Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 08-05-2002, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Ed
But most of the scientific evidence points to the universe being an effect and therefore requiring a cause. And the Christian God fits the characteristics for that cause.

Really! and which evidence is that?

Here is one basic law of physics in this universe.

"Energy/matter is neither created nor destroyed."

Given this basic immutable law then this universe cannot be an effect of anything. All that we have ever observed is energy changing form.

So, what evidence are you talking about?

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

Ed · 08-05-2002, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RogerLeeCooke:


Hello, Ed, it's been sometimes since we crossed swords. I hope you are well. If you remember me from past encounters, you'll know that I see no difficulties at all here. Morality isn't objective, and anyone who says it "must" be objective is arguing in a circle. [/b]

Hello Roger, it HAS been a long time! I hope you are doing well. My point is that people as a general rule believe that they conduct their life on what they believe is objectively real. If they perceive that morality is subjective and thereby relative then they will generally act accordingly. And if there is no God then morality and human worth is subjective and relative.

[b]

Quote:

Roger: The notion that propositional communication is impossible without God is a variant of what CS Lewis thought was his haymaker punch against atheism: if God didn't create our brains, then all our thoughts are unreliable. It is one of philosophy's most glaring non sequiturs, but Lewis believed it. Again, I think he believed that partial confidence in what we are saying isn't acceptable---a normative proposition---so he invoked God to get absolute confidence, even though it is, as he would admit, impossible to know God's thoughts. But it's curious that he thought we couldn't live with a small measure of uncertainty about what we are saying. The idea that we might learn a little at a time and never have perfect knowledge seemed to be ruled out by some unspoken major premise that he never could get clearly down onto paper.

While I disagree with your assessment of Lewis' argument, my argument is not the same. And I don't think Lewis believed that we could communicate perfectly. My argument is that communication without an objective basis (ie grounded in the ultimate reality of the nature of a personal communicating God) is therefore purely subjective and ultimately meaningless.

Starboy · 08-05-2002, 08:07 PM

Alas, Mr. Ed has completely ignored my last post. I guess he prefers a different topic.

Starboy

Ed · 08-07-2002, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:


"not having a rational explanation for the existence of the universe"

Does anybody have a rational explanation for the existance of the universe?[/b]

Hello nogo. Yes, Christian theists do, based on the Law of Causality and its corollaries.

[b]

Quote:

Morality is like language, it is man-made.

If morality is manmade then does that mean that your morality and Hitler's are equivalent? If not, why?

echidna · 08-07-2002, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:
If morality is manmade then does that mean that your morality and Hitler's are equivalent? If not, why?

If morality is god-made, then is god's morality & Hitler's equivalent ?

scumble · 08-08-2002, 07:31 AM

As has been shown by history, Hitler's morality was a disaster, I think everyone will agree. That's the difference. The consequences for humanity were dreadful.
Morality is practical stuff - a lot of moralities have been shown to be a complete failure by history and experience.
Human criteria are all you need - most people will agree they'd rather not be killed, hence mostly we agree that killing is rather unhelpful. People don't get on well together if everyone lies to each other, etc.

ohwilleke · 08-08-2002, 03:31 PM

While one can be hyper-technical, I think that it is fair to say that as used in the context Ed did, that "atheism" is a worldview, and refers to people who are metaphysical naturalists who believe that morality is a "human" (and pre-human) invention.

Obviously, atheists within this common place sense of the word (which excludes New Agers, Buddhists, Unitarians theists, etc.) do not agree on everything, but even these limited aspects of a worldview are sufficent to distinguish the worldview held by atheists from that of a supermajority of population of the Earth.

Of course, as an atheist myself, I don't see any deep problems with this worldview.

The "First Cause" argument is itself, at best, an argument for deism over atheism. It certainly isn't close to sufficient to support belief in any major religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Shinto, Chinese Folk Religion, Santiera, Sikhism) which is widely held on Earth today, or to distinguish between these religions. There is no reason why a first cause would have to be a "Christian God", and a great deal of scientific evience that the early natural and human history of the world is significantly different than the world described in the first half of the Biblical Book of Genesis accepted as true by some Christians. For what it's worth, I think that the "First Cause" argument is probably the leading basis for the divide within the secular community of people who consider themselves atheists and people who consider themselves agnostics because they don't believe that it is possible to know if the deist or atheist position is correct.

The morality and "meaning of life" issues are, of course, more subjective, but suffice it to say, that neither I nor the vast majority of people who hold the worldview which I have defined as atheism find that we are any less moral than our theistic neighbors, or that we have any less purpose or meaning in our lives.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]

Ed · 08-09-2002, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Admiral:
Ed;

" Well, besides not having a rational explanation for the existence of the universe,".

Why is anyone of any belief required to have a rational explanation for the existence of the universe? I think the universe simply has always existed. No need to postulate the existence of a creator. I don't know, and i think that that is as rational an explanation as anyone has a right to expect.

The Admiral

Hello Admiral. BTW Admiral who? You are not David Robinson are you? Well anyway, you are right if the universe is eternal and that is logically possible, then there would be no need for a creator. However, almost all the scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning, which is a characteristic of an effect. And according to the laws of logic every effect requires a cause. Therefore, the most rational assumption is that the universe has a cause.

Ed · 08-11-2002, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:


Greetings Ed,

I agree I do not see atheism as providing a rational explanation for existence of the universe, or morality or for anything else. Nor do I expect it to, since my kind of atheism is a-theism. What I use to inform my worldview is science. What do you use?

Starboy

So if atheism cannot provide a rational explanation for anything then it is irrational. So you agree with me that atheism is irrational? Well that is interesting coming from someone that is an atheist, you are an atheist aren't you?
So does science tell you that you can cheat on your taxes or not? If so, how? And also what does science say about human rights and animal rights, is there a difference? If so, where does it come from and what is the difference since "science" tells us that we are animals too. Science tells us that men are stronger than women, does that mean that we can force them to have sex any time we want since biologically and physically we can?

GunnerJ · 08-12-2002, 03:31 AM

Here we go, entering "don't know why I bother" mode...

Quote:

Well, besides not having a rational explanation for the existence of the universe, it doesn't provide a rational basis for morality or an objective basis for propositional communication. These are just a few of the problems, there are many more.

Atheism similarly provides no "rational explanation" for why an apple dropped from my hand will accelerate towards the ground at 9.8 meters per second for every second; or why, from Spetember to November, leaves on deciduious trees in the northern hemisphere change color and fall of.

This is because "atheism" is not an "explanation" for anything. It is the lack of god-belief. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is not a religion or a philosophy or a "worldview."

As soon as you get over that stumbling block, Ed, these "problems" you present will disapear.

But based on our previous discussions, I doubt you have the learning capacity to change your way of thinking about things. Your "creator" hasn't programmed* you that well.

*For those interested, I mean this in the most literal sense of the term; Ed is, I believe, a mere computer program (a "bot") designed to post messages to usenet and message boards, and reply to a few set key phrases.

08-08-2002, 03:31 PM	#47
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	While one can be hyper-technical, I think that it is fair to say that as used in the context Ed did, that "atheism" is a worldview, and refers to people who are metaphysical naturalists who believe that morality is a "human" (and pre-human) invention. Obviously, atheists within this common place sense of the word (which excludes New Agers, Buddhists, Unitarians theists, etc.) do not agree on everything, but even these limited aspects of a worldview are sufficent to distinguish the worldview held by atheists from that of a supermajority of population of the Earth. Of course, as an atheist myself, I don't see any deep problems with this worldview. The "First Cause" argument is itself, at best, an argument for deism over atheism. It certainly isn't close to sufficient to support belief in any major religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Shinto, Chinese Folk Religion, Santiera, Sikhism) which is widely held on Earth today, or to distinguish between these religions. There is no reason why a first cause would have to be a "Christian God", and a great deal of scientific evience that the early natural and human history of the world is significantly different than the world described in the first half of the Biblical Book of Genesis accepted as true by some Christians. For what it's worth, I think that the "First Cause" argument is probably the leading basis for the divide within the secular community of people who consider themselves atheists and people who consider themselves agnostics because they don't believe that it is possible to know if the deist or atheist position is correct. The morality and "meaning of life" issues are, of course, more subjective, but suffice it to say, that neither I nor the vast majority of people who hold the worldview which I have defined as atheism find that we are any less moral than our theistic neighbors, or that we have any less purpose or meaning in our lives. [ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-05-2002, 08:07 PM	#43
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Alas, Mr. Ed has completely ignored my last post. I guess he prefers a different topic. Starboy

08-08-2002, 07:31 AM	#46
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	As has been shown by history, Hitler's morality was a disaster, I think everyone will agree. That's the difference. The consequences for humanity were dreadful. Morality is practical stuff - a lot of moralities have been shown to be a complete failure by history and experience. Human criteria are all you need - most people will agree they'd rather not be killed, hence mostly we agree that killing is rather unhelpful. People don't get on well together if everyone lies to each other, etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.