Powerfull Voices

<a href="http://www.rzim.org" target="_blank">http://www.rzim.org</a>
<a href="http://www.sliceofinfinity.org" target="_blank">http://www.sliceofinfinity.org</a>

There's been some question as to the potential copyright problem posting this essay as a whole. The original text can be found here:

<a href="http://www.gospelcom.net/slice/transcriptdetail.php?sliceid=29" target="_blank">http://www.gospelcom.net/slice/transcriptdetail.php?sliceid=29</a>

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

Abacus

I'd say that the existence of what humans might call "good" and "evil" is actually evidence of a nonpersonal, uncaring universe. Good and bad stuff happens all the time, randomly, for no good reason. There is no god behind it.

John Page

I disagree with the randomly part. IMO we know a causal universe, for if something is not caused then it cannot be perceived (because of the nature of our organs of perception).

braces_for_impact

Some is random, some is not. Natural disasters are certainly considered random. Humans causing human suffering is not. But random doesn't exist under an omiscient god. And thats the entire point isn't it?

In any case, once again my senses are assaulted with yet another story of the all wise theist lecturing an audience, while a smug skeptic stands up to make his point and is reduced to a laughing stock by the oh so intelligent lecturer. How come I'm never that skeptic in the audience standing up? Time and again I read this same scenario, slightly altered by subject, whether the lecturer is this guy or Kent Hovind or some other 'famous' evangelist. How is it that I, not being the most intelligent, logical, or wise person can always refute these arguments? And not after research, oh no, I can do it on the spot!

Could it be (gasp) that these stories are made up? Or is it that totally unprepared skeptics with little reasoning ability are the only ones that attend theological lectures? You make the call.

edited for spelling.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: braces_for_impact ]</p>

Abacus

You may be right. I should have said "often randomly", or something like that.

Laurentius

AVE

Apparently an ANSWER has been given to all skeptical's (un)uttered questions:

You see friends, the skeptic not only has to give an answer to his or her
own question, but also has to justify the question itself. And even as the
laughter subsided I reminded him that his question was indeed reasonable,
but that his question justified my assumption that this was a moral
universe. For if God is not the author of life, neither good nor bad are
meaningful terms.

Assuming this is a logical demonstration of God's existence on the basis of the fact that once there is moral law there should be a divine authority behind it (which I doubt), the voice in the audience should still have resons to remain skeptical.

“There cannot possibly be a God,” he said, “with all the evil and suffering
that exists in the world!”

What's up with the suffering, about which the sage seems to have forgotten? How does the wise Christian accounts for it?

AVE

AtlanticCitySlave

"But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also
assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to
distinguish between good and evil"

Answering yes to this question does not mean there has to be a moral law-giver, so it doesn't follow when he says there must be. There is a massive amount of literature on objective morality that doesn't need any lawgiver. Michael Martin, at least as he hints, believes in objective morality, and I imagine his new book coming out soon will address it (hopefully).

John Page

Wise Christian? Ah, you mean an atheist....

Liquidrage

It is very short sighted to claim that without a diety of some kind morals,good and evil cannot exist.

“If, then, there is a moral law,” I said, “you must also posit a moral law
giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there
is no transcendent moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. If
there is no moral law, there really is no good. If there is no good there
is no evil. I am not sure what your question is!”

The above in utter nonsense. It is an opinion and not a very strong one at that.

Moral law giver does not have to be god.
Yet the whole article rests on this.

If someone chooses to believe that a god gives them their morals, that is their choice but it is not a requirement.
I get mine from real interaction with other people and the obvious Golden Rule.

There never was a contradiction in the first place and the person who felt smug about conning a man out of his opinion should feel ashamed about not knowing the actual accepted definitions of moral, good and evil.

NialScorva

Off to rants and raves.