Journal The Masked Fruitcake's Journal: Re:Freedom *of* religion. 12
You say the Universe cannot spontaneously be created out of nothing because, well, the you can't create stuff out of nothing. It's a circular argument!
It's common observation. It's not the way the world works. Explain to me just how your idea of spontaneous creation works! An impersonal, inexplicable "force" won't cut it. I have the inerrant Word of God to back me up. You don't. It comes down to that. I'm going to reply to the rest of your post, but at some point it comes down to the fact that either you accept that God has given us the Scriptures to explain things such as this, or you don't. If you don't, then we don't have anything more to talk about. You are attempting to use logic, an attribute of God, against God himself. Logic is very important, but what you do not realize is that you are making just as many assumptions as I am in using it. You cannot have debate without presupposing certain things. I presuppose that there is a God that created the world, because to be consistent in my argument, if there wasn't, then we wouldn't be here at all. You presuppose that God does not exist, despite the multitude of evidence given in the creation, and His very Word itself! You exist based upon the same God that I acknowledge, but are arguing that He doesn't exist just because science cannot define Him. You are making the assumption that He does not exist, and present ridiculous ideas about matter just creating itself in order to get around the observations you must make in the world around you.
If I claim that it is immoral to kill, and claim that such is an base property of the Universe (in the same way that large clumps of matter seem to pull other large clumps of matter together), then this claim is no less valid then a Creator making it as such.
It is very much less valid, for the same reasons I set forth above. I have the Word of God to base my arguments on. You have a human theory. There is no comparison.
As a practical example, Buddhism is a belief that includes both atheism and moral absolutism. Karma (though I'm told this is a frequently misunderstood concept of Buddhism, and doubtless I am butchering the concept of it) deals out punishment to those who do wicked deeds simply because that's the way the Universe works.
An absolute in the universe is something that must apply to everyone in that universe. Agreed? Now, what do Buddhists claim their moral absolutes are based upon? They acknowledge there is no God. They discard the Bible and all the evidence in creation that indicates the opposite. They then presumably define what moral absolutes they think there are. But in doing so, all they're doing it presenting a human theory. They have nothing to reinforce their theory. I have the very Word of God to back up my assertion of moral absolutes. I have a third party, the triune God, the Creator of the universe, defining the absolutes that I am merely presenting.
If you make a claim, for instance that atheism implies moral relativism, you must prove that claim through logical consitancy.
Certainly. Atheists base their ideas on the thoughts of man alone, because that's the highest power that exists in their world. The problem is, men alone can have all sorts of different thoughts. The mere thoughts of men can never constitute any kind of absolute, because a million other men could just as easily define an "absolute" to be the opposite of the atheists'. I have a third party, God, defining moral absolutes. God's decree cannot be countered. Atheists cannot appeal to any power higher than themselves, because doing so would result in the acknowledgement of God. Therefore their arguments can never be more than the theories of mere men.
"Morals... do not simply appear out of nowhere". That's a fine theory. Now back it up. Why cannot morals be eternal?
This very much hinges on creation. Now, I am asserting that the world was created. Before that creation, what was there? I assert that the universe was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. Before creation, there was nothing but God. No matter, no laws of physics. Complete, total, and utter void. Now, I also assert that God created the world out of this void, out of nothing. I base this assertion upon what He has revealed in His Word, and the observations I and others have made on the world around me. So, using your logic, follow that thought through to its conclusion. We start with a void where nothing exists. God then creates the universe, which is governed by certain laws and absolutes. Where did the absolutes come from?
It's struck me that there is some bit of confusion that ought to be cleared up. In one sense, you're right: morals *are* eternal, because God is eternal, so certainly His attributes and His laws are eternal. But note that my statement that "Morals do not simply appear out of nowhere" does not contradict this. That statement indicates that morals do not exist all by themselves apart from God. They are eternal, however, because they are extensions of an eternal God's eternal attributes. In the hypothetical world with no God, then morals would not exist at all, and eternity becomes irrelevant. You cannot separate God and moral code. I go into this more below.
Why can a conscious being exist without creation, and yet something that is not sentiant has to be created?
Where did you get the idea that I ever said that only non-sentient things must be created? This entire universe had to be created. If by "conscious being" you're referring to God, then he exists without creation because He says so. That much should be obvious from even a cursory reading the His Word.
Lets say I believe that it's morally wrong to wear pink. Now, if no-one else believes me, then, according to my belief, they are all wrong. That is belief of moral absolutism. We're talking beliefs, and beliefs are subjective. They're one point of view. A belief does not have to be proved true, it just has to be not proved false (assuming you want a consistant belief struction, of course!). A belief is not a fact.
Beliefs that are not based on facts are worthless. (As I've told you, my beliefs are grounded on the facts placed forth in the Bible, and ultimately that's where the disagreement will lead.) Sure, you're entitled to believe that wearing pink is morally wrong, and if you wanted, you could delude yourself into thinking that was an absolute of the universe. But here's my point: ready? This is important. The point is, the only thing your belief would be based upon is your belief. If you were to say that wearing pink is morally wrong, I could come back and say, "Who says??" To which your only reply could be, "Me." Or, "It's just the way the universe works." There's no reason behind it, no facts to back it up. It's just theories.
Faith is only as strong as the object you're placing faith in. I could place all my faith in the cup of water sitting on my desk right now, but it wouldn't get me anywhere. The cup of water will not save me, nor will it give me moral laws to follow, nor will it do anything spectacular. I could place all my faith in a Godless world with abstract moral codes, but those codes wouldn't save me. They wouldn't do anything for me. They don't hold power to enforce themselves. They ultimately mean nothing to me, who would be a complex chemical reaction with no soul anyway. Why should I bother following abstract moral codes as long as I can get away with not following them? If there's no power backing them up, then all I have to do is elude other humans who might try to bully me into following them. If I can do that, then I'm scot-free! And plenty of people have demonstrated their ability to evade authorities...so I guess they've got nothing against them! The abstract moral code cannot punish them. I could wear pink in your pink-free world and never run into you, and I'd be none the worse off. The moral code would be irrelevant.
You say "God is absolute. Yet you also claim that: "You cannot have an absolute without having God to set that absolute".
This is foolish and petty. You are merely twisting words, and you know it. You know the context my statement was placed in. What you're doing is akin to me quoting you out of context as saying: "it's morally wrong to wear pink." What?! Morally wrong to wear pink?? That's crazy! That doesn't make any sense!
...it is inconsistant with your other assertions that God is the only absolute.
You are putting words in my mouth here. There are certainly other absolutes in the universe. Moral law is one of them. :) God just set them all in place, that's all. They are all derived from Him. God is eternal and absolute. He tells us so in His Word. He set the laws of the universe in motion. He tells us this also in His Word.
If you are to make the statement (or words to the effect of) "Who defines these absolute morals?", then you must first prove that it is necessary to for non-conscious entities to be created by a conscious entity. Otherwise, people like me can just say "Why do you assume this?", or "What's your basis for assuming that?".
Certainly! I'm glad you asked! My basis for assuming that is the Bible. Plain, simple, and very straightforward.
But if you're arguing something, you have to start from a base, and work upwards.
I agree wholeheartedly. My base is the Bible. What is your base? Human thoughts? Philosophy? Let me point out a problem with your way of thinking. If what you say is true, viz., that God does not exist, then by definition I have absolutely no reason to believe you. Why? Because you have no higher authority to back you up--by your own model, we are all merely atoms banging around. Why should I listen to your atoms any more than I should listen to that derelict in the gutter over there? Sure, maybe you look more respectable, but you haven't provided me with any evidence for your alternative. You say the universe just "happened"? Huh. What makes you say that? You say that absolute morality can exist in a vacuum? Well, what makes you say that?
Unfortunately, in any argument involving God, this invariably proves to be exceedingly difficult.
No, it's really much easier than finding a base for atheism. I already gave it to you. Your problem will be as follows: If atheism is true, then I have no reason to believe it. Follow that? Because if atheism is true, then we have no meaning. Life is pointless. We're just a set of complex chemical reactions, moving about in our random ways upon this big terrestrial ball full of random atoms. You demonstrate that you're aware of this by trying to appeal to absolute morality. In doing so, you are using Christian thinking to prop up the atheistic model. Because in a truly consistent atheistic world, morals don't matter. Cutting someone's arm off is just rearranging some atoms that happened to be in the way. Why should it be a crime to rearrange atoms that were only in the way by chance? What's that? You say that causing someone pain is bad? Well, why? Tell me why! Because of absolute morals? But in order to acknowledge certain rules that everyone has to live by, you have to acknowledge a higher power. Why? Well, why should I pay any attention to morals in a vacuum? If we really are all just chemical reactions, then even if there was a set of morals apart from God, why should I pay any attention to them? Because I'm afraid of being punished by my fellow random chemical reactions? Perhaps, but that wouldn't put any credence into the argument that such morals existed; that would put credence in a "majority rules" situation. At which point, I could legitimately start lobbying for my own set of morals in an attempt to gain a majority and punish all the people who believed in the detached set of morals! There's no reason for me to follow rules that exist in a vacuum. Such rules would therefore be pointless.
Follow that? So since we know that moral code is not pointless, we know that they do not exist all by themselves as unenforceable, abstract things. Where does that leave us?
Matt
It's common observation. It's not the way the world works. Explain to me just how your idea of spontaneous creation works! An impersonal, inexplicable "force" won't cut it. I have the inerrant Word of God to back me up. You don't. It comes down to that. I'm going to reply to the rest of your post, but at some point it comes down to the fact that either you accept that God has given us the Scriptures to explain things such as this, or you don't. If you don't, then we don't have anything more to talk about. You are attempting to use logic, an attribute of God, against God himself. Logic is very important, but what you do not realize is that you are making just as many assumptions as I am in using it. You cannot have debate without presupposing certain things. I presuppose that there is a God that created the world, because to be consistent in my argument, if there wasn't, then we wouldn't be here at all. You presuppose that God does not exist, despite the multitude of evidence given in the creation, and His very Word itself! You exist based upon the same God that I acknowledge, but are arguing that He doesn't exist just because science cannot define Him. You are making the assumption that He does not exist, and present ridiculous ideas about matter just creating itself in order to get around the observations you must make in the world around you.
If I claim that it is immoral to kill, and claim that such is an base property of the Universe (in the same way that large clumps of matter seem to pull other large clumps of matter together), then this claim is no less valid then a Creator making it as such.
It is very much less valid, for the same reasons I set forth above. I have the Word of God to base my arguments on. You have a human theory. There is no comparison.
As a practical example, Buddhism is a belief that includes both atheism and moral absolutism. Karma (though I'm told this is a frequently misunderstood concept of Buddhism, and doubtless I am butchering the concept of it) deals out punishment to those who do wicked deeds simply because that's the way the Universe works.
An absolute in the universe is something that must apply to everyone in that universe. Agreed? Now, what do Buddhists claim their moral absolutes are based upon? They acknowledge there is no God. They discard the Bible and all the evidence in creation that indicates the opposite. They then presumably define what moral absolutes they think there are. But in doing so, all they're doing it presenting a human theory. They have nothing to reinforce their theory. I have the very Word of God to back up my assertion of moral absolutes. I have a third party, the triune God, the Creator of the universe, defining the absolutes that I am merely presenting.
If you make a claim, for instance that atheism implies moral relativism, you must prove that claim through logical consitancy.
Certainly. Atheists base their ideas on the thoughts of man alone, because that's the highest power that exists in their world. The problem is, men alone can have all sorts of different thoughts. The mere thoughts of men can never constitute any kind of absolute, because a million other men could just as easily define an "absolute" to be the opposite of the atheists'. I have a third party, God, defining moral absolutes. God's decree cannot be countered. Atheists cannot appeal to any power higher than themselves, because doing so would result in the acknowledgement of God. Therefore their arguments can never be more than the theories of mere men.
"Morals... do not simply appear out of nowhere". That's a fine theory. Now back it up. Why cannot morals be eternal?
This very much hinges on creation. Now, I am asserting that the world was created. Before that creation, what was there? I assert that the universe was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. Before creation, there was nothing but God. No matter, no laws of physics. Complete, total, and utter void. Now, I also assert that God created the world out of this void, out of nothing. I base this assertion upon what He has revealed in His Word, and the observations I and others have made on the world around me. So, using your logic, follow that thought through to its conclusion. We start with a void where nothing exists. God then creates the universe, which is governed by certain laws and absolutes. Where did the absolutes come from?
It's struck me that there is some bit of confusion that ought to be cleared up. In one sense, you're right: morals *are* eternal, because God is eternal, so certainly His attributes and His laws are eternal. But note that my statement that "Morals do not simply appear out of nowhere" does not contradict this. That statement indicates that morals do not exist all by themselves apart from God. They are eternal, however, because they are extensions of an eternal God's eternal attributes. In the hypothetical world with no God, then morals would not exist at all, and eternity becomes irrelevant. You cannot separate God and moral code. I go into this more below.
Why can a conscious being exist without creation, and yet something that is not sentiant has to be created?
Where did you get the idea that I ever said that only non-sentient things must be created? This entire universe had to be created. If by "conscious being" you're referring to God, then he exists without creation because He says so. That much should be obvious from even a cursory reading the His Word.
Lets say I believe that it's morally wrong to wear pink. Now, if no-one else believes me, then, according to my belief, they are all wrong. That is belief of moral absolutism. We're talking beliefs, and beliefs are subjective. They're one point of view. A belief does not have to be proved true, it just has to be not proved false (assuming you want a consistant belief struction, of course!). A belief is not a fact.
Beliefs that are not based on facts are worthless. (As I've told you, my beliefs are grounded on the facts placed forth in the Bible, and ultimately that's where the disagreement will lead.) Sure, you're entitled to believe that wearing pink is morally wrong, and if you wanted, you could delude yourself into thinking that was an absolute of the universe. But here's my point: ready? This is important. The point is, the only thing your belief would be based upon is your belief. If you were to say that wearing pink is morally wrong, I could come back and say, "Who says??" To which your only reply could be, "Me." Or, "It's just the way the universe works." There's no reason behind it, no facts to back it up. It's just theories.
Faith is only as strong as the object you're placing faith in. I could place all my faith in the cup of water sitting on my desk right now, but it wouldn't get me anywhere. The cup of water will not save me, nor will it give me moral laws to follow, nor will it do anything spectacular. I could place all my faith in a Godless world with abstract moral codes, but those codes wouldn't save me. They wouldn't do anything for me. They don't hold power to enforce themselves. They ultimately mean nothing to me, who would be a complex chemical reaction with no soul anyway. Why should I bother following abstract moral codes as long as I can get away with not following them? If there's no power backing them up, then all I have to do is elude other humans who might try to bully me into following them. If I can do that, then I'm scot-free! And plenty of people have demonstrated their ability to evade authorities...so I guess they've got nothing against them! The abstract moral code cannot punish them. I could wear pink in your pink-free world and never run into you, and I'd be none the worse off. The moral code would be irrelevant.
You say "God is absolute. Yet you also claim that: "You cannot have an absolute without having God to set that absolute".
This is foolish and petty. You are merely twisting words, and you know it. You know the context my statement was placed in. What you're doing is akin to me quoting you out of context as saying: "it's morally wrong to wear pink." What?! Morally wrong to wear pink?? That's crazy! That doesn't make any sense!
You are putting words in my mouth here. There are certainly other absolutes in the universe. Moral law is one of them.
If you are to make the statement (or words to the effect of) "Who defines these absolute morals?", then you must first prove that it is necessary to for non-conscious entities to be created by a conscious entity. Otherwise, people like me can just say "Why do you assume this?", or "What's your basis for assuming that?".
Certainly! I'm glad you asked! My basis for assuming that is the Bible. Plain, simple, and very straightforward.
But if you're arguing something, you have to start from a base, and work upwards.
I agree wholeheartedly. My base is the Bible. What is your base? Human thoughts? Philosophy? Let me point out a problem with your way of thinking. If what you say is true, viz., that God does not exist, then by definition I have absolutely no reason to believe you. Why? Because you have no higher authority to back you up--by your own model, we are all merely atoms banging around. Why should I listen to your atoms any more than I should listen to that derelict in the gutter over there? Sure, maybe you look more respectable, but you haven't provided me with any evidence for your alternative. You say the universe just "happened"? Huh. What makes you say that? You say that absolute morality can exist in a vacuum? Well, what makes you say that?
Unfortunately, in any argument involving God, this invariably proves to be exceedingly difficult.
No, it's really much easier than finding a base for atheism. I already gave it to you. Your problem will be as follows: If atheism is true, then I have no reason to believe it. Follow that? Because if atheism is true, then we have no meaning. Life is pointless. We're just a set of complex chemical reactions, moving about in our random ways upon this big terrestrial ball full of random atoms. You demonstrate that you're aware of this by trying to appeal to absolute morality. In doing so, you are using Christian thinking to prop up the atheistic model. Because in a truly consistent atheistic world, morals don't matter. Cutting someone's arm off is just rearranging some atoms that happened to be in the way. Why should it be a crime to rearrange atoms that were only in the way by chance? What's that? You say that causing someone pain is bad? Well, why? Tell me why! Because of absolute morals? But in order to acknowledge certain rules that everyone has to live by, you have to acknowledge a higher power. Why? Well, why should I pay any attention to morals in a vacuum? If we really are all just chemical reactions, then even if there was a set of morals apart from God, why should I pay any attention to them? Because I'm afraid of being punished by my fellow random chemical reactions? Perhaps, but that wouldn't put any credence into the argument that such morals existed; that would put credence in a "majority rules" situation. At which point, I could legitimately start lobbying for my own set of morals in an attempt to gain a majority and punish all the people who believed in the detached set of morals! There's no reason for me to follow rules that exist in a vacuum. Such rules would therefore be pointless.
Follow that? So since we know that moral code is not pointless, we know that they do not exist all by themselves as unenforceable, abstract things. Where does that leave us?
Matt
A little too transparent (Score:2)
I assume this all ironic, but do you have to make the arguments so transparently bad? Something a little more refined would evoke more laughter from me. Anyway, I'm sure you know your audience.
Re:A little too transparent (Score:2)
I assume the audience is me :) (Score:2)
Okay, I see The Masked Fruitcake's point. Kinda. If one assumes that God exists, then of course atheism will imply moral relativism. I was coming from the problem without this assumption. In my mind, if we're arguing the merits of atheism, then an assumption of God's existence kinda biases things one way.
It's like arguing the merits of Linux and Windows based on the assumption that Microsoft are evil. Even if you think that Microsoft is evil, one might want to discuss the techni
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:1)
Okay, I see The Masked Fruitcake's point. Kinda. If one assumes that God exists, then of course atheism will imply moral relativism. I was coming from the problem without this assumption. In my mind, if we're arguing the merits of atheism, then
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:2)
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:1)
The debate wouldn't matter because if atheism is true, there would be no meaning to life. Much of the rest of your post discussed this topic, so I'll respond below.
As I understand it, you're saying that either there is a God, or life is pointless because we're just a bunch of atoms governed by chemical reactions...
Correct. I'm no great writer (as should be obvious by now), but I
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:2)
Okay. Where should I start. Firstly, I'll head for your assertion that humanity cannot be moral without a God. Well, I'm sumarising, so please tell me if I have the wrong end of the stick here:
Anyway, proof by contradiction seems in order here. I'll describe a manner in which morality can come about without divine intervention. Generally, I'll refer to evolution in this case. Humans can achieve more in groups than alone. A group that is continuously in discord, or with it's own members trying to screw
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:1)
Then, following your argument through, you would have to agree that such morals aren't absolute. They're relative. What's good for one group isn't necessarily good for another, if they're evolving along with men. A lot of people have "survived" with "morals" different than ours. A whole bunch of Romans thought it was cool to watch men being brutally massacred in the arena. And Rome was successful enou
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:2)
Then, following your argument through, you would have to agree that such morals aren't absolute. They're relative. What's good for one group isn't necessarily good for another, if they're evolving along with men. A lot of people have "survived" with "morals" different than ours. A whole bunch of Romans thought it was cool to watch men being brutally massacred in the arena. And Rome was successful enough at surviving to rule the better portion of the planet for quite some time.
I think you've missed the
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:1)
Matt
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:2)
Re:I assume the audience is me :) (Score:1)
Yes, under such an argument morals would be relative. I wasn't arguing for the existance of absolute morals, I was arguing for the existance of a majority consensus of morality. And in the world today there is, indeed, a general agreement of what's moral and what's not. Killing is bad. Stealing is bad. Hurting people is bad