaning are necessary, even if it must be made up. Subjective purpose and meaning is not no purpose and meaning. Subjective purpose is subjective purpose, which can be very satisfying if it coincides with objective spiritual purpose.
You are right, non-[believers can have real meaning and purpose in their lives even if they do not acknowledge it. Love is real and objective, even if the lover doesn’t believe that it is. Love is real and objective even if the lover is a materialist. Love is real and objective even if the lover is an atheist.
[quote="T_aquaticus, post:124, topic:36642"]
You claim that it is wrong to insist on empirical evidence because in doing so it may lead to the conclusion that there is no real purpose or meaning in life.
[/quote]
No, I said that it is wrong to insist on empirical evidence, when dealing with spiritual realities, because it is the wrong type of evidence or test, just as it is wrong to settle an argument by having a duel.
Empirical evidence cannot be applied to a spiritual or philosophical question. It cannot prove or disprove anything. It cannot prove something is good or evil, so to say that something is right, unless I can prove it wrong with empirical evidence is absolutely untrue.
There is no way that you can prove that life has no real meaning and purpose, just as there is no way you can prove there is no God, unless you stack the deck, which is what you are trying to do. I am not going to allow you to do that.
We agree on that point. Where we seem to part ways is on the existence of a real and objective meaning and purpose.[quote=“Relates, post:125, topic:36642”]
You are right, non-[believers can have real meaning and purpose in their lives even if they do not acknowledge it. Love is real and objective, even if the lover doesn’t believe that it is. Love is real and objective even if the lover is a materialist. Love is real and objective even if the lover is an atheist.
[/quote]
I would also agree that emotions are real things as is the human brain, the neurotransmitters that affect it, and the biological interactions that produce those emotions.[quote=“Relates, post:125, topic:36642”]
No, I said that it is wrong to insist on empirical evidence, when dealing with spiritual realities, because it is the wrong type of evidence or test, just as it is wrong to settle an argument by having a duel.
Empirical evidence cannot be applied to a spiritual or philosophical question. It cannot prove or disprove anything. It cannot prove something is good or evil, so to say that something is right, unless I can prove it wrong with empirical evidence is absolutely untrue.
There is no way that you can prove that life has no real meaning and purpose, just as there is no way you can prove there is no God, unless you stack the deck, which is what you are trying to do. I am not going to allow you to do that.
[/quote]
If God affects the world around us then I don’t see why empirical evidence can’t be brought to bear. If God doesn’t affect the world around us, then we are left with just the material as the source of what happens in our universe.
i have yet to get to replies of my posts, which I will try to get to if someone questioned me, but for now, I just wanted to post me take on the debate.
Shermer speaks of omniscience as requiring a reference point. We would seem omniscient ot Neanderthals. That is one reason I don’t like to use that word personally, nor have I found that in the Bible.
Then Shermer speaks of there is no need to create a god or belief to fill in the gaps and uncertainties, its ok to not know.
I wonder if Shermer, or anyone who claimed Christianity and then became and atheist, was actually a Christian. That is not for me to say, only God knows our hearts, but I wonder it. I myself I feel was indoctrinated into the ‘correct’ religion by luck/divine intervention. But it wasn’t until later in life that I chose to seek out God, and I believe He revealed Himself to me, and that He was the God of the Bible. I have such a profound feeling of certainty, I cannot ever see becoming an atheist or any other religion no matter what. So I wonder if Shermer, wasn’t just brought up in Christianity, but never in his heart, nor ever experienced the truth of God, and then became an atheist. The way he explains or interprets Christianity is so book answer from the outside, it is so not what God or Jesus taught or intended. Are there any examples of a person who was a preacher or a missionary, passionate for God, and knew Him well, and then became an atheist? MY guess is no, though that doesn’t prove much, as it is generally the scientific element that would presumable turn one from God to science. And Pastors aren’t known for their scientific passion.
Like Shermer said and you guys mentioned above about the bubbles. Sherman said the reason he was a Christian, was through being born in that bubble and lack of knowledge of the choices or possibilities. Once presented, he ‘left’ Christianity. Was he ever really a Christian? Only God knows.
Though since one is basically born an atheist, until given enough information and desire to make that leap of faith, it makes more sense to go from atheism, to Christianity. A true atheist to a true Christian. It is interesting how there are many former atheist and well known/respected scientist atheist, who became a Christian.
But I don’t see God as a God who fills in gaps on knowledge (like a few holes here and there in the boat to keep it from taking in water and sinking), rather one who fills everything, like the boat itself. There are some gaps that we can’t explain in the boat of God, but He is the boat, not the leak.
I also likes Shermers argument on how wikleaks uncovered millions of things about the government, and not one thing about aliens in area 51 or 9/11 as an inside job or faked moon landing. Not from a religios standpoint or anything, but just a good argument for those tin foil hat people.
Though when Shermer talks about inner demons and how Christianity got it right is interesting. I don’t think Krauss would agree with this at all. Where does this come from? I don’t think this could even be remotely explained scientifically or evolutionarily. I think our inner demon is our biology, our natural selective minds. And the only inner angel we have is that which comes from the Holy Spirit and revelations of God, lived through Jesus on this earth.
I spoke of above how love is a logical thing, and this logic is revealed to us from God. I almost want to say that any evil thing, is basically lack of logic. A selfish being looks out for their perceived self interest. I believe that atheist and any humans (Christians too) are selfish. If one is harsh on oneself in attempt to preserve the human race, that person just believes that the human race is worthy of continuation, is still doing a selfish deed, in which they are acting on what they believe. I think our best interests is in God’s will. Natural selection is to preserve our own kind, but not even in a selfish way, but in a way that we pridefully perceive to be the best. Going back to Hitler, he didn’t want to eradicate humans, he actually wanted to preserve us in the most optimal way (in his mind) to have an Aryan only race. One who helps a neighbor out could be seen as moral. But it could also been seen as self absorbed in a natural selection point of view, in that this is simply helping preserve our human race. I know/believe that doing what God intended or instructs us to do would be the best thing to do, but I frequently don’t do it. Why? Paul speak of this in Rom 7:15. It is that biological natural selection mindset that we want to do, what we perceive to be best. This is a fight. Wanting and having (revealed) knowledge that God knows best and His ways are perfect, is this faith in God’s ways and the hearth that God speaks of as ‘credited righteousness’, or that Paul speaks of in “wanting to do the right/God thing”, this is the loving God with all your heart, wanting to do. Loving Him with all your mind is knowing His will (which comes through seeking it through fellowshipping with brothers and sisters in Christ and reading His word. And Loving Him with our soul is actually doing it. This is where spiritual warfare comes in the most. First you must yearn to know it, and then you must want to do it, but then, you must actually do it. This is where the Holy Spirit comes into play and assists us in this endeavor.
Which I think I have said in other threads if not this one. The main difference between atheism and Christianity is a point of pride. An atheist believes they know what is best and a Christian admits we don’t know what is best for us but God does. Why we worship Him as God, and King of our lives.
I thought it was interesting to Shermers point about how some things occur so strongly that are incredibly improbable of going back to. To which he then says slavery, to which they both agree was a bad thing. I don’t think slavery was a bad thing just like I don’t think monarchy was a bad thing. I believe bad things can easily come from both, but so can good things.
First we need to define slavery (and differentiate it to servanthood). In the sense that one is the legal property of another. A car is in my legal property, and I could drive it into a tree or off a cliff and that would be bad for the car. I could also detail it and clean it and provide proper maintenance for it so it last a long time and perform well. So slavery is can be bad or good, if the owner is bad or good. Though a car doesn’t have a say no if it can be property or not. There are plenty cases of slavery turned servanthood in America where though born into or sold into slavery, had a good master, and preferred to stay a servant even if they couldn’t leave as a slave. A human does have a say. Slavery meaning that one is in control of the other is not a bad thing (if control is given). I guess this is where servanthood is probably a better word. If one can’t afford a home or land or to feed themselves or their family, they could sell themselves into servitude to an owner they believe will take care of them. They at one point had a choice, like a contract. But when you believe your best interests are no longer in mind, you can then leave said owner. That is basically employment in the day and age. We are not slaves to our jobs, in that we can quit, but we are contractual servants to it. Many are slaves to debt. Though it was a choice, it isn’t something we can just walk away from when we no longer like it. This is more like a slavery, but the master is not an individual, rather a corporate entity. This is perhaps a good slavery in that it should be seen as a bad thing and therefore prevent us from entering into it. Everyone is a servant to something. I consider myself a servant to God. But I have free will to choose if I want to be in servitude to Him, or not. Many humans are slaved to their desires. They have to go to work, to make money because they like nice things, or a title and respect. They have to discover scientific theories, because it helps preserve our human kind, and we desire mankind to be uplifted and preserved in our knowledge and achievements. But you just happen to luck out that you have desires of fairly benign or possibly helpful means. Some are slaves to malignant desires that harm others. I think the only thing worth it is to not live by my desires, rather to live out my design, as I was designed purposefully and intentionally by my Creator to do as He wills.
Shermer speaks of natural disasters and manmade disasters (which I don’t believe should be lumped together). When good things happen, God gets the credit, when bad things happen, He isn’t to blame. This is a viewpoint that many (flawed as we are) Christians can have. Which I would challenge that that is biblically accurate. Job is a great example of this. The Lord gives, and He takes away (credit to perceived good and bad), Blessed be the name of the Lord. We perceive things to be good or bad is incorrect. Because all natural things that happen are for Gods will. Where I think that it does differ and God shouldn’t receive credit for the bad, is the bad of man. God can’t get credit for that, because it is man’s evil. He gave us freewill to do what we will, and any bad that comes from that is not from God.
Childhood leukemia. An atheist perceives (since there is no defined meaning of life) that a human life is valuable, perhaps the most valuable thing? Why is the fact of someone dying young or suffering seen as a bad thing? If the meaning of life is to know God, and these unfortunate circumstances can be used for that purpose, then they would be a good thing. If you had to break the legs of a stubborn goat to save him from keep attempting to jump off a cliff, is that a bad thing? Obviously this requires faith or forebelief in the meaning of life is God to see this. But natural things that come, do not equate to a bad God. Getting a fever is seen as a bad thing, but it actually the bodies way of getting rid of a bad thing in it, burning it up. Hurricanes could be a way of the earth trying to get rid of some of the people that are trying to kill it. Whether that is directly trying to kill them (which is arguable, as the Caribbean’s don’t pollute too much), or in using our sympathy of not wanting that to happen to cause a change for us over all and pollute less. Is a fever a bad thing? Is a hurricane? Yet God can and still does provide protection in the midst of these storms. Sometimes it is through divine intervention, other times it can be through giving us the knowledge to build hurricane proof infrastructures and structures, or knowledge to predict and know to prepare.
9/11, a bad thing, was a choice by man. God can allow good things to come from it, as he did with the love of people as coming together. God also stopped some people from coming to work that day and dying. Maybe He had a larger purpose for those, maybe it was through prayer and He intervened so they wouldn’t come to work or flight that day. But this is evil that shouldn’t be attributed to God, but the good that He brings from it is good that can be credited to Him.
Shermer speaks of why all the drams, why not just create a heaven with us all and skip the whole earth story ect. Why watch a football game? Why not just get the end score? It would save so much of our time. It is the experiences of it that we watch it for. The relation that we can have to them, the enjoyment of competition, and the admiration of skills. I don’t think God wanted to ‘skip’ the game and just have the final score, there is beauty in it being played out.
Shermer talks about money or politics as better motivation to do good than religion since we created it. This again speaks to how pride in man is his God.
It was interesting Shermer’s comment that happiness is different from meaningful. Taking care of the elderly isn’t easy work, it is difficult. But it brings a longer term good feeling that surpasses the temporal difficulty. Same with marriage or children. That is pretty similar to a Christian, in that we endure the temporarily difficult/miserable to obtain a long term glory is given to God. Our entire meaning and purpose in life is to give God the glory, and to use the gifts He blessed us with to do this. But when an atheist life is over, all of those things that made them feel good (though it might have helped others and I guess in a way created a legacy for them) are gone when they die. I am not so sure this is how it works. I think the reason an atheist would endure a short term suffering is again because of natural selection. If one feels good, it is a benefit (maybe one feels good because they are assisting in the prolongation of our human species) but the real benefit is in the continuation of the human species. The atheist has such a respect and admiration of natural selection (I believe ingrained and written in our genes), it is basically a god to them. They obey it, the desire it. Every seemingly ”good deed” can be traced back to our ‘selfish genes”. Where everything good deed a Christian does can be traced back to attempt to glorify God. And if it can’t be traced to glorify God, it wasn’t a good deed, hence why all of our righteousness (good deeds) are like filthy rags to Him (Isaiah 64:6). Anything not done to glorify God is just to obey that selfish gene which is to continue humankind of our own efforts.
I think it is good to want our species to continue, and I believe that is why God put that in our genes via natural selection. The problem is are we wanting to control and be “God” to ensure this happens, or are we going to trust that God will ensure this, and we are just to use the gifts He gave us to do this, and in that glorify Him. I think it is good that a doctor or scientist can discover a cure for a suffering that we have. Though I believe this is God, blessing a man with this gift to learn this, and that is why He deserves the glory and man is just a means by which God ensures the continuation of humanity. And this is the problem with humanity, the fall of man. Some man want to continue humanity via eradicating the ‘bad’ ones. Some want to do it by imposing their rule and logic. Or thinking they are the best thing, and wish to help humanity by ensuring that only their ‘blood’ gets the future which is why nepotism is prominent. Which this argument of natural selection within a mechanic that God uses, is another Christian argument for evolution.
Which kind of shows that God, in creating us in His image, wanted us to be ‘gods’ in a way. Like He is in charge or our human destiny and whether or not we will ultimately continue as a species. He put us in charge of animals and help ensure its continuation. We can always ask for His help, but He wants the animals and earth to be in our rule, as He is to rule over us. He gave us gifts of creation (as He is a creator) to help us rule them. It is when we rejected God’s rule, that life became hard. We then were to rule over animals as He ruled over us changed. We needed to use animals to help ensure our future. That is why we began to eat them and to use them as tools to accomplish tasks. I do not believe this was the intent of animals in the beginning, though they were blessed/designed with these great strengths. This is why every green plant was food (Gen 1:30). This is why we have the authority to rule over animals (as He is to rule over us) and how that shows that when re reject God’s rule and ways, we live deprived lives and are terrible ‘gods’ in that we use the animals in our care to help sustain us at their expense. Thankfully God does not require our suffering in His rule, nor requires us to work as mules to move His cogs. Rather He asks us if we want Him to rule us, and allows us the honor of helping Him move some cogs with the gifts he blessed us with. In this day and age, we no longer require any animal to help us out. We have discovered and learned of hydraulics and machines to help our work. We could create enough plant life to sustain us and not eat animals. We were also created in His image to relate. This is why a helper suitable for man, was not animals. Other humans are needed to relate to.
I think it is neat to think of rule in this sense. It is too commonly use/perverted to mean a dominant, authoritative, aggressive control. You do as I say or face punishment. Rather than a passive, “this is better for you, so it would be wise to choose my rule” kind of way. You do as I say, or consequences will arise.
I like McGraths final thoughts, that science is wonderful, it informs things, it doesn’t determine things.
Overall, there are a few insights I gained from McGrath, but he wasn’t my favorite Christian debater I have heard so far.
God affects the universe in more than one way.
Is the universe rationally structured? Yes, it is. This is what science about. The New Atheists base their theory on a simple concept to whit: Matter/energy cannot think, [which is true.] Meaning and purpose require thinking, [which is also true.] Therefore, matter/energy (the universe) has no meaning or purpose [which is not true.]
The first problem with this false syllogism is that it is not true. If their is no rational source for meaning and purpose of the universe, then there is no source for a rational structure for the universe, and thus no rational basis for science. Some people are now advocating for a rational version of science, which is purely descriptive and not prescriptive.
The only logical reason we can give for why the universe is rationally structured and thus has purpose and meaning is because God designed and created it out of nothing as the Big Bang indicates.
Our future is dependent primarily how well we treat each other, not how well we know science. This how God affects us, and if we ignore this, whether we call ourselves theists or atheists makes no difference. God is not mocked. we will reap just what we sow.
Are you saying that there is no empirical evidence that God designed the universe?
The first thing I would do is figure out how a God designed universe would differ from a universe not designed by God.[quote=“Relates, post:128, topic:36642”]
Is the universe rationally structured? Yes, it is. This is what science about. The New Atheists base their theory on a simple concept to whit: Matter/energy cannot think, [which is true.] Meaning and purpose require thinking, [which is also true.] Therefore, matter/energy (the universe) has no meaning or purpose [which is not true.]
[/quote]
You seem to have made up this theory and then pushed it onto this “New Atheist” group, whoever they may be. Perhaps you could start with a position that people actually hold.[quote=“Relates, post:128, topic:36642”]
If their is no rational source for meaning and purpose of the universe, then there is no source for a rational structure for the universe, and thus no rational basis for science.
[/quote]
I don’t see how one relates to the other. Why can’t there be rational structure to the interactions of particles and energy but no rational purpose or meaning to the universe? The two seem unrelated. Why do consistent interactions between particles and energy require a deity?[quote=“Relates, post:128, topic:36642”]
Our future is dependent primarily how well we treat each other, not how well we know science. This how God affects us, and if we ignore this, whether we call ourselves theists or atheists makes no difference. God is not mocked. we will reap just what we sow.
[/quote]
I don’t see why our futures can’t depend on both. How are we going to have clean water with an ever growing population? How do we feed people? How are our carbon emissions going to affect sea levels and farming? How are we going to treat emerging infectious diseases, like Ebola or another SARS outbreak? How do we find new pain killers so we can get rid of these awful opioid drugs?
You may have underestimated the impact that science has had on human society.
First of all the word God used in the English Bible and used by Christians and Jews is more of a Name than a noun. In the Hebrew Bible God does have a Name, YHWH, but Jews do not pronounce it because it is holy. The Name YHWH is usually translated LORD in the English Bible.
However the question you asked as to how a YHWH designed universe would differ from a non-YHWH universe is simple. A non-YHWH universe would not exist. If YHWH did not design, create, and sustain the universe there would be nothing, no matter, no energy, no time, no space, no order, no purpose, no meaning, no humans, no anything.
For evidence we can safely say that YHWH is the only One Who has the opportunity, the ability, the power, the wisdom, love and the Logos necessary to design, construct out of nothing, and sustain humanity and the universe. Clearly humans cannot.
Apparently you are not aware of the important book, Change and Necessity by Jacques Monod.
We live in a universe which as time and space. Time and space are not physical, but relational and rational, As we have said rationality and relationality are based in YHWH, not on matter/energy.
Of course both are good, but we can kill ourselves and each other with science, but not with love.
That isn’t evidence. That is a bare assertion.
What evidence do you have that universes require a deity to create them?[quote=“Relates, post:130, topic:36642”]
Apparently you are not aware of the important book, Change and Necessity by Jacques Monod.
[/quote]
Since you are familiar with it why don’t you quote the author?[quote=“Relates, post:130, topic:36642”]
We live in a universe which as time and space. Time and space are not physical, but relational and rational, As we have said rationality and relationality are based in YHWH, not on matter/energy.
[/quote]
Do you think simply saying something makes it true? Again, that is a bare assertion.[quote=“Relates, post:130, topic:36642”]
Of course both are good, but we can kill ourselves and each other with science, but not with love.
[/quote]
No amount of love will cure a serious infection.
I think it is rarely a good idea to use absolutes…
Do you knot think the researcher/scientist that developed a cure could not have worked tirelessly for a cure was not doing so for love? Even going to doctor’s school for the care and love of others? A love motivated cure of a serious infection…
Though I assume you were meaning to say that a love in the immediate time cannot miraculously cure, to which I would also say, just because you haven’t seen it yet doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen or hasn’t happened.
But His comment doesn’t give a time requirement, which makes that first reason perfectly valid ‘proof’ that love can, and probably did cure many serious diseases/infections.
I like what they said in the debate about being a behavioral atheist, but a entomological agnostic. But also like I said, we are individuals and just like Christians don’t agree on the details, nor do all atheist.
Much respect sir. this is to say that we all have out exclusive communities, or they wouldn’t be a community at all. And it really isn’t that important what they believe, as important as it is how they treat other communities.[quote=“Jay313, post:83, topic:36642”]
I think everyone would agree that abstract concepts – such as “love” or “justice” or “democracy” – are “real” and have real impacts on our culture, even though they do not have concrete existence. In Roger’s defense, “everyone knows” such things as concepts are immaterial. However, to assert that everything without material existence is therefore “spiritual” requires proof. Roger makes the jump from immaterial to spiritual as a “leap of faith,” so to speak. The two are not necessarily identical.
[/quote]
Good point. But whether spiritual or immaterial, how would science or atheist explain why we have such immaterial things? Where do they come from?
Interesting analogy. If this is true, it is interesting that although poor minorities only make up 30% of our population, they receive over 50% of the abortions. So I would say if this was the intent, they succeeded.
Yea, basically. But it makes it seem (whether your intent or not) like Christians are weak and life is too uncomfortable so we have to make something up.
Where as I see/feel/experience, though I can’t explain it scientifically, the comfort of the being that created me will take care of me and can’t let me down. But good analysis.
It makes me think that science could one day read our thoughts as God does. But what God can’t do, is accurately predict our choices. We can’t even do that sometimes. Hence the saying “speak before you think”. Until it happens and becomes past, it is not known. I think if we ever achieve the knowledge to read the human thoughts, we will also be able to see animal thoughts. But that will be something that we will always be able to predict then. That is I think is one difference, choice/action of those thoughts. Were animals are subject to biology and natural selection only, we as humans just have that as a default, but can chose against it, we can chose God. Rational as you say is evidence we are created in His image.
I see what you are saying here, and after thinking about it, I did mispeak a bit above on that. But my intent was more to show that I don’t see love as a spiritual thing, but more of a logical thing (though maybe logic is spiritual?). I realize our thoughts aren’t really a physical thing.
I don’t think relational is necessarily spiritual, rather it is immaterial as @Jay313 said. I think you are making a leap of faith. Relations can be done on a natural selection, biological manner, in that it ultimately helps us continue our species. Though to a Christian, we relate as we were designed to, even commanded to. One is spiritual, the other is not, but both are immaterial. Same thing for meaning and purpose, if you are atheist, it is natural selection, if Christians, love God and others.
I think that is very well said. I am just not sure of your point there.
Very interesting.[quote=“aleo, post:93, topic:36642”]
Just like science can tell us all about ink and paper composition and patterns of ink placement on that paper. But none of that touches on the actual significance of the poem written there.
[/quote]
But science could theorize as to why it was written. We know that poetry uplifts the heart, or causes one to reflect. It basically betters humanity in ways, or can be used to. This could be theorized as our natural selection, using poetic writings to further the human race. We evolved to learn that words mean things, and thoughts can be written which could edify others. The poem is a physical manifestation of the thoughts to edify another.
That was beautiful, I am sorry for your loss.
Very interesting insight and analogy. I am sure I will enjoy munching on that food for thought for a while.
Like what I said above about communities. But what happens when a community isn’t treating the other communities with respect? What happens when someone disagrees with these wishes? What if they are actively trying to prevent your wishes from occurring? What lengths are you willing to go to to prevent one preference over another?
This is the neat thing about Christianity or serving a God who is in control. We don’t have to resort to immoral actions, or bend the fact that murder is wrong to making it a necessary evil.
I can, and did, though I am not aware of all religions, you thrown any at me, and it won’t match the Biblical God. Mohammed didn’t teach what they claim to believe in the God of the OT. what I do base my ‘truths’ on to weigh a prophet (and I am by no means comparing Jesus to a prophet) is who is this God who created us and everything in it. Why did he create it and us in it? To which I assume you read my other posts and probably have a good understanding as to my beliefs on that? But I will gladly write it in a PM if you wish to know. But it is an assumption or a leap of faith that God created us to know Him. But I do think any fruits could be weighed against that assumption. And I am not speaking of the God of the NT or OT, or any part of the Bible, rather first, the Creator), which then led me to the God of the Bible.
I guess one can’t use physical evidence to show how God is real. But one can listen to evidence of how God is logical. I understand why and atheist doesn’t believe in God, but if they observe so many other religions and recognize that as he said in the debate “belief in belied is good”, why do they not belief in a belief, if they see how greatly it has benefited some?
The logic being, humans have clearly benefited from the make belief of God, why don’t I make up beliefs in God too to attain those benefits?
However, demonstrating something doesn’t make it truth, nor does making a claim deny it. A truth is something that is. A truth to me is God’s goodness. Though I understand you don’t hold that to be true, the best analogy I can think of is gravity. If you are strapped to a chair in a dark room and can’t see which way is up. Are you in a centrifuge presenting an illusion of gravity through centrifugal forces? Gravity still exists despite your ability to test it, and it and whether or not it is spoken about also has no bearing on the fact of it being a truth. You might not even like it, but if you walk off a building, gravity doesn’t care if you like it or believe in it, or have tested it and know it to be a truth, it still is a truth. Nothing can change a truth. that is why nothing or no one can change God, not the truths He revealed to me. You could take the Bible away, or invalidate it and it’s writings. but those writings were a tool used by God to teach me a truth, and that can’t be taken away.
This is a good point. It is unfortunate you are made to feel this way.
Those are good points. But just as science isn’t able to measure them, it is able to measure a physical manifestation of it. As we learn from the mistakes of history, we can measure the less racist people in today world. Or we learned inequality was wrong, so now we can measure women can vote as a result of noticing the past failures in history.
I can see scripture that supports both of those arguments. And outside of scripture, truth is subjective. there are no absolute truths, but that in itself is an absolute truth.
I agree that this a very compelling reason to believe in a God that gave us black and white morals.
I think he means empirical in that we can’t measure them, science just says, it did or didn’t happen. It can’t really say as to its value.
Nice
Great stuff.[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:129, topic:36642”]
Why do consistent interactions between particles and energy require a deity?
[/quote]
You don’t believe God created the universe/big bang. But if you did, would you then believe the God that created us would no how we operate best? and therefor be required to inform us of how to best operate?
It would be like engineering an house made of balsa wood, and then not letting you know that even 1 lb would crush it. It is pointless to design something if you aren’t going to let it be known what it will be used for or how to use it best.
I agree with that.
There are many things in the world that have benefited many. In my view, that doesn’t have the final say on whether we believe supernatural claims about them.
@Jay313, @still_learning, @John_Dalton
Thank you for the defense, but my position is much more nuanced that this. Part of the problem of discussing on the web is that ideas become compressed and simplified. I divide reality into the physical, rational, and spiritual. Both the rational and the spiritual are not material, but they are different and separate.
Nothing is purely physical, it is rational too, or we could not know and understand it. Nothing is purely rational, because it needs some physical structure and purpose and meaning. Nothing is purely spiritual because it needs a rational and physical dimension so it can be understood be us physical beings.
Love, justice, and democracy are clearly ideas, which are non-material. On the other hand they can be ideals, when we determine them to be values that we are committed to uphold with our voices and actions. This to me makes the spiritual as opposed to the simply rational. It is the difference between Jesus as a concept, and Jesus as my Savior.
My argument is not that everything that is non-material is spiritual. It is specific values, love, meaning, and purpose, which are real in more than an abstract manner, are both non-material and spiritual. I tried to be very specific about what I considered spiritual.
Of course I also know that it is a “leap of faith” for an atheist to consider anything both spiritual and real. I am trying to make a rational, logical argument to do so, knowing humans are not governed by logic, but by their own world view, for better or for worse.
I am very disappointed that the length of time it took to respond to my post (15 min) and the lack of responsiveness in your response indicate that you are really not interested in a rational discussion of the evidence, but only in defending your point of view.
What evidence do you have that someone other than YHWH, the One Who IS WHO HE IS, had the opportunity, the ability and means, and the motive to create the universe?
I believe that the spiritual exists because I know that it is objective and real, even though it is not material. You say that spiritual, meaning and purpose, exists, but it is subjective and thus is it exists only in the mind.
Thus it seems that you choose that meaning and purpose for life that you arbitrarily decide is best, not because you have an objective and rational basis outside the mind for these values.
Shermer spoke of it in the debate. I assume some atheist of past used it. Google shows a man Daniel Dennet?
I never heard of it either, but in context I infer the meaning of it to mean it is good for us to believe in something. There are measurable benefits to believe in something. In other words, all the things that people claim to have come from God, are just coming from our own minds, as the mind is powerful.
I am not saying to actually believe in it. Rather Shermer again admitted that there are benefits to believing in something.
My argument/logic is to say, do you guys not like benefits? If one had better health and a positive attitude that came from belief in a belief, then why not just believe in something, to obtain these benefits?
Example, I know that we are not to stress, God is in control. We can’t add an hour of our life by worrying about tomorrow, tomorrow isn’t even guaranteed. So why waste time of today and now, worrying about what might not even come. And most things we worry about, never even happen as we worried about. This is a Biblical command/advice given, that benefits us. Though it is more strongly effective if I believe that God is in control. It is also logically beneficial for any man not to stress about life.
I guess one would also have to truly believe to get those benefits, not just fake the belief. Like when Shermer speaks of being nice to another, to hopefully get niceness in return. You can’t fake nice, that is a psychopath and is cold calculated. It has to be genuine.
I guess this would be a questions better suited to Shermer, who was the one who claimed that belief in a belief had benefits to humans.
True, and I see that you want to make the argument, but it quickly becomes a technical, philosophical argument about metaphysics. As you say, the web isn’t the best place to make such a sustained, coherent argument.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.