The Important Arena in The Debate about God.

[David Sklansky]

People, religious and non religious alike, sometimes chide me discussing God's existence probabalistically as if I was talking about the right verdict for OJ. I do that because I'm usually too lazy to precisely specify what I'm talking about. So I'll do that in a second. But in my defense I want to say that the God question I'm debating about is the same question that 95% of the world actually cares about.

It is important to understand that many of the arguments on this forum are about things that most people don't worry about. Such as could the universe have come into being without a godlike creator. Maybe it could have. So what. Because it is also certainly reasonable that it was somehow created. But what people want to know is whether that creator has anything to do with humans. While we live or afterwards. Thus showing that a creator of the universe is not illogical or even showing the stronger result that the absense of a creator IS illogical, does vey little to help people to know whether that creator deals with us. (BluffTHIS and others have made the comment along the lines of "does it make any sense that God would create us and then not look after us?" But that is obviously perfectly possible. There is nothing inherently illogical about Deism.) However as Not Ready has pointed out, to the non scientifically minded, there is really no difference between Deism and Atheism. Both result in ignoring God.

On the other side of the coin, these debates about specifically what you need to do or say to get you into heaven are also pretty irrelevant to most humans. They figure that if they are good people, pray, and thank God for their blessings, he won't punish them on a technicality (even if that technicality is wrongly believing that Jesus was just a man). Their only concern is whether THAT God exists.

And it is the existence of THAT God that needs to be debated. NOT the one who is precisely defined by Not Ready, BluffTHIS or bossjj. But neither is it the very unprecisely defined being who may have caused the Big Bang.

IS there a god who listens to prayers and sometimes answers them? IS there a god who performed miracles for the Jews in the desert? Is there a god who makes decisions about human beings after their death and implements them?

Stipulate that God created the universe. Don't worry for now about whether Jesus is the son of God. Don't worry whether God wants you to believe certain things. Those are not the important questions. The important questions are the ones in the previous paragraph. Does such a God exist?

That is the pretty precisely defined true or false question,that I have always had in mind when I say the answer is "very probably no". It IS an OJ type question. Lets call it the Sexdrugsmoney Question. Now let the debate renew.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
And it is the existence of THAT God that needs to be debated. NOT the one who is precisely defined by Not Ready, BluffTHIS or bossjj. But neither is it the very unprecisely defined being who may have caused the Big Bang.

IS there a god who listens to prayers and sometimes answers them? IS there a god who performed miracles for the Jews in the desert? Is there a god who makes decisions about human beings after their death and implements them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the last part so much more important than the rest that the rest can be safely ignored by most people?

and that last past is untouchable by evidence.

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Stipulate that God created the universe. Don't worry for now about whether Jesus is the son of God. Don't worry whether God wants you to believe certain things. Those are not the important questions. The important questions are the ones in the previous paragraph. Does such a God exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

For me and I think most other christians I think they have to all tie together.

As far as your question"does such a Gos exist?" I say yes. How does one prove that- as of yet we can't otherwise we wouldn't be having any of these discussions. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

However I wonder- if I were to give an eyewitness account to a genuine bonafide miracle would any non-believer come to belief? Not a "hey look at that it's Mary in a potato chip" but something that couldn't be explained by science, math, physics etc? What then? Well I must be a religious kook then because obviously that can't happen right? Who if anyone would be credible enough to give such an account?...Please don't say Mason!
Jeff

Is tghere evidence that (all other things being equal) cancer rates are lower for those who pray? car accidents? infant deaths? etc.

In other words, is there ANY evidence that prayer actually accomplishes anything?

I suspect the answer is no.

If that is the case, then what is the point?

I think these same lines, David, and wonder how anyone could believe in a day-to-day God when there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a supreme being working day-to-day to keep tabs on the planet.

Of course, the religious trump card is always "its god's will", but in the absence of any other data, this trump card is nothing more than a copout.

[David Sklansky]

Put another way. For those who believe there is such a god. Suppose he took a vacation from paying attention to Earth for the next 100 years. How would you know?

[DougShrapnel]

"IS there a god who listens to prayers and sometimes answers them?" This is actually testable and all evidence points to no.

"IS there a god who performed miracles for the Jews in the desert? Is there a god who makes decisions about human beings after their death and implements them?" I don't know and i think faith in em without evidence is silly.

[David Sklansky]

"For me and I think most other christians I think they have to all tie together."

I doubt that. Don't you think that almost all Christians would much prefer the Jewish or even Muslim versions of God to be true rather than the Atheist's?

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
How would you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you trying to get at? That God does nothing for you?

[Jeff V]

I did'nt know an atheist could have a version of God?

[Jeff V]

I should have added- I can't answer for all christians. I think you're infering that people (in this case christians) NEED to believe in something; hence their belief in God. While the last statement is definately true for some people I don't know if most would fit.

Do I personally believe it's better to believe in "something" rather than "nothing"? No.

What about this question?

However I wonder- if I were to give an eyewitness account to a genuine bonafide miracle would any non-believer come to belief? Not a "hey look at that it's Mary in a potato chip" but something that couldn't be explained by science, math, physics etc? What then? Well I must be a religious kook then because obviously that can't happen right? Who if anyone would be credible enough to give such an account?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
However I wonder- if I were to give an eyewitness account to a genuine bonafide miracle would any non-believer come to belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not, similarly if I told you god spoke to me and told me christianity was incorrect you wouldn't stop being a christian.

chez

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]


Don't you think that almost all Christians would much prefer the Jewish or even Muslim versions of God to be true rather than the Atheist's?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to know the answer to this question. While
it may be true, it seems non-obvious. I know little about
Christianity though.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Don't you think that almost all Christians would much prefer the Jewish or even Muslim versions of God to be true rather than the Atheist's?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to know the answer to this question. While
it may be true, it seems non-obvious. I know little about
Christianity though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't speak for others. I honestly don't know much about the Koran -but doesn't sound like my cup of tea.

I can only answer the Jewish God this way: How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they seen Paree (Paris) (sorry chez, it is a song don't mean to slight London). Not sure if I would choose that God, He is pretty tough.

I'd probably go Buddha.

[RJT]

1)Is there a god who listens to prayers and sometimes answers them?
2)Is there a god who performed miracles for the Jews in the desert?
3)Is there a god who makes decisions about human beings after their death and implements them?

1) Most people you hear do say things like you exampled ( I know that isn’t a word, but I kind of like it) do say things like “ I prayed to Jesus for my baby’s safe return”. Does it really matter if God intervened or not? Let’s assume, as you do, that He does not. Ok, I am fine with that.

Personally, I pray for strength in my beliefs and that I am doing the right thing, and to give thanks, stuff like that.

The “Our Father” is pretty much the only prayer needed for Christians. I hate to keep referencing Simone Weil, (like she is the only person I have read) but she does a discourse on the “Our Father” that rivals none.

2) Let’s say “no such thing as miracles.” Let’s say they are story. They are part of the story. They get to the message. Does it matter if they are literal or not?

3) You seemed to answer this one in your post when you stipulate (for discussion purposes) that there is a God who created the universe. If it wasn’t to share with us His Kingdom, then for what reason? Maybe this is where my “logic” fails. I can’t really see no other reason.

Btw, for what it’s worth, I think you have a good chance of getting in. Lap dances and all. Certainly as good as I think I do, as a believer. Probably, we believers will get judged more “strictly”.

I am not being flattering here, but really, let’s take an example: Unless you (M and M , too) write your books solely for profit or ego, which I would find hard to believe (maybe I could believe the ego part - lol) they are an unselfish act. What could be more Christian?

I am sure I disagree with many Christians when I concede to these “for discussion only” points. I do just want to add that I am not one to take my religion lightly; that I can just concede these things. In fact I am probably more conservative when it comes to things like picking and choosing what “dogmas” to follow and which to ignore than a lot of Christians. They are for discussion only, sure. But in the end, so what if one concedes them? It really doesn’t change much of Christianity, as far as I understand it. Can’t say how 1, 2 and 3 can be answered for other religions.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know and i think faith in em without evidence is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound argumentative but:

You can say “faith in them is silly”; but with "evidence" it isn’t faith.

[DougShrapnel]

Some evidence, it doesn't have to be conclusive. But surely a god that wanted you to accept him would leave clear evidence. If he wanted to test faith for whatever reason the evidence wouldn't need to be enough to prove him.

People have mistakenly found evidence in the human eye. They have also mistakenly found evidence in a tortilla. They have mistakenly found evidence in their mind and hearts. The bible is also where alot of people mistakenly find evidence. But basically I want something that points directly to god that hasn't be sullied by man, and his follies.

First, as I've posted many times on this forum, there's no evidence of the the existence of any supernatural beings.
It doesn't even make sense to ponder the question "Is the invisible man real?"

It doesn't really make any difference to me what you people think personally, but it would help you if you started thinking in more rational ways than you are. But I realize you can't help yourself. Neural patterns are very difficult to change.

Second, I guess you can assign a probability to anything, but assigning probabilities to things that are in no way backed up by anything that has to do with reality, that's just being silly.

Now, commence with your irrational arguments, and ignore this response.

Shooby

[David Sklansky]

"If it wasn’t to share with us His Kingdom, then for what reason? Maybe this is where my “logic” fails. I can’t really see no other reason."

You don't think he wants to share His Kingdom with chimpanzees do you? How do you know he isn't similarly rejecting us also in favor of aliens or the beings we will evolve to in a few million years.

[Piers]

Very good.

Now consider these three statements:

[ QUOTE ]
(A) IS there a god who listens to prayers and sometimes answers them?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(B) IS there a god who performed miracles for the Jews in the desert?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(C) )Is there a god who makes decisions about human beings after their death and implements them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now consider these three statements:

[ QUOTE ]
(I) Prayers are sometimes answered?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(II) Miracles were performed for the Jews in the desert?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(III) There is a decisions making process applied to humans after their death that has an affect on their life after death?

[/ QUOTE ]

The second three statements make no reference to God, however they both have the same observed effect.

Consider rain. Stone age man might well have considered rain the domain of the Gods. There was some supernatural entity that controlled the whether for good or ill.

Due to modern science we know how weather patterns are formed, and to a limited extent can even change the weather ourselves (maybe control’s too strong a word). Most people would think the fact that it rained somewhere today no more an act of god than the fact that someone was dealt a straight flush today.

If we were ever to get experimental evidence of (I), (II) or (III) then it is likely we would be able to eventually explain them in the same way that we can now understand the weather. (A), (B) and (C) would appear as sensible as saying God deliberately controls the weather.

I would agree there is a (ridiculously) small chance of I, II or III being true. While (A), (B) and (C) might explain the observed effects just as well, they include unnecessary extra assumptions. It is likely I would instinctively use Occam’s razor to apply the model that does not assume the existents of any unnecessary entities.

[ QUOTE ]
Stipulate that God created the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can, but why should the builder and the caretaker be the same entity? I don’t see why this assumption is necessary to (A),(B) and (C). So why make it? You have just made God much less likely. Not that I have any intuitive grasp of numbers that small.

[ QUOTE ]
Does such a God exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. At least that is as close as I can get to an answer.

[jester710]

Ok, if I understand the question correctly, we're assuming that God ("God" meaning "creator of the universe") exists. We're only concerned with whether God is in any way concerned with the lives of man, and whether logical arguments can be made for either position.

I think a lot hinges on where you stand on the evolution debate. If you believe that man is the random product of natural selection, then there is no logical reason to think that God cares more about him than he does about any other species, nor is there reason to think that there are things He demands of man that He doesn't demand of other animals. However, if you believe in intelligent design, then quite clearly God has special interest in humans. I'm ignoring creationism here because it pre-supposes an answer to our question.

Intelligent design is basically taking the commonly accepted scientific theory and adding a personal prejudice (that man is ultimate culmination of creation). Logic has no room for personal prejudices, so it would seem less likely that God has a special interest in humanity. Of course, this doesn't really affect the possibility of an afterlife, it just diminishes the possibility that there is an entrance exam.

[David Sklansky]

"However, if you believe in intelligent design, then quite clearly God has special interest in humans"

Likely true. But the converse you postulateis not necessarily so. A billion Catholics and fifty million Jews understand this.

[jester710]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that, given random evolution, one could still make a case that God takes special interest in humans?

[David Sklansky]

That's what many, if not most, Catholics and Jews believe. (Although they may not completely accept the random part.)

[jester710]

Ok, it seems like we have a few premises to that belief. One is that God favors humans. The next is that evolution produced humans. If evolution was guided by God in such a way as to produce humans, then we have intelligent design. I don't think you can make a logical case that God favors humans using intelligent design, because that's circular reasoning.

So that would leave the possibility that God created the universe, left Earth to its own devices, saw that one species had evolved to a different level, and then decided to place special requirements on that species (as well as give them preferential treatment). While I am in no position to dispute this belief, I don't see how it could be considered logical. It seems instead like the capricious act of a rather illogical God.

[BluffTHIS!]

This is indeed the primary question regarding God as you have stated, and is basically the question of whether God "interferes" or not. There are 3 ways of knowing whether this is so:

1) By God's divine revelation to humans;

2) By logical reasoning;

3) By empirical evidence.

Or of course some combination of the above. I am not going to deal with #1 since that takes a premise that non-believers would not agree to. And regarding the other two I have posted before and will reiterate and expand. Through reason, we can see that for a god to create a universe, and who by virtue of his creative power is necessarily self-sufficient and has no need of creatures, he has either a malevolent purpose or a kind and beneficial purpose. A purpose that is not in accord with reason is merely a disinterested purpose. This is because an omnipotent god can forsee all possible scenarios and does not need to create and observe to know what possibilities could happen, and thus does not create to gain knowledge, and because disinterest is not purpose. I discount also a malevolent purpose since David has not postulated same and because under such a case, religious belief and atheism/agnosticism are basically the same since you're surely screwed anyway regardless of what you believe.

Therefore, what is left is a kind and benevolent purpose. And as I have said before, our relation to such a god is precisely that of a Father to his children. And just as human fathers "interfere" beneficially in the lives of their children, through powers the children lack, so such a god too would occasionally interfere in his creature children's lives to benefit them, including violating the physical laws of the universe he created since those laws are no limits to his powers and thus no limits to his benficial purpose. Naturally, just like human fathers, he would not interfere to the degree that it stunted the creature's growth or basically removed free will.

It is a separate matter whether such a god with a beneficial purpose would include an afterlife in his purpose, and such a question was what divided the pharissees and saducees in Jewish theology. Since humans have a basic desire to be happy, which desire a fatherly god would know and wish to fulfill within limits, then it not only makes rational sense that such a god interfere in this time to provide for his creature childrens' benefit, but also in an eternal future time. This reasoning is even more correct when the time perspective of an omnipotent god is realized for what it is to him, i.e. a great eternal now.

Regarding the third way to know whether a god interferes, empirical evidence, there can be 2 kinds. The first is an event which either violates the physical laws of the universe or is highly improbable but occurs in a religious context, or a series of such events, and which are manifested so that many individuals experience it. The second kind are events that only a single individual might expience, and which might be only for their own benefit or for that of all if it contains a revelation about god to be shared.

The second type above, experienced by an inidividual, is what contstitutes for us believers the "experience of our faith", and which we regard as legitimate evidence for not only an interfering god but our particular religion, although granting that such evidence would not be usually persuasive to non-believers. The first type of empirical evidence, experienced often by many, would be what believers term "miracles". And since I have opted not to use in arguement religious scripture, then only such miracles as are not recounted in scripture would be considered relevant to non-believers.

Overall, it is the "proofs from reason" above that are the most pertinent to this question.

[ QUOTE ]
Through reason, we can see that for a god to create a universe, and who by virtue of his creative power is necessarily self-sufficient and has no need of creatures, he has either a malevolent purpose or a kind and beneficial purpose. A purpose that is not in accord with reason is merely a disinterested purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. I have a fish aquarium and have set up a little universe for these fish. I have no need of these creatures in my house. And I have no malevolent or beneficial purpose but my own amusement. You are simply assuming that a creator must have a purpose that is beneficial or malevolent, but this is not logically deduced, just based on your assumption.


[ QUOTE ]
This is because an omnipotent god can forsee all possible scenarios and does not need to create and observe to know what possibilities could happen, and thus does not create to gain knowledge, and because disinterest is not purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is just an assumption, not a logical conclusion. There is no evidence or logical reason that whatever or whoever created the universe must be omniscient/omnipotent and foresee its future. Humans create things (not from nothing, but they do create things) like computers and atomic bombs, etc., without knowing what future these creations will bring.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, what is left is a kind and benevolent purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. That is the only result left because you have implicitly ignored all other scenarios in which the universe was not created with a purpose beyond malevolence or to be a beneficial god, and you have merely assumed that the creator must be omniscient about its future, which is not necessary to the creation of the universe.

So, you're trying to look like its a reasonable conclusion, but its just a natural conclusion to your unfounded assumptions.

[BluffTHIS!]

Since under David's posited assumptions, God created the universe out of nothing, then God *had to have* a purpose in doing so, i.e. it wasn't just a side result of something else. If you believe this statement to be irrational, then prove it.

Regarding omnipotence, creation of something from nothing is the ulitmate act of same, and anything else like foreknowledge is lesser. Plus again, I was referring to David's stated assumptions which you are not.

So my premises were in accord with David's and my conclusions did follow logically therefrom. And even if it could be shown there to be other purposes that a god might have in creating the universe that did not fall into the 3 categories I gave (malevolent/benefical/disinterested), it is only the beneficial and disinterested purposes that will have any relevance to this discussion, and the disinterested purpose is not a true purpose for the reasons I gave.

In the future, in the interests of saving time and limiting those tall posts which parse another post minutely, if you disagree with someone's premises then why not just address those only rather than also the conclusions which follow from them and which you would necessarily disagree with.

[ QUOTE ]
Since under David's posited assumptions, God created the universe out of nothing, then God *had to have* a purpose in doing so, i.e. it wasn't just a side result of something else. If you believe this statement to be irrational, then prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have assumed that this purpose thus must be to act as a malevolent or benevolent god to these creatures. That does NOT logically follow. The purposes could range from amusement, curiosity, or a supreme being's science fair. Just like when humans set up a habitat for lesser beings, their purposes in so doing may be amusement, curiosity, or a science fair, rather than to rule as a benevolent god.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding omnipotence, creation of something from nothing is the ulitmate act of same, and anything else like foreknowledge is lesser. Plus again, I was referring to David's stated assumptions which you are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, just an assumption. Einstein proved that energy can be converted to matter. So if a supreme being chose to convert energy into matter to create a universe (or jujst created the energy itself), it is not an imperative that he must know the future of this creation. Again, that is just your assumption and does NOT follow from the premise that a god created the universe.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
"For me and I think most other christians I think they have to all tie together."

I doubt that. Don't you think that almost all Christians would much prefer the Jewish or even Muslim versions of God to be true rather than the Atheist's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jewish yes. Muslim Never.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"If it wasn’t to share with us His Kingdom, then for what reason? Maybe this is where my “logic” fails. I can’t really see any other reason."

You don't think he wants to share His Kingdom with chimpanzees do you? How do you know he isn't similarly rejecting us also in favor of aliens or the beings we will evolve to in a few million years.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are always one step ahead. Ok, see my reply to your post about Little David, the Sklansky chimp.

As far as other aliens - are you suggesting it HAS to be either/or?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You have assumed that this purpose thus must be to act as a malevolent or benevolent god to these creatures. That does NOT logically follow. The purposes could range from amusement, curiosity, or a supreme being's science fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

An omnipotent god who can create from nothing does not need to create out of curiosity or as a "science fair" since he knows what they would be and could have created things/creatures differently. And as far as amusement, that is not a beneficial purpose, and therefore as far as the creatures are concerened constitutes a malevolent puropose.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding omnipotence, creation of something from nothing is the ulitmate act of same, and anything else like foreknowledge is lesser. Plus again, I was referring to David's stated assumptions which you are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, just an assumption. Einstein proved that energy can be converted to matter. So if a supreme being chose to convert energy into matter to create a universe (or jujst created the energy itself), it is not an imperative that he must know the future of this creation. Again, that is just your assumption and does NOT follow from the premise that a god created the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you try to get a logical grip. Since creating something from nothing involves setting the physical laws of that universe, the creator god cannot be limited by the laws of that universe so quoting Einstein or other physicists is silly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have assumed that this purpose thus must be to act as a malevolent or benevolent god to these creatures. That does NOT logically follow. The purposes could range from amusement, curiosity, or a supreme being's science fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

An omnipotent god who can create from nothing does not need to create out of curiosity or as a "science fair" since he knows what they would be and could have created things/creatures differently. And as far as amusement, that is not a beneficial purpose, and therefore as far as the creatures are concerened constitutes a malevolent puropose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, these are just assumptions of yours. You don't know his purposes if he created us, you are merely assuming they must be benevolent. You are also assuming his ability to create the universe implies an ability to predict its course completely, but this does not logically follow and is just your conjecture.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding omnipotence, creation of something from nothing is the ulitmate act of same, and anything else like foreknowledge is lesser. Plus again, I was referring to David's stated assumptions which you are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, just an assumption. Einstein proved that energy can be converted to matter. So if a supreme being chose to convert energy into matter to create a universe (or jujst created the energy itself), it is not an imperative that he must know the future of this creation. Again, that is just your assumption and does NOT follow from the premise that a god created the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you try to get a logical grip. Since creating something from nothing involves setting the physical laws of that universe, the creator god cannot be limited by the laws of that universe so quoting Einstein or other physicists is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that one can create matter when there was no matter without having to know the future of the matter in question.

Also, you don't know if the creator of the universe directly set the laws of the universe or if these laws exist in the highedr-dimensional space in which the creator of the universe supposedly resides. I can create a smaller "universe" with the tools of this universe (at least it will appear to be a complete universe to those creatures which I place into it). However, I haven't defined the physical laws of that "universe", they merely obey the laws of the larger universe of which they are a part of.

You keep making assumptions about how and why a supreme being must create this universe without any consideration of other plausible scenarios. Thus, you keep heading down one path, not by logical deduction, but by your vast assumptions.

[BluffTHIS!]

If you believe what I have written is not logical, and thus containss a logical fallacy, then prove it instead of just repeating ad nauseum "that is just your assumption". If you can't do this then you are indeed a logical tard.

P.S. It's the middle of the day - why aren't you in your high school classes?

In response to the question of why God would create humans, I like to compare it with humans voluntarily choosing to have children. Personally, I chose to have children to offer my love and likewise receive their love. Why could God not also have the same feelings?

Why would God punish his own creation (us)? Again, using the children analogy: I choose to have children. I teach them my rules. I expect them to follow my rules. If they do not, I punish them (in some fashion).

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe what I have written is not logical, and thus containss a logical fallacy, then prove it instead of just repeating ad nauseum "that is just your assumption". If you can't do this then you are indeed a logical tard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your relying on assumptions which do not follow from your premise IS YOUR LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

If I say we start with "Newton created calculus." And then follow that with "He must have created it as a benevolent gift to mankind." Then I would hope you could see that the conclusion is just an assumption and does not directly follow from the premise. Since I gave alternative reasons why the universe could have been created, I thus DID prove that your conclusion was a logical fallacy.



[ QUOTE ]
P.S. It's the middle of the day - why aren't you in your high school classes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am preparing for my PhD defense in materials science scheduled for next Thurs, if you really want to know. Hopefully, you will be able to refer to me as Dr. Kidluckee within 2 weeks.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Your relying on assumptions which do not follow from your premise IS YOUR LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

If I say we start with "Newton created calculus." And then follow that with "He must have created it as a benevolent gift to mankind." Then I would hope you could see that the conclusion is just an assumption and does not directly follow from the premise. Since I gave alternative reasons why the universe could have been created, I thus DID prove that your conclusion was a logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

My conclusions did follow and I rebutted your other alternatives which you did not surrebut. Most noticeably I rebutted the faux alternative of a disinterested purpose, and after that and its variations are eliminated, then only a benefical purpose can be left as a purpose that matters for this discussion. But I know you don't see why.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your relying on assumptions which do not follow from your premise IS YOUR LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

If I say we start with "Newton created calculus." And then follow that with "He must have created it as a benevolent gift to mankind." Then I would hope you could see that the conclusion is just an assumption and does not directly follow from the premise. Since I gave alternative reasons why the universe could have been created, I thus DID prove that your conclusion was a logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

My conclusions did follow and I rebutted your other alternatives which you did not surrebut. Most noticeably I rebutted the faux alternative of a disinterested purpose, and after that and its variations are eliminated, then only a benefical purpose can be left as a purpose that matters for this discussion. But I know you don't see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. Say God created the universe out of curiosity. Why couldn't he? He set in motion the big bang and decided to sit back and check on it every few million years to see what's cooking (for possibly any number of reasons, maybe he created other universes as test projects as well, maybe it's his version of reality TV, maybe he has some hypothesis about life he's trying to examine, etc.). There is nothing about the premise "God created the universe" that is inconsistent with such a belief. Thus, this belief IS consistent with your premise, but inconsistent with your conclusion. Thus, your conclusion does not follow directly from your premise.

You can't just rebut any argument that the universe may have been created for a purpose other than that which you believe simply because you don't want to believe it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Reread my previous posts.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I am preparing for my PhD defense in materials science scheduled for next Thurs, if you really want to know. Hopefully, you will be able to refer to me as Dr. Kidluckee within 2 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

*checks calendar*

Nope, not April 1st. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
I discount also a malevolent purpose since David has not postulated same and because under such a case, religious belief and atheism/agnosticism are basically the same since you're surely screwed anyway regardless of what you believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you lived in a country with and evil dictator who told you he would let you live so long as you did his billing, would you do so?
Is the person who does his billing fundamentally making the same choice as the person who doesn't?

To the questions posed:

1. IS there a god who listens to prayers and sometimes answers them?
2. IS there a god who performed miracles for the Jews in the desert?
3. Is there a god who makes decisions about human beings after their death and implements them?

All no!

I am not atheist, in fact I have great faith in a creator. God is not biased and subjective. God is objective. I don't believe if you pray to God "Please give me a raise" you will necessarily get it. But if someone stregthens themselves through prayer (character), the prayer might have an effect on a person. This effect is directly because of themselves and indirectly God. The people who's prayers are never answered are the same people who complain complain about losing money gambling.

As far as the miricles for the jews. That story might be an exageration of the truth. Perhaps the jews prayed to God and inspired themselves.

For Heaven, if you have the character to get in you will get in. This is liberal because this implies that a man whom killed a 1000 people can decide to build his charcter for life and go to heaven. God does not keep a running total of good deeds vs bad deeds but rather what you are in the end. This can kinda be related to Plato's Myth of the Cave.

Building this character is about making choices that stem from the disipline of personal and moral control. People with strong character make the best choices for all, including themselves not matter the result.( If someone wants to debate this,then we need to open another discussion). You can relate this to a classic economics game theory and/or comparitive advantage model. For game theory think of a prisoner dillema. Why is the best result for all ignored? One side fears the other and the selfish road is taken. Fear becomes the destruction of courage. Comparitive advantage is sometimes ignored because one side will disagree with the terms of trade, even though all benifit from it(if the CA model is followed).

[KidPokerX]

although some people, religious or not religious, are different.

Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not need a God reference to know right and wrong. I am one of the most honest and moral persons you would ever meet and I am an atheist. My reference point for what is right and wrong is whatever is necessary for mankind to live together in a state of harmony. Anything that adds to that is right and anything that subtracts from it is wrong. If choas ruled then we would not be having this discussion because of the utter state of confusion that would exist everywhere. I do not understand the arguement that without god as a reference there can be no right or wrong.

[Girchuck]

You are making a huge assumption.
You are assuming that man is the culmination of creation.
Yet, the species is but a few millions of years old which is a tiny portion of billion of years life has been on the planet.
Give it time. The humans we all know and love today might evolve into something that purported intelligent design of yours truly intended. We are building more and more powerful computers every year. Who is to say that the actual culmination of creation is not an artificial intelligence capable of creating Universes?
The point is, humans haven't the track record to prove that they are the best intelligence possible. They just seem like the best intelligence currently available.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Those are not the important questions.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to discuss the "that" without at least an implied agreement on the "what" in some minimal sense.

[ QUOTE ]
IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

I'm that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]


FYP.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
In response to the question of why God would create humans, I like to compare it with humans voluntarily choosing to have children. Personally, I chose to have children to offer my love and likewise receive their love. Why could God not also have the same feelings?

Why would God punish his own creation (us)? Again, using the children analogy: I choose to have children. I teach them my rules. I expect them to follow my rules. If they do not, I punish them (in some fashion).

[/ QUOTE ]

Because God is not human. The experts on this board unanimously agreed that,if God exists, God exist outside of time. Humans do not. Therefore, human feelings of love are irrelevant. You are trying to think of God as an alpha male of humanity. That is a primitive way of thinking.

"God is not human. Agreed"
"God exists outside of time. Humans do not" Agreed

"Therefore, human feelings of love are irrelevant"
How do you make this conclusion? Could God not endow his creation (humans) with feelings or emotions which he may possess. Numerous biblical scriptures state that God can be angry, jealous, loving, merciful, etc.

"You are trying to think of God as an alpha male of humanity" - Actually I was thinking of God as the Alpha (and Omega) Male of Humanity. Primitive? Maybe. But it is also reasonable (to a believer).

My thoughts were directed to the questions stated in this Forum as to why God would create us and why he would then punish us for not following him.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok, let’s go with that idea, you are your own god; you have decided what is right or wrong for you! But if there is no cost (afterlife) then it does not really matter. The cost is only what happens here and now. If I kill someone and another carbon based bi-ped with a black robe orders me to death. Then my existents here is shortened only a small amount of time compared to how long earth has already been here. So if you are an atheist it may be wrong in your mind to kill but that does not make it wrong! Tell me why I should not Kill/Rape/Steal if the cost is only a blimp of time. And if I'm just another animal, why can't I act like it?

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok, let’s go with that idea, you are your own god; you have decided what is right or wrong for you! But if there is no cost (afterlife) then it does not really matter. The cost is only what happens here and now. If I kill someone and another carbon based bi-ped with a black robe orders me to death. Then my existents here is shortened only a small amount of time compared to how long earth has already been here. So if you are an atheist it may be wrong in your mind to kill but that does not make it wrong! Tell me why I should not Kill/Rape/Steal if the cost is only a blimp of time. And if I'm just another animal, why can't I act like it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals behave in different ways. Where are animals that never kill another of their kind.
Ofcourse you can behave in any way that is possible to you. However, if you try to kill/rape/steal, you might be hurt yourself. So, try to estimate if this line is in your best interest. The society is organized in a way that makes overt violence against its members dangerous and unprofitable in general. The state likes to keep its monopoly on violence. Ofcourse the answer is always "it depends". If you like your well-being, acting violently against others is generally counter-productive. There are specific instances where this does not apply, but they are very rare. Moreover, to secure cooperation of others, a very good strategy is to create a strong impression that you will not betray them. If you think that stealing or robbing is not wrong, and you enter in business negotiations with intent of stealing from your business partners, you will not be able to honestly promise that you will not steal from them. Therefore you will have to lie. But humans are adept at telling when someone knowingly lies, and you are more likely to be caught than someone who honestly believes that stealing and robbing is wrong. That other person will be able to promise not to steal from their partners and not lie which makes that other person more likely to strike a successful deal. Since an organization of humans usually has advantages over single individuals in business, you will suffer if you don't believe that stealing is wrong.

[KidPokerX]

Again we pose the all important question.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Stipulate that God created the universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Creation ex-nihilo is by no means a universal axiom among theists.


While I appreciate your doctrinal orthodoxy I suspect that is not your primary motivation.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people would think the fact that it rained somewhere today no more an act of god than the fact that someone was dealt a straight flush today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad reflection on peoples failure to trust in God.

Thank you for the timely reminder that we need to witness effectively to those poor soul led astray by the met office.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok, let’s go with that idea, you are your own god; you have decided what is right or wrong for you! But if there is no cost (afterlife) then it does not really matter. The cost is only what happens here and now. If I kill someone and another carbon based bi-ped with a black robe orders me to death. Then my existents here is shortened only a small amount of time compared to how long earth has already been here. So if you are an atheist it may be wrong in your mind to kill but that does not make it wrong! Tell me why I should not Kill/Rape/Steal if the cost is only a blimp of time. And if I'm just another animal, why can't I act like it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals behave in different ways. Where are animals that never kill another of their kind.
Ofcourse you can behave in any way that is possible to you. However, if you try to kill/rape/steal, you might be hurt yourself. So, try to estimate if this line is in your best interest. The society is organized in a way that makes overt violence against its members dangerous and unprofitable in general. The state likes to keep its monopoly on violence. Ofcourse the answer is always "it depends". If you like your well-being, acting violently against others is generally counter-productive. There are specific instances where this does not apply, but they are very rare. Moreover, to secure cooperation of others, a very good strategy is to create a strong impression that you will not betray them. If you think that stealing or robbing is not wrong, and you enter in business negotiations with intent of stealing from your business partners, you will not be able to honestly promise that you will not steal from them. Therefore you will have to lie. But humans are adept at telling when someone knowingly lies, and you are more likely to be caught than someone who honestly believes that stealing and robbing is wrong. That other person will be able to promise not to steal from their partners and not lie which makes that other person more likely to strike a successful deal. Since an organization of humans usually has advantages over single individuals in business, you will suffer if you don't believe that stealing is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]




I understand what you are saying, but that works with reasonable people only. But does that make it WRONG! When others are not so reasonable? It may not be in their best interest to kill/rape/steal and you and I may think its wrong, but what makes it wrong? I'm sure over time many a great leader got there by doing many "WRONG" things. So where they wrong to do it? Were they BAD people? Is there even good and bad? I've seen animals eat their own young, I've seen kitten's or puppy's "raped" by older Cat's and Dog's. If it's not wrong for them and we are just another animal that happens to have the ability to remember things for a much longer period of time, why is it wrong for us?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

I'm that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where I'm wrong!


FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

I'm that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where I'm wrong!


FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong in assuming that "right" and "wrong" can only stem from a higher being beyond our universe. We are a social creature and have developed norms of behavior which ensure our progress as a species, community, family, individual, ... These norms of behavior (right and wrong) need not be implanted in us like microchips from some other worldly being.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

I'm that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where I'm wrong!


FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong in assuming that "right" and "wrong" can only stem from a higher being beyond our universe. We are a social creature and have developed norms of behavior which ensure our progress as a species, community, family, individual, ... These norms of behavior (right and wrong) need not be implanted in us like microchips from some other worldly being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what that means is that you are allowing others to make rules, (mostly taken from the 10 commandments) and you have accepted them to be true, because they make life nice to live. But if they are only some man made rules set to control the actions of the masses then they are fake! If one man kills another then these rules kick in, but they only control that man from doing these actions again. If that man had the ability to kill all that was against him and he set the rules, and the rules then became the norm, based on that his rules would be right and anything against his rules would be wrong. You can see this by just looking at the world over the last 50 years. Take abortion, it is now the norm to kill the baby in the womb, so what was murder 50 years ago is now a norm and is just fine in the eyes of the many many people. Next could be the old, maybe within 50 years from now the new rule will be ( a person get to live to the age of 75 and then is put to sleep ) Now you may try and tell me that could never happen but go ask people 100 years ago about abortion! I understand you don't like the idea of good and bad coming from a higher power because then you have to take responsibility for your thoughts and actions. My whole point is without good and bad coming from a higher power then what is good or bad is subject to change! So if you really believe there is no higher power and I kill your family/friend/neighbor, you can not like it, but you can't say I did something truly WRONG!

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok, let’s go with that idea, you are your own god; you have decided what is right or wrong for you! But if there is no cost (afterlife) then it does not really matter. The cost is only what happens here and now. If I kill someone and another carbon based bi-ped with a black robe orders me to death. Then my existents here is shortened only a small amount of time compared to how long earth has already been here. So if you are an atheist it may be wrong in your mind to kill but that does not make it wrong! Tell me why I should not Kill/Rape/Steal if the cost is only a blimp of time. And if I'm just another animal, why can't I act like it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals behave in different ways. Where are animals that never kill another of their kind.
Ofcourse you can behave in any way that is possible to you. However, if you try to kill/rape/steal, you might be hurt yourself. So, try to estimate if this line is in your best interest. The society is organized in a way that makes overt violence against its members dangerous and unprofitable in general. The state likes to keep its monopoly on violence. Ofcourse the answer is always "it depends". If you like your well-being, acting violently against others is generally counter-productive. There are specific instances where this does not apply, but they are very rare. Moreover, to secure cooperation of others, a very good strategy is to create a strong impression that you will not betray them. If you think that stealing or robbing is not wrong, and you enter in business negotiations with intent of stealing from your business partners, you will not be able to honestly promise that you will not steal from them. Therefore you will have to lie. But humans are adept at telling when someone knowingly lies, and you are more likely to be caught than someone who honestly believes that stealing and robbing is wrong. That other person will be able to promise not to steal from their partners and not lie which makes that other person more likely to strike a successful deal. Since an organization of humans usually has advantages over single individuals in business, you will suffer if you don't believe that stealing is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]




I understand what you are saying, but that works with reasonable people only. But does that make it WRONG! When others are not so reasonable? It may not be in their best interest to kill/rape/steal and you and I may think its wrong, but what makes it wrong? I'm sure over time many a great leader got there by doing many "WRONG" things. So where they wrong to do it? Were they BAD people? Is there even good and bad? I've seen animals eat their own young, I've seen kitten's or puppy's "raped" by older Cat's and Dog's. If it's not wrong for them and we are just another animal that happens to have the ability to remember things for a much longer period of time, why is it wrong for us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does anything have to be WRONG? If you are a regular member of society, you will behave mostly according to the rules forced on you by the society.
The consensus in society decides what is right and what is wrong, also the individuals in some societies are allowed to have their own sub-definitions provided they do not differ too much from the mainstream.
Most societies regulate permissible violence very strictly.
So, if someone commits murders (unauthorized killings) or other aggressive violent acts which are not allowed, rules are quickly enforced. It is up to an individual to choose what is right and wrong, but some choices are dangerous and very uncomfortable due to constraints imposed by society.
Individuals who acquired great political power (great leaders in your example), use it to their advantage, and it requires a larger effort from the rest of society to restrain them if they misbehave, therefore the range of things they can get away with is wide.
You can evaluate wrongness by the amount of damage inflicted on you personally, or on people close to you, or by extension, on your tribe or your nation or society at large. If powerful majorities agree with your evaluation they will have the power to restrain the wrong-doer. Sometimes, you have the power to restrain the wrong-doer by yourself, but our society in general learned not to trust individuals with the power to restrain wrong-doers.
Thus, the complex legal and political system.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

I'm that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where I'm wrong!


FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong in assuming that "right" and "wrong" can only stem from a higher being beyond our universe. We are a social creature and have developed norms of behavior which ensure our progress as a species, community, family, individual, ... These norms of behavior (right and wrong) need not be implanted in us like microchips from some other worldly being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what that means is that you are allowing others to make rules, (mostly taken from the 10 commandments) and you have accepted them to be true, because they make life nice to live. But if they are only some man made rules set to control the actions of the masses then they are fake! If one man kills another then these rules kick in, but they only control that man from doing these actions again. If that man had the ability to kill all that was against him and he set the rules, and the rules then became the norm, based on that his rules would be right and anything against his rules would be wrong. You can see this by just looking at the world over the last 50 years. Take abortion, it is now the norm to kill the baby in the womb, so what was murder 50 years ago is now a norm and is just fine in the eyes of the many many people. Next could be the old, maybe within 50 years from now the new rule will be ( a person get to live to the age of 75 and then is put to sleep ) Now you may try and tell me that could never happen but go ask people 100 years ago about abortion! I understand you don't like the idea of good and bad coming from a higher power because then you have to take responsibility for your thoughts and actions. My whole point is without good and bad coming from a higher power then what is good or bad is subject to change! So if you really believe there is no higher power and I kill your family/friend/neighbor, you can not like it, but you can't say I did something truly WRONG!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you got it this time. 300 years ago owning human beings was normal and not wrong. If 300 years ago you believed that owning slaves is wrong, the society could not force you to own slaves, however, if you were a slave, tough - you were forced to slave labor.
Now it is wrong by general consensus. You are actively prevented from owning slaves. If you tried to force others to work for you against their will and without compensation, you'd be punished by society.
50 years ago abortion was wrong, by general consensus. If you performed an abortion 50 years ago, you'd be punished.
Now, the consensus is gone. Some people believe it is not wrong and others believe its wrong, but without general consensus, the society is unable to enforce either view. For example, if you as an individual believe that abortion is wrong, the society lacks the will to force you to have an abortion or perform an abortion.
If I believe that abortion is not wrong, the society lacks the will to prevent me from performing or obtaining an abortion.
So you are right. Good and bad are subject to change. As societies develop ideas and adapt to changing conditions, so the rules of right and wrong adapt and change. Change is a property of living things and society is a living thing.
Changes in our attitudes towards abortions are caused perhaps by the realization that without control over reproduction, we are in danger of over-population, because our fecundity is ill-matched with modern medicine and abundance of food keeping most born children alive.
Don't worry about the old people though. They got a lot of connections and a whole lot of associated political clout. The old folks are not in danger of mandatory euthanasia.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

I'm that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where I'm wrong!


FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong in assuming that "right" and "wrong" can only stem from a higher being beyond our universe. We are a social creature and have developed norms of behavior which ensure our progress as a species, community, family, individual, ... These norms of behavior (right and wrong) need not be implanted in us like microchips from some other worldly being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what that means is that you are allowing others to make rules, (mostly taken from the 10 commandments) and you have accepted them to be true, because they make life nice to live. But if they are only some man made rules set to control the actions of the masses then they are fake! If one man kills another then these rules kick in, but they only control that man from doing these actions again. If that man had the ability to kill all that was against him and he set the rules, and the rules then became the norm, based on that his rules would be right and anything against his rules would be wrong. You can see this by just looking at the world over the last 50 years. Take abortion, it is now the norm to kill the baby in the womb, so what was murder 50 years ago is now a norm and is just fine in the eyes of the many many people. Next could be the old, maybe within 50 years from now the new rule will be ( a person get to live to the age of 75 and then is put to sleep ) Now you may try and tell me that could never happen but go ask people 100 years ago about abortion! I understand you don't like the idea of good and bad coming from a higher power because then you have to take responsibility for your thoughts and actions. My whole point is without good and bad coming from a higher power then what is good or bad is subject to change! So if you really believe there is no higher power and I kill your family/friend/neighbor, you can not like it, but you can't say I did something truly WRONG!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you got it this time. 300 years ago owning human beings was normal and not wrong. If 300 years ago you believed that owning slaves is wrong, the society could not force you to own slaves, however, if you were a slave, tough - you were forced to slave labor.
Now it is wrong by general consensus. You are actively prevented from owning slaves. If you tried to force others to work for you against their will and without compensation, you'd be punished by society.
50 years ago abortion was wrong, by general consensus. If you performed an abortion 50 years ago, you'd be punished.
Now, the consensus is gone. Some people believe it is not wrong and others believe its wrong, but without general consensus, the society is unable to enforce either view. For example, if you as an individual believe that abortion is wrong, the society lacks the will to force you to have an abortion or perform an abortion.
If I believe that abortion is not wrong, the society lacks the will to prevent me from performing or obtaining an abortion.
So you are right. Good and bad are subject to change. As societies develop ideas and adapt to changing conditions, so the rules of right and wrong adapt and change. Change is a property of living things and society is a living thing.
Changes in our attitudes towards abortions are caused perhaps by the realization that without control over reproduction, we are in danger of over-population, because our fecundity is ill-matched with modern medicine and abundance of food keeping most born children alive.
Don't worry about the old people though. They got a lot of connections and a whole lot of associated political clout. The old folks are not in danger of mandatory euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as I can get 51% of the people to agree with me that we should cap the age of life at 65 even if you don't agree with it, does that now become "RIGHT"? Or if I get 51% of the people to agree it's ok to have sex with kid if the kids say it's ok, does that now become "RIGHT"? Or are there some things that are always going to be RIGHT or WRONG?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok, let’s go with that idea, you are your own god; you have decided what is right or wrong for you! But if there is no cost (afterlife) then it does not really matter. The cost is only what happens here and now. If I kill someone and another carbon based bi-ped with a black robe orders me to death. Then my existents here is shortened only a small amount of time compared to how long earth has already been here. So if you are an atheist it may be wrong in your mind to kill but that does not make it wrong! Tell me why I should not Kill/Rape/Steal if the cost is only a blimp of time. And if I'm just another animal, why can't I act like it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals behave in different ways. Where are animals that never kill another of their kind.
Ofcourse you can behave in any way that is possible to you. However, if you try to kill/rape/steal, you might be hurt yourself. So, try to estimate if this line is in your best interest. The society is organized in a way that makes overt violence against its members dangerous and unprofitable in general. The state likes to keep its monopoly on violence. Ofcourse the answer is always "it depends". If you like your well-being, acting violently against others is generally counter-productive. There are specific instances where this does not apply, but they are very rare. Moreover, to secure cooperation of others, a very good strategy is to create a strong impression that you will not betray them. If you think that stealing or robbing is not wrong, and you enter in business negotiations with intent of stealing from your business partners, you will not be able to honestly promise that you will not steal from them. Therefore you will have to lie. But humans are adept at telling when someone knowingly lies, and you are more likely to be caught than someone who honestly believes that stealing and robbing is wrong. That other person will be able to promise not to steal from their partners and not lie which makes that other person more likely to strike a successful deal. Since an organization of humans usually has advantages over single individuals in business, you will suffer if you don't believe that stealing is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]




I understand what you are saying, but that works with reasonable people only. But does that make it WRONG! When others are not so reasonable? It may not be in their best interest to kill/rape/steal and you and I may think its wrong, but what makes it wrong? I'm sure over time many a great leader got there by doing many "WRONG" things. So where they wrong to do it? Were they BAD people? Is there even good and bad? I've seen animals eat their own young, I've seen kitten's or puppy's "raped" by older Cat's and Dog's. If it's not wrong for them and we are just another animal that happens to have the ability to remember things for a much longer period of time, why is it wrong for us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does anything have to be WRONG? If you are a regular member of society, you will behave mostly according to the rules forced on you by the society.
The consensus in society decides what is right and what is wrong, also the individuals in some societies are allowed to have their own sub-definitions provided they do not differ too much from the mainstream.
Most societies regulate permissible violence very strictly.
So, if someone commits murders (unauthorized killings) or other aggressive violent acts which are not allowed, rules are quickly enforced. It is up to an individual to choose what is right and wrong, but some choices are dangerous and very uncomfortable due to constraints imposed by society.
Individuals who acquired great political power (great leaders in your example), use it to their advantage, and it requires a larger effort from the rest of society to restrain them if they misbehave, therefore the range of things they can get away with is wide.
You can evaluate wrongness by the amount of damage inflicted on you personally, or on people close to you, or by extension, on your tribe or your nation or society at large. If powerful majorities agree with your evaluation they will have the power to restrain the wrong-doer. Sometimes, you have the power to restrain the wrong-doer by yourself, but our society in general learned not to trust individuals with the power to restrain wrong-doers.
Thus, the complex legal and political system.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The consensus in society decides what is right and what is wrong"

So based on this things change, it used to be ok to own a slave, now its not! Abortion is now ok, 50 years ago it was not. Are there any things that will always be right or wrong or are all things changable?

[Girchuck]

I think, for the issues you've specified, its a lot more complicated than getting a simple majority behind you. Our society has complex mechanisms designed to protect minority opinion. In addition, most societies have mechanisms that resist change and urge conservative approach to new propositions. Both of these would resist the revolutionary changes you are trying to institute. Remember how bloody the revolutionary reversal of the slavery opinion was?
People will defend their interests.
In practical terms, you'd have to convince a vast majority of people that your proposed changes will benefit them more than they would hurt them. Even if you succeed, your changes will still not be accepted by large cohorts of conservatives that resist all changes. However, generations change, and so what was not acceptable to the previous generation, may become acceptable to the next one.
Everyone is entitled to their own definitions of right and wrong. However, a society already provides templates for you to use. Ethics is a product of society. You don't have to accept that product. You can make your personal ethics your DIY project and build it from scratch. To most people this route is prohibitively expensive, and so they accept the prevailing ethics that society provides with allowable personal modifications as needed.

Let us look at your examples. I believe that it would be impossible for you right now to convince a lot of people that it is right to terminate lifes of everyone over 65.
The changes in living conditions which will allow for such change to be viewed as beneficial to society is not easy to imagine, let alone bring about.
As far as your sex example goes, this is less-farfetched.
As long as you maintain that the proper sex must be consensual, the only disagreement you will have with the rest of society would be about child's age when her consent is meaningful. Here, you will have to do research in a lot of fields connected with sexuality and developmental psychology and come up with the results that show that age of consent may be reduced without harm to society. This research will undoubtedly be controversial, and you will encounter opposition from conservatives, who surely have a lot of data pointing to an opposite conclusion. If you make a compelling case, people may eventually come around to your point of view but it is going to take a long time. However, imagine what would happen if through some genetic accident or change in environment, children would completely mature emotionally, physically and sexually by the age of say 12. If this change happens very fast, the old rules will not fit a new situation, and they will have to be broken for society to deal with reality. A revolution will occur and old rules will be supplanted, perhaps violently.
One such sexual revolution already occured, when birth control became widely available.

[rodney]

the ends justify the means

[rodney]

if god does not exist, why are you talking about it?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
"The consensus in society decides what is right and what is wrong"

[/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, because of western philosophy's roots in Democracy, this fallacy has been able to perpetuate for to long. It is not that society decides what is right and wrong. It is that man can know what is right and wrong based of that which he values, and to whom values belong. The proper recipient of ethics is not society, but it is man himself. To deny this, is to deny reality. Democracy has the right spirit, but it says that the recipient and arbiter of ethics is society and not man himself. Democracy's flawed placement of value and ethics on society is the reason why men's minds are taken to communism. The good of society is not above the good of the individual. Some may take the true benefactor of ethics - man himself - to mean that Hedonism is the correct philosophy, but that places the recipient of ethics as man's desires. Man's values, and Man's desires are not the same, although sometimes in harmony using desires in lieu of values will lead to erroneous results.

[DougShrapnel]

An interesting dilemma always arises from the religious, when asked to think about atheism, is the claim that Man's life is meaningless without god. This is the exact opposite of reality. If Man's life exists only to serve god then Man's life is without meaning. To misalign the receipting of ethics and values to god is remove the values of Man and any meaning in Man's life. Man's life has no meaning in the context of god. In the context of god, man's life is prescribed to his whim. In the context of god, man's values are prescribed to gods values. In the context of god the recipient of ethics is not man, but is god. When god talks about what is moral, he is saying that Man's life is not his own, but belongs to god and exist solely for the good of God. It is the despair of this realization that leads men away from religion. Those who say that life is without meaning without god, are removing any real meaning in life. To say that God exists is to say that life is meaningless, it is not, as others would have you believe the other way around.

[Cooker]

My goal is simply to show that your arguement is not logically valid.

First, lets clearly state your goal. Starting with the assumption that God created the universe you wish to logically argue that God is benevolent.

[ QUOTE ]

Through reason, we can see that for a god to create a universe, and who by virtue of his creative power is necessarily self-sufficient and has no need of creatures, he has either a malevolent purpose or a kind and beneficial purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]

The first bit of this states that God must not need the universe or the creatures within it. This of course does not follow from him creating it. So I am done and have established that from sentence one you have no idea how to present a logical arguement.

Now I know what you are going to say, "creation of the universe from nothing implies blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." No it doesn't. This statement is further assuming a ranking of powers that you would give to God and puts the power "created the universe" where it needs to be so that your assumption is correct. This is begging the question not presenting a logical arguement. You are assuming he doesn't need the universe and creatures within it, in order to show that he doesn't need the universe. So I have even done you the favor of pointing out the logical fallacy in your next post.

I also know that you will say that I haven't pointed out any problem since I haven't shown a way God could need the universe or creatures within it. Well first, I don't have to since the burden of proof is on you to show that him not needing the universe logically follows from him creating the universe. However, suppose that in fact the universe is simply a pacemaker for God and that the creatures are an elaborate self-sustaining clock for the timing. So now I have done you the favor of answering your ill posed and logically void challange.

Next, you will make a nonsensical post discussing how I don't understand logic or what we are talking about, and probably call me some deragatory name or take some shot at my intelligence or maturity in the process. At which point I will wish I didn't try to help you understand logical arguements and I will never reply to you again.

Having gotten that out of the way, I have shown that your arguement contains a logical error in sentence one which is crucial to your entire arguement. I will only reply to future posts admitting that you see the flaw and honestly attempting to correct it logically or stating that it is indeed a further assumption that God doesn't need the universe or creatures within it (which I believe you will certainly have to do). Once this is conceded I will discuss the next bit. However, I will warn you now, upon a brief look over your arguement I think virtually every point you make will have to similarly be included in the assumptions and eventually the whole thing will amount to begging the question.

I am not really hopeful that I will ever post in this thread again.