And the discussion spills into yet another journal entry!

Hey, I never said I believed it. I was just arguing the possibility :)

Ah, so you don't believe it! That's to your credit, then. Though the notion of "accepting the possibility" of such-and-such a belief is still ridiculous. If a belief is valid, then believe it! If not, then reject it!

I don't think so. Murder can be both morally right and morally wrong at the same time, just as how some things can be beautiful to some people and ugly to others. You might as well argue that there's no such thing as beauty, since that's in the eye of the beholder as well.

Except that I believe in objective beauty, also. :) The "eye of the beholder" business is rubbish; it's that eye that's flawed, not the beauty of a given object. However, regarding murder, I really have nothing more to contribute to this argument. If you think that "murder can be both morally right and morally wrong at the same time" then you need to go back to your logic classes. You are asserting that "A = Not A." That's just tomfoolery.

Then how does this equate with free will? If God created the Universe, knowing the outcome of it, then it stands to reason that He, in his infinite power, created the exact Universe he wanted to have, from beginning to end. If he didn't want such a Universe, then this Universe, and us, wouldn't exist. Thus, aren't we doing exactly how God planned from the get go?

Excellent! You seem to be totally correct on all points, and the answer to your question is "yes." So then, tell me where free will is excluded in all of this? Are you ever forced by God to do something against your will? No. Just because all of our actions are predestined, doesn't mean we don't want to do them.

But before we argue about free will, we must define what will is. So what is it? It is a hand, so to speak, that simply reaches into the heart and pulls out the biggest thing. Whatever we desire most, that is what our will pulls out and has us do. If I want to eat a tuna fish sandwich for lunch, then I am free to do so. God predestined that I would do so, but that doesn't mean that when lunchtime rolls around, I'm kicking and screaming that I want to eat peanut butter and jam instead. I'm free to pull up to the stoplight and turn left. I'll never pull up to a stoplight, want to turn left, and witness my car going right as God "forces" me to turn right.

So then: my free will dictates that I write this letter out to you. I am free to do so. I was predestined to do so from the beginning of all time. If I choose, I am also free to get up and go make myself a cup of tea. I might even go read a book. I might waver in indecision, knowing that I ought to install a light fixture when really I just want to play Starcraft. Whatever I ultimately decide to do, God predestined it. (I chose to install the light fixture. God predestined that, too.) He already knows whether I'm going to hit the "preview" button again, or whether I'll hit "save" instead this time. He foreordained it. Where is the inconsistency between free will and predestination?

Quantum physics is very very weird indeed, which is why I adore it. The best way to show the absolute weirdness of such things, is through the Two-Slit experiment.

[Two-Slit experiment snipped]

Which is why the particles from nothingness. From what we've observed about the nature of particles, that does very much happen. I rather doubt any physist in the world doesn't believe that this is the case.

Hm. Very interesting explanation, and I thank you for it. But I am wondering if you're coming to the wrong conclusions here. Again, I don't pretend to be a quantum physicist or anything of the sort, but I was under the impression (confirmed by a quick Google) that this whole experiment demonstrates quantum interference, how particles can be in multiple places at one time. I haven't read anything yet that purports that this experiment creates particles out of nothing.

...Fairies are a nice idea, but, like God, they cannot be disproved through experimentation or observation. If you can't disprove a theory, it ain't scientific.

Very good! You agree that it is a mistake to rely on science to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God and the validity of creation. What are we arguing about here, then? :)

I seem to recall there's quite a lot in the bible concerning the invading of towns, genocide, slavery, rape (or forced marriage), and suchlike.

For instance, should a rape victim be forced to marry the one who assaulted her, as would appear in Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

First, read the context, and recall who this was written to, and what it is. Deuteronomy is an exposition, by Moses, of the Ten Commandments. This particular passage was designed to protect the woman in the case of rape. After suffering from such an attack, a woman's chances for marriage dropped to nil, and as I'm sure you're aware, women then couldn't exactly just go out, get a job, and fend for themselves. Women relied on men to provide for them. This law forced the attacker to provide for the woman he had assaulted. It was a law of mercy, not a law of brutality.

Or in Leviticus 25:44-46, which claims that slavery is perfectly fine?

Again, this is a poor example of brutality. There is a fundamental difference between Hebrew slavery, (which is what you have here), and Roman slavery (an example of which might be the slave traders going to and from America in the early 19th century). There is an abundance of laws, set forth by God, that established Hebrew slavery with the slaves' well-being in mind. It was a heavily regulated system, very much different and far more merciful than the surrounding nations. Furthermore, as exposited to the Hebrews, they were commanded to conquer the nations, not to live in peaceful coexistence. Slavery was part of God's judgment on the pagan nations. Here you must also mark the difference between Hebrews enslaving the surrounding pagan nations, and enslaving their brethren to pay off debts, as you doubtless noticed in the surrounding verses. (Note that today, we no longer have the distinction between God's chosen people of Israel and "pagan nations," because God has now included the Gentiles in the new covenant. So, for example, it is not acceptable for US citizens to enslave Canadian citizens in the same manner as the Hebrews enslaved any given pagan race surrounding them when the text was written. Canadians are not excluded from the covenant as Canaanites were in the Old Testament.)

And that's not going into just how many people are wiped out by God in mass genocides of cities, towns, and even much of the whole planet, at one point.

So let's go there! Taking the flood for example. (You're also welcome to present any other example out of the Bible, if you prefer.) How was God unjust? He destroyed the wicked (who were willfully disobeying Him), and saved the righteous. Always, again and again, you will see this theme. It is the theme of all creation: God will destroy the wicked, and save the righteous. Where is the injustice?

Some things in the Bible don't speak out to me as being "right".

Which is ironic, given your views on right and wrong. Fortunately, you are still standing on a Trinitarian stage, so to speak, so we can continue. :)

It has some good ideas, and has some very good points, but quite a lot of it doesn't feel... well, right to me.

So tell me, what does "feel right" to you, and why should it matter? Oh wait. We've already been down that road. The answer is that you don't have any particular beliefs of your own, but think instead that a plethora of contradictory things are "possibilities." You have been looking too hard at quantum theory for too long. Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead, and our knowledge of its state does not change it. :)

Matt

Finally! I return. I'm still a bit hard-pressed with some projects I'm working on, but I shouldn't have any more real big delays. I'll let you know if I do. :) Now, back to the debate!

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. Things like that.

Ah! Thank you for clarifying, and my apologies for misunderstanding you. Now I know where we stand, and I can discuss relativism with you. :)

So if a majority can define morality, what defines a majority? Suppose I go find myself an unoccupied island that nobody cares about in the Caribbean, I take it over, and declare the island to be the sovereign nation of Mattopia. And furthermore, I declare that on Mattopia, it is perfectly acceptable to beat one's slaves on the head with coconuts, just for no reason in particular. Does this make me right? After all, the definition of "majority" depends entirely upon the size of the subset you're examining. If I say that slaves have no authority in the matter, only my own self-appointed "Congress of Mattopia", and I carry a majority in my Congress, then am I morally right?

To take a real-world example, when the majority of the world thought it was okay to carry out Roman slavery, were they morally right? What about when the majority of ancient cultures thought it was okay to sacrifice their children to false gods? Were they morally right? Now I know they no longer exist, but that doesn't matter. My question is, were they morally justified *at that time* just because they were in the majority? You cannot deny that there have been such cultures in the past. So when they were burning children alive, were they morally right or morally wrong?

My point here is that under your model, you have no authority to judge those cultures for what they did. You must admit that they were morally justified, because they had the majority of the population approving of those actions. That is why relativism is a heinous idea, and it cannot be true. We *can* say that those cultures were morally wrong, and what they did was utterly reprehensible, because we have a set of absolute standards, given by God, that govern right and wrong.

That society is flourishing shows to me that we're not doing too badly, and perhaps even getting better. At least in the part of the world I'm from, we don't persecute people much. People aren't nailed on crosses or burnt at the stake for being witches. And, in my own experience, the majority of people I've met are very very nice people indeed.

Interesting. Why do Islamic Middle Eastern countries flourish, then? They execute people for having discussions like we are now. But they're still selling plenty of oil. They seem to be doing fine, but the majority of them are not very nice people.

[...two examples of nice people...] So yep, I believe people are really very very nice. Most of the people I know either don't believe in God, or are undecided upon the subject. And yet they're exceedingly nice people. I even like to think I'm not too bad a person myself.

That doesn't explain the presence of all the crime that goes on in any given country. If humanity is naturally good, why do people commit murders? I believe that the reason your acquiantances are nice is called "common grace." Man is naturally sinful, but God grants all men a certain measure of "common grace" that restrains us from constantly committing the worst sins we could possibly think of. This is different from saving grace, whereby we become righteous before God. Not all men are given saving grace, but all men are granted a measure of common grace. Common grace does not prevent some men from committing terrible crimes, but it does prevent us from *all* committing those terrible crimes.

If it's an inherent rule of the Universe, then arguing how it can possibly be enforced or understood is the same as arguing how gravity pulls me down to earth despite my best efforts to outwit it.

You're right! It is the same! Gravity is governed by God too! :) Nothing happens "just because". If things did happen "just because", what's to prevent gravity from deciding to reverse itself tomorrow morning?

Man has managed to create artificial environments with absolute morals. In the Quake "Universe", one is rewarded for killing. The computer isn't intelligent, it just enforces a set of rules.

You make a critical assumption here--namely, that the morals in man's artificial environments *are* absolute. You are wrong. Man set those rules into place. If one man can set rules into place, another man can set rules that contradict the first man's. No absolutism here.

Arguing the mechanism behind these rules is irrelevent.

No it isn't. Depending upon the mechanism behind these rules, they may or may not be worth following. That depends on what mechanism is enforcing the rules. One can cheat in Quake, and not be any worse off, in terms of the game's "absolute morals".

Some things are there just because they are there. Subatomic particles sometimes disappear from one place and reappear somewhere else (quantum tunneling, and so forth). Why? Just because that's the way the Universe is made.

See? Right here you admit that these things happen "because that's the way the Universe is made." I agree with you. God made the universe a certain way, with rules that must be followed. That's why these things happen. God has given us ample evidence in the Bible that this is true. From the passage I quoted earlier, man is "without excuse" when it comes to recognizing "His eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1).

If morals are subjective, then by definition the only morals that matter to me are my own. I don't particularly want to murder anyone. In fact I don't believe it's right for the life of anyone to be taken away. Intellectually, I may rationalise it, but generally, it's just something I find morally wrong. In other words, it matters to me, and what else is there to know? If I think killing is inherently wrong, then why would the opinion of God or anyone else matter to my morality?

Allow me to take on your view of relativism for a moment. In this case, the reason you should care about anyone else's morality is that that "anyone else" may be able to enforce their differing morality upon you. Your morality carries only as much weight as you can enforce it with. Assume for a moment that we have only two people on the entire planet--Joe and Bob. Joe believes that murder is wrong. Bob believes that murder is right. One of these individuals has to be incorrect in his beliefs--they cannot both be right, because they believe in totally opposite things. The question of murder being "right" or "wrong" is a binary issue, and you must get a boolean answer out of it. It's a yes or no question. So which one is right, and which one is wrong? Relativism doesn't make any sense, because relativism dictates that at any given point in history, either one of these people could be right. Maybe in 200 B.C., Joe is right, whereas in A.D. 3000, Bob is right. But this doesn't make any sense!

See, Joe and Bob are on equal ground. Both of them are just men. Both of them are 35-year-old software engineers. Both of them drive Toyota Camrys. What makes one's opinion better than the other? They cannot both be right. But without God, neither of them has any authority to base his opinions on. One can appeal to "nature", one can appeal to "my pet hamster", but neither of them has any valid cause to assert his belief over the other's. This is why moral relativism simply does not work. You can say that "majority rules", but what happens when there is no majority? When both sides hold to mutually exclusive views, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.

Well, what I actually meant was how do you define meaning, not what was the meaning. "Meaning" is a wonderfully vague term.

Ah. Webster's definition is as good as any for now: Meaning: n. That which is meant or intended; intent; purpose; aim; object; as, a mischievous meaning was apparent. Or if you've had philosophy classes, I think (IIRC) it was referred to in the single one that I took as the "summum bonum" or something like that. Ties in with teleology--what is the purpose of man? What is the highest (or chief) end?

As an aside, if the entire Universe was created to glorify God, what does that say about the Creators ego? And why give us free will at all, if that's the case? Remarkably charitably of him, I'm sure, but what if glorifying him isn't in my schedule?

If glorifying Him isn't in your schedule, then He will still be glorified by demonstrating His justice by condemning you to hell for eternity. God will be ultimately glorified, either through your salvation or through your damnation. In both cases, his attributes are being displayed--in the former, his grace and mercy, and in the latter, his ultimate justice. God gave us free will because He loved us. He will be glorified no matter how we use it; it's only a question of which of His attributes will be glorified by any given person.

I mean, if I created an artificial intelligence at one point of human interlect, I wouldn't be too miffed if it decided not to glorify me.

That's a broken analogy. Mankind is no "artificial intelligence". The two are not analogous. God created us in His image. That is vastly and materially different from us building a computer. I don't think we can comprehend God's point of view, because we are not God. We do not have the power to even come close to emulating what He did in the creation. We cannot create an "artificial intelligence" in our image, as God created us in His.

And, if you'll excuse me here, but I really must be honest, it seems morally wrong to punish my creation for eternity if it decides not to glorify me of it's own accord. Especially if I haven't bothered to talk to it directly and point this fact out.

Unfortunately for unbelieving mankind, God *has* "bothered" to talk to us directly and point the fact out. It's called the Bible. I've briefly quoted from it. The Bible is God's Word. It is His direct revelation to man, and it tells us all that we need to know about Him and His plan for our redemption. God has also revealed His presence in His very creation. The evidence is all around us.

I skipped the next part discussing meaning, because now I'm not sure we were both on the same page. Revisit it, if you wish, with my definition of meaning, and make your arguments in that light. Though it sounds like you ought to read the book of Ecclesiastes. It's not too long, and it comes at your notion of finding "subjective meaning" as being vain. Why labor and toil, if all comes to nothing?

Now this is something I've always thought was a little unfair. In the atheists minds, God doesn't exist, so they're not deberately slapping Him in the face. ...

I've already pointed you to the Scripture that indicates that there is no excuse for them "not knowing" that God exists. And I've already pointed out that Scripture is the Word of God, given to us so that we might know. There is no excuse. The analogy holds.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:19-24)

This passage is actually in the context of divine election--that is, God chooses those whom He will save, and those whom He will damn. But I think it is very appropriate here. The atheist, if he continues in his rebellious beliefs, is an example of a "vessel of wrath", designed by God so that He might make known His glorious grace and mercy upon His followers.

The main problem is, that if someone doesn't believe in my existance, they're not necessarily doing it to spite me. An atheist doesn't go, "Hey, God put me here, so ha ha, I'm going to disbelieve in him."

Unfortunately for them, that's exactly what they're doing. They are spurning all the evidence that God has placed before them. There is no excuse for them. That much should be clear after reading this far.

Of course, if a chance is taken to repent, then really that makes it all good. When I die, and if God exists, he can say "Hey," and reveal to me Himself in all His glory. I'll nod and reconsider my views on the subject, and say, "Hmm, well, I rather think you do exist, and was quite wrong not to believe my soul reason for being was to glorify you." Of course, if I have to repent whilst I'm still alive, then God's being a teensy bit unfair on the matter.

What is this "unfairness" that you're talking about? "...who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?'" Your only chance for salvation is repentance and belief in Jesus Christ, while you're alive here. Those who die unregenerate will indeed confess that Christ is Lord, but it will be a confession in fear and trembling, on their way to eternal torment in hell.

For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. (Romans 14:11-12)

So I keep an open mind on Christainity, but I'm not a Christian any more than I am a Buddhist or a Jew.

The only place that open mind will get you is condemned by all the religions you sample from. That is what is so sad about people who form a sort of "conglomerate" belief out of a bunch of different religions--most if not all of those religions would condemn such people anyway. You're not gaining anything by straddling any fences. The fact of the matter is, you really *aren't* straddling any fences. There's only one "fence", and by refusing to acknowledge Christ as your Lord and Savior, you've chosen which side of the fence you're going to stand on.

Matt

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