Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

Science can be argued to rely on faith as well as can human rights.

If it relies on faith then it is not science.

ISAW wrote: »

where is the objective evidence for parallel universes for example?
Where is the objective evidence that all people are equal in terms of basic human rights.
e.g a right to life liberty or the pursuit of happiness etc.?

There isn't any.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

Noir necessarily is God. People may for example throw themselves in through avoiding God.

You have evidence for this? For hell? For people throwing themselves into hell as a result of a free choice not to go to hell?

If God is over there and hell is over there then I choose to stay here.

tommy2bad

ISAW wrote: »

Noir necessarily is God. People may for example throw themselves in through avoiding God.

If God is omnipresent then how dose one avoid Him? Is their someplace or state that has no God? other than annihilation I cant see how that works.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

If it relies on faith then it is not science.

Scientists can and do believe in things they cant measure or observe.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

Though most realists marry their position to the successful reference of theoretical terms, including those for unobservable entities, processes, properties, and relations (Boyd 1983, and as described by Laudan 1981), some deny that this is a requirement (Cruse & Papineau 2002, Papineau 2010).

There isn't any.

so based on that human rights are not objective and parallel universes are not scientific!

Man,y lawyers and scientists will disagree with you.

tommy2bad

human rights are not objective

ISAW, I think I kinda get what your saying but no one uses the term objective in relation to human rights. The term used is inalienable, inseparable if you will. Can you say hard objectively exists? or wet? their properties of something not objective realities. I fear Plato's world of ideals has a lot to answer for.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

If yoj look at the message i was responding to i meant science is noit sufficent for society.

Science can be argued to rely on faith as well as can human rights.

Many problems arise with relativity of the "objective" and it isnt restricted to morals.

where is the objective evidence for parallel universes for example?
Where is the objective evidence that all people are equal in terms of basic human rights.
e.g a right to life liberty or the pursuit of happiness etc.?

Whatever about parallel universes, there is no objective evidence for basic human rights , or liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Really? But:

res·ur·rec·tion (rz-rkshn)
n. 1. The act of rising from the dead or returning to life.
2. The state of one who has returned to life.
3. The act of bringing back to practice, notice, or use; revival.
4. Resurrection Christianity a. The rising again of Jesus on the third day after the Crucifixion.
b. The rising again of the dead at the Last Judgment.




Was Lazarus not dead for four days?

Are you asking me or are you just trying to score points?

Manach

himnextdoor wrote: »

You didn't answer Zombrex's question but if everyone has an intuitive understanding of what is good then why do we have to teach morality?

7 'Religion' (For everyone)

Also, '7' is the same as saying 'maintaining psychological control of the masses in order to pervert the implications of the first six'.

1 - I did not answer it directly as that explores the limits of my knowledge of the subject. Beyond that, Z. would need to follow up on the academic reference provided - as to how nearly all cultures have similar ideas of what is right/wrong.
2 - 'Religion' was in quotes because it encompasses two meanings - that of a formal religion but also in the secular sense of having a common belief/world view and might thus say include humanism etc.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Noir necessarily is God. People may for example throw themselves in through avoiding God.

I would be interested to know how a human has the power to transport himself to another realm of existences.

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Quite correct. One throws oneself into Hell

Not according to your Bible.

Luke 12
4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell Yes, I tell you, fear him.

philologos

himnextdoor: Definitely don't have the time now to look into 1 Samuel, but I'm happy to do so with a bit of time. I think it's good to respond to what you're saying on this. A point in passing would be to say that objective morality does not mean that things are absolutely wrong irrespective of situation, rather what it means is that in every situation there are wrong things to do and right things to do irrespective of what people may think or feel about them. Another point would be also to consider that murder does not refer to all killing, but rather to unlawful killing. God has gives life, and as far as I'm concerned has the right to take it away (Luke 12:13-21).

In general: Claiming that science can give you ethical principles is another attempt at objective morality. Not subjective. Unless you're claiming that the laws of physics, biology, chemistry and whatever have you aren't objective over us all. It's not as if gravity will change if I don't want to fall in the event that I jump out of my own window. It's closer to the point of objective morality insofar as it suggests that right and wrong are clear to all. It's nonetheless a denial of the truth from a Christian perspective because it doesn't acknowledge their Creator.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which would make 'free-will' something of a Trojan Horse.

How can it be a trojan horse. A Trojan horse hides its true meaning. Within the Catholic Church the trutth is not hidden.

himnextdoor wrote: »

God created Hell and then bestowed 'free-will' upon humanity in order to populate it.

The truth, from above, contains all the information required for someone to choose Heaven, or Hell as their ultimate destiny.

God does not want us to go to Hell. If we choose it out of free will that is our problem.

Festus

himnextdoor wrote: »

Well done! You demonstrate the problem with religionists perfectly; if you can interpret the points made in this thread in such a skewed manner then it is little wonder that you fail to interpret the Bible correctly.

You should try reading the Bible.

Festus

Zombrex wrote: »

Not according to your Bible.

Luke 12
4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Do you understand the meaning of authority?

A judge has the authority to condemn a person to prison, but before he can do that the person in question must be proven to have transgressed the law.

marty1985

ISAW wrote: »

Science can be argued to rely on faith as well as can human rights.

Many problems arise with relativity of the "objective" and it isnt restricted to morals.

Where is the objective evidence that all people are equal in terms of basic human rights.
e.g a right to life liberty or the pursuit of happiness etc.?

himnextdoor wrote: »

There isn't any.

ISAW wrote: »

so based on that human rights are not objective and parallel universes are not scientific!

Man,y lawyers and scientists will disagree with you.

tommy2bad wrote: »

ISAW, I think I kinda get what your saying but no one uses the term objective in relation to human rights. The term used is inalienable, inseparable if you will. Can you say hard objectively exists? or wet? their properties of something not objective realities. I fear Plato's world of ideals has a lot to answer for.

marienbad wrote: »

Whatever about parallel universes, there is no objective evidence for basic human rights , or liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Interesting back and forth here, and I'd like to see where you guys might go with this if you continue.

My 2c:

It's unusual to speak of objective evidence for the existence of human rights, which of course only exist in the abstract. European and American philosophers both spoke the same way about human rights: man or woman comes into the world endowed with unalienable rights, and we all do this as tommy2bad points out.

Endowed by whom? No one in the time of Locke, Kant, Jefferson and Adams had any doubts here: God. What god? The Judeo-Christian God.

In history, this stands as the baptismal act of liberalism (or perhaps The West). If we want to, we can deny that these rights have a religious underpinning, but we cannot deny that they are based on a moral and metaphysical conception of human beings that is held to be true and universal, because nobody adds "in my opinion" or "in my culture" when they say each person is endowed with unalienable rights.

ISAW then, seems to me to have made a good point by highlighting a problem with relativity, because relativism and liberalism come into conflict on this point.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Not according to your Bible.

Luke 12
4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell Yes, I tell you, fear him.

I agree God punishes evildoers if they refuse to repent. God is merciful and just. God's justice was satisfied because Jesus took the punishment that we deserved unto Himself on the cross.

I don't think that hell as a punishment is undeserved. We've rejected God and lived in contempt of His will. This is God's word and He's perfectly entitled to establish rule in it. We were under His loving rule from the beginning, and now we've turned our back on Him, that explains the fallen world we live in essentially. Jesus came into the world, and endured the wrath of God on the cross so that we would not have to. The penalty was paid, God's justice satisfied, and mercy received. This was costly.

There's no excuse. Jesus has offered us a way to know God. If we reject Him, then He will reject us.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I agree God punishes evildoers if they refuse to repent.

Everyone is an evil doer though, aren't they?

You believe it is just that one is condemned an eternity of suffering due to a finite amount of disobedience?

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of authority?

A judge has the authority to condemn a person to prison, but before he can do that the person in question must be proven to have transgressed the law.

Correct. But the criminal does not throw himself in jail. The police do, acting on the direction of the sentencing judge. The criminal given the choice would probably just go home.

The idea that we throw ourselves into hell is ridiculous and unBiblical. God throws you into hell because he wants to.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

himnextdoor: Definitely don't have the time now to look into 1 Samuel, but I'm happy to do so with a bit of time. I think it's good to respond to what you're saying on this. A point in passing would be to say that objective morality does not mean that things are absolutely wrong irrespective of situation, rather what it means is that in every situation there are wrong things to do and right things to do irrespective of what people may think or feel about them. Another point would be also to consider that murder does not refer to all killing, but rather to unlawful killing. God has gives life, and as far as I'm concerned has the right to take it away (Luke 12:13-21).

Just for clarity I take it you mean that the objective morality incorporates mitigating factors(for example killing in self defence)?

In general: Claiming that science can give you ethical principles is another attempt at objective morality. Not subjective. Unless you're claiming that the laws of physics, biology, chemistry and whatever have you aren't objective over us all. It's not as if gravity will change if I don't want to fall in the event that I jump out of my own window. It's closer to the point of objective morality insofar as it suggests that right and wrong are clear to all. It's nonetheless a denial of the truth from a Christian perspective because it doesn't acknowledge their Creator.

I don't think anyone is claiming science can give you ethical principles. Science is just a method of inquiry so I don't see how it could.
You may be confusing using science to inform what may be a good decision once we have pre-defined, as Harris says, human flourishing as a good thing. Science can't say that human flourishing/happy humans is intrinsically good, it can only help us find out that kicking each others nuts produces unhappy humans:)

I think the physical world is objective, we can measure it and it's effects on us so it seems fairly non-controversial that it is.
It also seems independent of human thought. Changing my mind as to the value of PI does not change the radius of a circle, and this can be measured and verified independently.

Concepts such as art and ethics however are dependent on human thought. They vary wildly from human to human. These concepts also cannot be measured and verified independently which leaves them as entirely human concepts. Humans can have common/similar concepts of art and ethics across cultures but this does not show that either art or ethics are defined in objective reality.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

Scientists can and do believe in things they cant measure or observe.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

Do you think that good and evil would exist if there was no human mind to perceive it?

ISAW wrote: »

so based on that human rights are not objective and parallel universes are not scientific!

Man,y lawyers and scientists will disagree with you.

And they would be incorrect to do so.

himnextdoor

tommy2bad wrote: »

If God is omnipresent then how dose one avoid Him? Is their someplace or state that has no God? other than annihilation I cant see how that works.

Good point; is Hell a place where God has no authority?

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you asking me or are you just trying to score points?

You said that the resurrection of Jesus was a unique event that cannot be compared to any other event that has occurred in history; I am simply pointing out that according to the Bible, resurrection took place on more than one occasion.

But you say that Lazarus was not resurrected. Fine; either the Bible is lying or you have misunderstood the term 'resurrection'.

Which is fine but I must say it seems pointless to stick to your guns if you are out of ammunition.

And yes, I was asking you but you can't answer, can you?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

You have evidence for this? For hell? For people throwing themselves into hell as a result of a free choice not to go to hell?

If God is over there and hell is over there then I choose to stay here.

The point by the op presupposed hell exists.
i was only pointing out going to hell isnt necessarily a punishment by God and can be viewed as a personal choice or pêrsonal judgement of onesself.
Assuming Hell to be the absence of God in your case it can be viewed as a personal choice.

ISAW

marty1985 wrote: »

Interesting back and forth here, and I'd like to see where you guys might go with this if you continue.

My 2c:

It's unusual to speak of objective evidence for the existence of human rights, which of course only exist in the abstract. European and American philosophers both spoke the same way about human rights: man or woman comes into the world endowed with unalienable rights, and we all do this as tommy2bad points out.

Inalienable as Tommy refers to does not mean objective. It means non transferable in the sense that one can not give or take them away. The point is however that they are held to exist. You dont see atheists here argue that human rights are not objective and on that basis should be rejected because science cant hold them up as true. Or that one should reject art. No. they only do that about God. why? I suggest they are a particular type of atheist. the ones that come to ridicule and attack religion and god. the same type that destroyed every society into which they introduced this "there is no god" philosophy. Societies that ironically produced injust law crap architecture and lousy art!

Endowed by whom? No one in the time of Locke, Kant, Jefferson and Adams had any doubts here: God. What god? The Judeo-Christian God.

Yes but natural law and justice it may be argued may also be secular. the anti theists attack it when they consider it theist.

In history, this stands as the baptismal act of liberalism (or perhaps The West). If we want to, we can deny that these rights have a religious underpinning, but we cannot deny that they are based on a moral and metaphysical conception of human beings that is held to be true and universal, because nobody adds "in my opinion" or "in my culture" when they say each person is endowed with unalienable rights.

Yes which is secular natural law. but the atheists her wont go there either because they deny objectivity or universal /absolutism.

ISAW then, seems to me to have made a good point by highlighting a problem with relativity, because relativism and liberalism come into conflict on this point.

Thank you. And note God isnt necessary for this position. It has been made by agnostics. But to accept it as secular one has to abandon relativism or nihilism which atheist posters here will not do.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Do you think that good and evil would exist if there was no human mind to perceive it?

Thisiis just Machs principle in moral terminology which can be fund in Berkeleys de Motu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

Most physicists believe Mach's principle was never developed into a quantitative physical theory that would explain a mechanism by which the stars can have such an effect.

In an empty large universe with only one body one cant measure anything.
Is this a good reason to reject the "laws of physics"?
If not how then is the concept a universe without people a reason to reject the laws of nature or morality?

And they would be incorrect to do so.

Yo are sure that that is an absolute truth?
Or is it just you opinion?
As opposed to the actual opinion of practicing scientists. Who might also be atheist? But they still believe in things science cant prove and they are held as world class scientists not in spite of but because of those theories. In fact some like Kuhn have argued that maverick theories can produce "Revolutions" which lead to advancement in science. So the development of science may on part depend on such beliefs.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Good point; is Hell a place where God has no authority?

http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2007/12/separation-from-gods-presence.html

Hell is not spatial separation from God, it cannot be because God is omnipresent. No, Hell is separation from the comfortable presence of God. It is the unshielded experience of the presence of God in his holiness and just wrath, and the absence of his mercy and grace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell#Proposed_answers
[C.S.] Lewis believes that the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside. Thus, according to Lewis, if escape from hell never happens, it is not because God is not willing that it should happen. Instead, residence in hell is eternal because that is just what persons in hell have chosen for themselves.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Everyone is an evil doer though, aren't they?

Not necessarily; Christians and others believe people can all chose to lead a life rejecting evil.

Zombrex wrote: »

Correct. But the criminal does not throw himself in jail. The police do, acting on the direction of the sentencing judge. The criminal given the choice would probably just go home.

I suggest you re read crime and punishment. "boundless self-confidence must disappear in the face of what is greater than himself, and his self-fabricated justification must humble itself before the higher justice of God"
Raskolnikov ends up in a Siberian prison because of his own choice.

The idea that we throw ourselves into hell is ridiculous and unBiblical. God throws you into hell because he wants to.

No iti isnt against the bible. but
1. you dont follow the bible anyway
2. christianity isnt "all about the bible" as you seem to think. Only Biblical fundamaenalists think that. Most christians have the Magisterium, Apostolic Succession, other writings and oral tradition, prayer, intercession, practice of faith etc. as well as the Bible.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Everyone is an evil doer though, aren't they?

Read my quote again:

I agree God punishes evildoers if they refuse to repent.

Zombrex wrote: »

You believe it is just that one is condemned an eternity of suffering due to a finite amount of disobedience?

I think it's just yes. God offered you salvation through Jesus. There's no excuse as far as any Christian is concerned in respect to this.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Not necessarily; Christians and others believe people can all chose to lead a life rejecting evil.

Weren't Adam, Eve and Jesus the only human who could lead a life without sin?

ISAW wrote: »

I suggest you re read crime and punishment. "boundless self-confidence must disappear in the face of what is greater than himself, and his self-fabricated justification must humble itself before the higher justice of God"
Raskolnikov ends up in a Siberian prison because of his own choice.

Raskolnikov ends up in Siberia because he is sentenced to go there and then is taken there.

You seem to be confusing the act of confessing and the act of sentencing. Raskolnikov was not asked what his punishment should be. He didn't hop on a horse and exile himself to Siberia. :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

No iti isnt against the bible. but
1. you dont follow the bible anyway
2. christianity isnt "all about the bible" as you seem to think. Only Biblical fundamaenalists think that. Most christians have the Magisterium, Apostolic Succession, other writings and oral tradition, prayer, intercession, practice of faith etc. as well as the Bible.

Can you point out which one of those states a man throws himself into hell?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Read my quote again:

How does reading your quote again answer my question?

philologos wrote: »

I think it's just yes.

Do you personally agree with this, or is this a Well it must be just because it is God and anything he does is by definition just argument.

For example, do you believe that anyone who commits a crime, say shop lifting, if they do not repent (ie admit guilt and apologise) they should be sentenced to the harshest punishment one can physically sentence another human to, such as life imprisonment with hard labour (which should be pointed out is still infinitely less time than eternity suffering in hell)?