Cross Examiner

Spenser done said:

Thanks. About the atheist at birth thing? I don't know, I haven't given it much thought. What are the practical implications of such a question? I'm inclined to take the Romans 1:18-32 approach to this question that says men suppress the truth, run to atheism, when they begin to live a lifestyle of unrighteousness (self-indulgent behaviors). That is, he'd become an atheist if his chosen lifestyle warrants such a philosophical position as justification (I know, a hot button). I'm not sure anyone is "born" either theist or atheist. Before advancing, what would the point of this tangent be exactly?

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll just take Enyart's defense, for the present, to see what your, and possibly Zakath's, response would be. That is, as Enyart concludes:

Or if you had a more particular objection, please let me know.

I've seen this list of "atrocities" before. I've also seen them contextualized/rebutted. Please choose your favorite (apparent) moral failing of God and we can discuss it.

He didn't touch the list saying it goes away from "Does God Exist" and into "Is the Bible the Word of God", which he could address another time. He wants Zakath to stay focused and actually answer the previous 7 lines of evidence for God's existence. Bob also said he wanted to save the list for his final post anyway, perhaps a coup de grâce?

Bob's method is rather aggressive for the backyard BBQ debate setting. He is winning rhetorical, technical and argument points over Zaketh though. He outlines, summarizes, bullets, enumerates questions and gets new lines of evidence through uncontested. In short, he is winning the debate. Zaketh is running out of time and will not likely have answered even a few of Bob's lines of evidence, just keeps posting to somewhere else. What do you not like about Bob's presentation exactly?

Pick your favorite evil and we'll see if we can't add some context to the mix.

Whipping the child of someone in prison is wrong--you know that ! I think you might have an interesting perspective to share with us on God's punishment of children?

God's character is the absolute standard itself.

Hm. Is it ok, somewhere, to kill a man without just cause? Say, because you want his shoes? I'll probably differentiate between a justification and just cause this time around.

That should be good enough to start with. Talk to you later.

Regards,
BGiC

Spenser

Man, you may have caught me on one of my slowest days (in the head) but let's give it a shot:

The atheist kid thing was just a wonder and since it doesn't really apply I'll let that one go.

OK, what does that actually say? A description of anyone's nature is independent from their nature itself. BGiC, I believe it is in your nature to be a good Christian. What exactly does that say about the problem of God's character? Are you saying that because God does good things, that by example is an absolute morality? Hmmm... That still leaves us with the fact that anything God does has to be considered good, no matter what it is. This means that flooding the entire world and killing all but Noah's family and the animals he chose to save was morally good. Even the new born babies that were drown were killed morally by God. Right?



So you are saying the very thing we are trying to prove exists can be used to 'testify' for their own existence? Aren't we getting the cart before the horse here? This comment was nothing more than Bob preaching to the choir over there. This statement is an invalidated assertion that can't win any 'points' in any debate.



What context could possible change the implications of the above statement?

A list then <From The Word of the Lord by Tony Kuphaldt>:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 9:18-26 - Ham sins, but it is his son (Canaan) who is cursed by God.

Numbers 31:1-2, 15-18 - This is a very interesting example of God's morality: kill all the men, children, and wives, but keep the virgins for yourself (for what other purpose but to have sex with them?

Deuteronomy 20:10-18

1 Samuel 15:2-3, 32-33 - This revenge upon the nation of Amalek came about 380 years after their ambush of Israel, long after the perpetrators had died (see Exodus 17:8). One cannot say that the Amalekite genocide was justified by any contemporary sin of theirs, because verse 2 specifically sets forth the charge against this nation warranting their utter destruction, and the charge is their ambush of Israel 380 years prior.

2 Samuel 12:13-14

2 Samuel 21:1-14 - God curses Israel with a three-year famine, because of Saul's slaughter of the Gibeonites. Saul, it should be noted, is no longer alive. To set things right, David has seven of Saul's sons hanged until dead. Only after this is done, and the bones of Saul, Jonathan, and his hanged sons are relocated to the country of Benjamin, does God end the famine.

1 Kings 21:20-29 - Ahab sins, then Ahab repents of his sins. Nevertheless, according to divine logic someone must be punished for those sins (it doesn't seem to matter who), so Ahab's sons will be the ones to suffer.

2 Kings 22:13 - Why would God vent his anger at people because their parents failed to heed his commands, especially if they themselves were ignorant of God's commands because the book had been lost?

2 Kings 23:25-27 - The Lord's wrath was brought upon Israel by the sins of Manasseh, who was king of Israel before Amon, who was king of Israel before Josiah. Manasseh died before Josiah became king, and had repented of his sins prior to his death in both word and deed (2 Chronicles 33:12-17).

2 Chronicles 36:17

Psalm 137:8-9 - ``dasheth little ones against stones'' = to kill infant children by smashing them against rocks.

Isaiah 13:9,16

Isaiah 14:21

Jeremiah 2:7-9 - Here, children are cursed for the sins of their grandparents.

Amos 7:16-17 - For the rebellion of Amaziah the priest against Amos' prophesy, the priest's wife will be forced into prostitution and the priest's children killed by the Babylonian soldiers that God will send against Israel.

Hosea 4:6b - This verse should be of particular interest because it condones a form of abortion as well as infanticide.

Nahum 3:9-10

Luke 19:41-44 - Jesus sentences even the children of Israel to death, because their parents did not recognize him as the Messiah.

Romans 5:18-19 - By the disobedience of Adam in the Garden of Eden, all mankind fell under the condemnation of God. This is known as the doctrine of Original Sin.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, how about that for starters?

As far as Bob winning the debate, are you joking? What exactly has he actually offered up as evidence for God? First off, science does not 'close' gaps and if the things that Bob were questioning Zakath about were proved unable to ever be explained by science then why are their untold billions of dollars being flooded into research of such things currently? Don't be stupid, he is stating fuzzy science that goes greatly against what the majority of the scientific community actually believes. Furthermore, even if one were to grant Bob such absurdities, this is not evidence for God. There is no positive statement for the existence of God by saying things couldn't have come about naturally; any God, groups of Gods, some nonintelligent supernatural force, The Matrix, the IPU, or any other number of made up explanations fits into the 'did it' category because no evidence was offered for any of them.

Bob's other argument is the point of this thread, one which is yet to be refuted. Prove there is an absolute morality, so far I have seen nothing but assertions and by your own admission:



...this standard of morality cannot be shown, therefore it cannot be used as proof for anything. Bob has ZERO argument, how you figure he is winning this debate is more miraculous than some things the bible posits. Before the accusation of bias comes up (of which I definitely think you are) I have read and conceded debates won by theists, William Lane Craig is an excellent debater even if I do not agree with him. He actually knows how to debate, unlike the good pastor. Zakath has presented traditional arguments (meaning used in formal debates before) and has no evidence of anything as of yet to counter. Any one from a neutral stand point should clearly see that he is winning this debate.

What I have noticed in God debates is that Theistic arguments arise and pass as they become refuted. Currently the hype is on tweaked versions of the ontological argument and some opt for the transcendental argument. Strangely enough atheistic arguments seem to hold strong and relatively unchanging. As offered by Zakath, Euthyphro’s Dilemma has been around a long time, remains unrebuked, and holds strong in the field of philosophy today.



Do I know that? If Absolute Morality exists and it is derived from God's character and God commands children be punished for the sins of their fathers then I might be wrong...



Repeat, hence the dilemma itself. Like you said, so as to not reinvent the wheel:

This was never truly addressed and if your above quote from Bob is your answer, please extrapolate.

Though this appeals to me and would only get you my subjective opinion I'll take it seriously. Notice you must qualify it with 'just cause.' Sure, what if the man is a vegetable? What if the man is about to die anyway and painfully (and you can kill him quickly)? What if the ground is so hot that the shoes are your only means of survival so its either you or him (maybe they were your shoes in the first place so you should be the one to survive the hot ground)? Even if I were to say 'NO' you got nothing more than my subjective opinion on whether killing a man was ok.

Quid pro quo

xorbie

Well some of these posts are very long, and I admit I did not read them all as I am a little busy elsewhere at the moment, and so I apologize in advance if I am a little off the current topic or repeat something already said.

Anyhow, this is my take on absolute morality. It can clearly exist without any God or even a "supernatural" force (such as karma). Several have been posited already by philosophers. The actual question is "why should people actually follow these objective morals?" or "what enforces these morals?" If, for instance, I say "Walking on your hands is always 'good' and walking on only one leg is 'bad' ", you would clearly say "who cares what you say?"

This is because there would be nothing to enforce my laws, which hinge on my arbitrary decision. However, many other philosophers have developed far more exhaustive definitions of morality which would apply to everyone. One example is J.S. Mill. With these types of moralities, the philosopher will argue that there is a reason to follow their rules. I believe the reasons fall under 3 categories.

(1) Human nature - This is basically saying that all people have certain qualities, and all people's lives will gain from doing certain things and not doing other things.

(2) Societal good - This one basically says that because of certain laws governing action, which can get failry technical actually, certain actions are better to take when in a society. These laws ARE NOT INHERENT in humanity, but arise out of population dynamics. Doing them will lead to a better society and thus a better life for you.

(3) The supernatural - Well, it couldn't be avoided. This one ranges from the God/heaven model to karma to the Dao... some of it actually has a lot in common with #1 and #2

This of course in no way shows how any objective morality proves God, although an argument could be made that incorporates #1 or maybe even #2, but I don't have one off the top of my head.

xorbie

Well some of these posts are very long, and I admit I did not read them all as I am a little busy elsewhere at the moment, and so I apologize in advance if I am a little off the current topic or repeat something already said.

Anyhow, this is my take on absolute morality. It can clearly exist without any God or even a "supernatural" force (such as karma). Several have been posited already by philosophers. The actual question is "why should people actually follow these objective morals?" or "what enforces these morals?" If, for instance, I say "Walking on your hands is always 'good' and walking on only one leg is 'bad' ", you would clearly say "who cares what you say?"

This is because there would be nothing to enforce my laws, which hinge on my arbitrary decision. However, many other philosophers have developed far more exhaustive definitions of morality which would apply to everyone. One example is J.S. Mill. With these types of moralities, the philosopher will argue that there is a reason to follow their rules. I believe the reasons fall under 3 categories.

(1) Human nature - This is basically saying that all people have certain qualities, and all people's lives will gain from doing certain things and not doing other things.

(2) Societal good - This one basically says that because of certain laws governing action, which can get failry technical actually, certain actions are better to take when in a society. These laws ARE NOT INHERENT in humanity, but arise out of population dynamics. Doing them will lead to a better society and thus a better life for you.

(3) The supernatural - Well, it couldn't be avoided. This one ranges from the God/heaven model to karma to the Dao... some of it actually has a lot in common with #1 and #2

This of course in no way shows how any objective morality proves God, although an argument could be made that incorporates #1 or maybe even #2, but I don't have one off the top of my head.

Theli

Does that really make morality subjective, though?
People disagree over the big bang, does that make big bang subjective?
An idea to serve the greater good of mankind may end up doing more damage than good, and different ideas and actions do more or less good than others. So I don't see where "greater good" is subjective. The fact that people can disagree over something doesn't make it subjective.

scumble

That debate is a total mess. Right from the start, it's doomed to failure.

It gets bogged down in discussions about the origins of the universe, which is beside the point.
The point is, just because you can't explain the universe, it doesn't mean that you can stick God in there and say "Look at that! It's so much simpler! All the stuff we can't work out was done by God!"

Debating the merits of current scientific theory is a waste of time.

There is no step between "Perhaps there could be some higher purpose to life" and "We'll be saved if we believe in Jesus". I think the debate gets further than it should, every time, because believers steamroller past the initial objections.

ah! I think I can see what the problem is. He thinks science is bolstering the case for God, because, say, it has been already demonstrated that no simpler life exists than the cell.

Still it doesn't allow us to say some mysterious being must have put it all together, and then it doesn't help with morality either.

I think that's where Zakath missed a good chance.

I find this thing about context in the Bible rather baffling as well, Spenser. Seems clear what happens in the "earlier" books.

scumble

Yes, but how do you judge how much good something does?

It really depends if we're talking of individuals rather than groups. Behaviour is constrained by social interaction, and is not just something that humans do. We've just got a refined version that makes us co-operate more effectively.
Mostly, people disagree over the finer points of morality, like whether people should cohabit before performing a marriage ceremony. I don't believe there's some abstract rule floating about for this, as there's no way to find it. Somehow things are supposed to be better if everyone gets married when they enter a relationship. Some people may need it, but it's foolish to say that humans can't commit to each other without being married. Some birds mate for life, and they don't have a marriage ceremony.

Spenser

The Big Bang is an event outside of peoples minds. It is something that happened (if it truly did happen) whether or not we (humans) were ever here. Morality is human thought and action; with out humans, there is no morality (at least on Earth, there may be intelligent life some where else that has morality). Humans cannot agree on everything that is right and wrong to think and do, therefore it is subjective. If it is absolute, well then, I'd love to see the standard, the proof, some evidence of this.

Since no one can offer it up, it makes a shitty argument for God's existance...

xorbie

Does this mean you have a refuation for every single philosopher that has argued for some sort of objective morality? Even the ones that constructed their moralities independent of any deity? I would be rather surprised if you did in fact have a good refuation for each of these.

Theli

scumble...
I don't think that can be called true morality as it has no direct effect on other people's lives. If someone want to argue that it ruins the couple's chances for a "happy marriage" then they are free to do so. Weither or not it is moral depends on (like always) how it affects all people involved. As you said, morality is a set of rules to further cooperation between individuals and society, and also to increase their well being.
People may disagree about what is moral or not, but that's mostly based on lacking knowledge of what action they call immoral or the conditions where it was taken. Or perhaps even more common, putting their own interests before others and calling any action serving them as moral or good.
Yes, as usual the morality we live by is very blunt, it assumes that all people are the same and should live by the excact same standards (because we often don't know the people we judge). An example of lacking knowledge.


Spenser...
Actions taken by others are also events outside of your mind, and it is these that you judge moraly. I have noticed, includig on this board that people generally have difficulties judging their own actions. To do so you would have to try to look at your own actions in a third perspective to see if they were really justified. Morality and emotions don't mix well.
The outcome of an action and the effect it has on society is not dependant of our opinions or prejudices, but the condition when the action is taken. And how it affects other people is completely independent of your own opinions. If you hit a person in the face it hurts regardless of your mindset at the moment.
Some sort of standard must exist, or we would not be able to moraly judge actions at all. Most people believe murder is wrong, right? How did such a belief become such a norm as it is today if there is no standard?

A final question... if morality is subjective, then what is it based on? If you refer to it as an opinion, then where does this opinion come from?