"Where do you get your morality from? It can’t be God!" Debunked (A Response)
68
[Disclaimer: I wrote this Hub in an attempt to answer many of the questions I've been hearing regarding morality and the existence of God. It is not my intent to attack Atheists or those that believe otherwise. I have found, however, that many of the explanations I've heard on the flip side of the issue seem to break down when analyzed in a logical sense. I am one that loves others and respects others, whether they believe the same or differently. The purpose of this is to present where I see error in the logic of counter-arguments and to present what I see as a more logical conclusion. Thank you for reading!]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does God exist? If God does exist, is He good? If a good, or benevolent, God does exist, then why is there so much suffering and evil in this world? Is there such a thing as moral absolutes, or moral law? And if so, does this prove the need for a moral law giver? If so, must this moral law giver be God?
These questions and others like them have been asked by many. This is not a new topic. You can find a plethora of information about the topic, on both sides of the issue, from the most intellectual of minds to the very common opinions of average men. I do not claim that this article contains the most well-thought-out and logical of arguments that have ever been offered—I know there are people much smarter than I that have written on the topic. This article is simply one perspective among many that exist. Additionally, I would like to state that I am not going to try and tackle this topic comprehensively. There is so much to be said and even if I knew all there was to know, my goal is to write an article, not to write a book series on the matter. Having said that, let’s jump in with both feet!
I’ve recently been paying attention to the topic of morality and ethics. I was curious to know people’s opinions on the topic of “morality/ethics and God.” So I considered these questions: “Can morality/ethics exist apart from God? Does the very existence of morality prove the existence of God? How can a good God exist in a world full of pain and suffering?
I’ve read many people’s responses to such questions. Although some who oppose God’s existence have explanations that seem compelling at first glance, my response is, “But is this really a valid explanation that makes logical sense or a cleverly stated opinion?” In an attempt to answer these questions, I had to dig deeper. I will not be presenting data from the other camp’s point of view. If you would like to read one’s attempt to explain how morality exists without God, please click HERE to read a fellow hubber’s point of view. (Thank you for your opinion on the flip side of the issue, Philantrophy2012!).
MORAL LAW AND GOD
This article will be predominately focused on the question of morality. I would like to suggest that Absolute Moral Law exists and that the existence of such a law DOES prove the existence of a moral agent that transcends humanity—namely, God. Therefore, I would like to frame the rest of this article within the context of what is called the “Axiological” Argument. The argument goes like this:
1. There is an Objective (Absolute) Moral Law
2. Every Law Has a Law Giver
3. Therefore, there is an Objective (Absolute) Law Giver
4. The Objective (Absolute) Law Giver is God.
If the foundation of this argument is true, then the conclusion is also true. Simply stated: If there IS such a thing as an absolute Moral Law, then it is logical to conclude that there IS an Absolute Moral Law Giver. The first task, therefore, is to determine if there is, indeed, such a thing as Absolute Moral Law.
A helpful distinction to make at the onset of this argument is to look at the difference between “what is” and “what ought to be.” When humankind looks at the world from a descriptive standpoint, it does not try to distinguish between what is “good” or “bad” but simply observes and describes “what is” and “what is not.” Within the realm of this descriptive analysis of moral behavior, humans do not really need help from an “outside source.” In other words, this way of viewing the world does not necessarily mandate the existence of God. If, on the other hand, moral behavior is more than each culture simply describing behavior, then there must be an overarching, superseding morality that exists. In this case, morality is not just described—it is prescribed. Instead of behavior being described as “what is” and “what is not,” it is categorized by “what ought to be” and “what ought not to be.” Reader, I implore you to answer this question: Do we live in a world that merely describes behavior or do we live in such a place where behaviors s are deemed as “right” or “wrong”?
“Just because humanity makes statements on what ‘ought to be’ does not mean that God is needed,” you may say. I would say that such a statement is an opinion, but not a logical conclusion. Let me explain why. For the concept of “what ought to be” to exist, there must exist a type of Moral Absolute, or Moral Law. How does one know what “ought to be” if one does not know what “ought NOT to be”? And how does one know that something is “wrong” unless there is an absolute or a law that states such a behavior is wrong? I’m not talking about a law that is mandated by a state such as, “Do not go over the speed limit.” The type of law I am talking about need not necessarily exist as a written statement of belief by a given culture. I am referring to a moral law that is built into your very humanity. It is a law that is written on one’s heart—or another way to think of this is as the concept of conscience. Both adults and children alike can experience guilt, shame, and regret, even if they haven’t been “taught” such responses to having done “wrong.” If there is no “law” to break, then there could be no concept of having done wrong. And if one cannot experience an action as “wrong” then one cannot have responses such as were mentioned above.
You may be reading this and thinking, “But there is no such thing as absolutes—everything you are describing refers to people’s varying opinions, perspectives, and beliefs.” Well, first off, if you say there is no such thing as absolutes, that statement itself is an absolute and therefore becomes irrelevant according to your line of thinking. Considering the second statement, allow me to share a metaphor to illustrate how although moral relativism may seem “to work” philosophically, it does not work very well in the practical, everyday world in which we live.
THE RULE OF NO RULES NOT SO PRACTICAL: A METAPHOR
A young teenage girl didn’t agree with the “rules” by which her family lived. She viewed her parents’ household rules as their opinions, of which she should not be forced to live under. One summer day, she asked for a family meeting and explained to her parents that the things they deemed “wrong” were simply their opinion. And she should be allowed to make up her own mind about what was “right and wrong” and live according to her own guidelines. Her father, who was a Sociology Professor, responded with the following reply: “Let’s try this for a week. We live according to our rules, and you live according to your rules.” The girl’s mother reluctantly agreed to go along with the trial, although she feared for her daughter’s safety and well-being. The young girl decided that she would only have one rule: NO RULES! She would do what she felt like doing, when she felt like doing it. Before she went to bed that night, she informed her parents that she would no longer be doing her chores on a regular basis. A mess didn’t bother her, so she wasn’t going to be a “clean freak” like the rest of the family. She fell asleep that night, feeling the most free she’d ever felt.
The next day started off great. She slept in as late as she wanted—she had thrown her alarm clock in the garbage. She woke up in the afternoon to an empty house. There was a note on the table that read, “We left to spend the day at the beach. We will be back after dinner!” The young girl was disappointed. Her family knew that going to the beach was her favorite thing to do—why wouldn’t they tell her that they were planning on going? She would have woken up earlier had she known what she would miss by sleeping in. “Oh well,” she said. “I am free! I have the whole house to myself, all day long. I can do whatever I want.” She went to open the pantry to get some food. Much to her surprise, there was a lock on the door! She saw a note fastened to the door that read, “Your mother and I have decided that since you will no longer be contributing to the maintenance of the household, you can no longer enjoy the benefits of labor.”
The girl’s jaw dropped—she couldn’t believe her parents would do such a thing! She ran upstairs to get her piggy bank. She knew she had at least $10—that would feed her for the day. When she went upstairs, there was a bright, yellow post-it note in place of where her piggy bank was supposed to sit. It looked like her older brother’s handwriting. It read, “Hey sis—remember all those times I gave you my extra change? I decided I wanted it back.” The young girl’s face turned red with anger. “This is NOT fair!” she screamed. She opened her closet door to take out her violin. Playing music was a way that helped her to relax. But when she opened the door, she was face-to-face with yet another note. “We know you did the laundry for a month to earn your violin, but we decided that we would rather use the money for an extravagant day out.” This was the icing on the cake. How could her family be so unfair and cruel? At least nobody had taken her computer. She sat down and wrote a very long, well-thought-out letter to her family, stating how unfair and hurtful their actions had been. When they got home that night, she called for a family meeting and said that she had something to share. “We decided family meetings can only be called by parents,” her father responded. But before the girl could open her mouth to reject, her father smiled and said, “So—I call a family meeting.” The girl read her letter aloud. Her father responded, “I can see your point. I suppose there should be a principle of fairness that overrides our personal opinions on the matter. Are you saying that there is a universal principle of fairness to which I should submit?” “Yes!” his daughter emphatically responded. “Then I suppose this universal principle of fairness also applies to you?” her father questioned. “Yes,” the teenage girl answered sheepishly.
This may be a simplified version of the concept, but hopefully this story illustrates the conflict with which many live. They don’t want some “law” to impose its standards of behavior on them, yet they still want to enjoy the benefits of others adhering to the very principles they say do not and should not exist! There is no getting around the fact that even those who argue that there are no absolute values, are holding an absolute value. The argument against there being no such thing as “moral absolutes” falls apart in a similar way. Let me illustrate this point. If moral absolutes don’t exist, then nothing can be considered fair, just, or right. Consider a judge who has strong opinions one way or another. Regardless of those strong opinions, we count on the judge to make decisions based upon something other than his/her personal opinions. We expect for fair and just decisions to be made based upon law. Would you prefer to live in a world in which each person being tried for criminal behavior was judged according to his or her own, personal law based upon his or her individual belief? “I’m sorry judge—but my law says it is good to kill a spouse when they are no longer physically attractive. It works for me!”
DO MORAL ABSOUTES TRANSCEND CULTURE AND TIME?
“But different cultures have different rules about what is right and wrong! One culture can’t dictate to another what they can and can’t do.” This is another statement that I’ve often heard. Well, let’s explore this further. True, what may be fine here is rude or even “wrong” there, but there are some universal values that transcend culture and time. For instance, it is never right for people to kill whoever they want to kill, for absolutely no reason. There are differences when it comes to the topic of what constitutes just or unjust killing, as every culture must determine when it is appropriate or not to kill. Regardless of the specific outcomes of this law in each culture, the point is that this discussion comes up for negotiation because there is an “ought to” to be discussed. Here is another moral absolute: I suggest that every culture would agree that torturing little children, just for fun, is absolutely, morally wrong. If such a society was discovered, I assure you it would be fiercely objected. It is imperative for the good of mankind that we agree to basic, moral absolutes. If we do not, then how could we ever judge the moral behavior of societies? If we can’t come into agreement that some things are just wrong in terms of how people are treated, then how could we ever oppose those who mistreat others?
CAN EVOLUTION EXPLAIN MORALITY?
If there are absolute moral values, then the next logical question is—“Why? Where did they come from?” If they don’t come from God because “God does not exist,” then they must come either from nature or from ourselves. Is this a logical conclusion? Many Atheists cite that they believe in theories such as evolution to explain the origin of our species. Does the theory of evolution agree with a scientific explanation of the origin of morality? Let’s take a closer look. If such a correlation exists, then that would mean that morality is a part of our overall evolution. Evolution suggests that whatever has survived is most fit. Therefore, whatever exists is the result of natural selection. In terms of morality, for example, a value such as “fairness” would only exist as a result of natural selection. Let’s look at an example of an “immoral action” to test this theory. But first, we must ask ourselves, “What constitutes an immoral action?” A simple definition is: “something that causes harm to others.” This definition implies that if there are no harmful consequences to an action, it can thus be deemed as ethical. As such, nothing is “inherently” wrong or right. It is only when an action brings harm to another that it is considered “wrong.”
“What is wrong with that definition?” you may ask. Consider the example of adultery. Let’s say that adultery is deemed wrong when it harms the faithful spouse. The consequences can include mental and emotional suffering, physical disease, and perhaps unwanted pregnancies. But what if the act of adultery does NOT lead to such consequences? What if the faithful spouse never finds out, and thus his/her feelings are never hurt? No diseases are spread and no unwanted pregnancies occur? Would the act of adultery no longer be considered wrong? For the one that does not believe in God, what valid reason exists for explaining why harming others “should” be wrong? Back to the example of the cheating spouse: If the faithful spouse is not experiencing pain because he/she is unaware of his/her partner’s unfaithfulness, and if the cheating spouse is getting his/her needs met by having an affair, then what prompts one to feel as if it is a “wrong” behavior?
We must answer the question of from where these moral absolutes come. Some suggest that people choose morality not because of moral law, but because it is self-serving to be moral. Kind of like, if you are “good,” people will like you. If people like you, you are happier and feel good about yourself, etc. But the question begs, “Why should being “good” make one happy?” Others say that a person tries to do “good” to avoid punishment. If one breaks the law, he or she may go to jail, so he/she behaves in such a way as to avoid punishment. However, neither of these suggestions seem to carry much weight. People do selfless things all the time that are beneficial to others, rather than choosing to be self-serving. And the second example, which is in essence a motivator of fear, is not very strong either. People often do things that they know will reap negative consequences. Fear of punishment cannot account for the many people who make decisions based on something other than fear of consequences.
CAN HUMANS BE THE SOURCE OF MORAL LAW?
Let’s explore this topic from yet another angle. Perhaps we, the species of human beings, are the source of moral law. This, too, breaks down. Have you ever done something and later felt regret or guilt? Where did these feelings come from? Maybe we learned them from our culture? Cultures change over time, right? If morals are learned by our culture, then they should change over time, as well. Many people argue that this is, indeed, the case. How we behave today as compared to fifty years ago, as opposed to 500 years ago, has definitely changed, right? Well—yeah! But just because behaviors have changed, doesn’t mean that moral absolutes have changed. Sure, we may behave differently, but is it any more acceptable to “kill whoever you want,” or to “torture children for fun” or to “have an affair” today as it was fifty or five hundred years ago? Regardless of changed behavior, what we “ought to do” is still the same.
MORAL LAW AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND SUFFERING
Let me end this article back where I started. My observation has been that those who make statements such as, “There are no moral absolutes” are often the same who are declaring, “A benevolent God cannot exist because there is too much suffering and evil in the world.” If there is such a thing as evil, then there must be such a thing as good. For one to assume that there is such a thing as good, then one would also assume that there is such a thing as moral law—which is the basis on which good and evil can be differentiated. For moral law to exist there must be a moral law giver. But for the one trying to prove that a benevolent God does not exist, one cannot ascribe to the existence of a moral law. If there is no transcendent moral law giver, then there is no absolute moral law. If moral law does not exist, then there is no good. If there is no good, then there is no evil. But how can there be the problem of evil if there is no evil? The problem of evil cannot be solved by stating that God does not exist. This is illogical and the very fact that the question is raised creates the weight under which the argument collapses. There is no problem of evil if there is no evil, and there can be no evil in an amoral universe. And in an amoral universe, one wouldn’t be concerned to raise the question in the first place. If one wants to address the problem of evil and suffering, then it must be done while keeping God in the equation.
A REASON WHY PEOPLE DON’T LIKE GOD
But many people don’t want to keep God in the equation. They don’t want there to be a moral law giver because they don’t want there to be a moral law. They want to be on the receiving side of the benefits of moral law, but don’t want to be condemned by that same law. The moral law exposes their immorality. Who is judged as immoral? All people—for there is not one who has kept this perfect law. It is because of sin that the law declares that we are guilty. The Bible says of this in Romans 7:
"The law code had a perfectly legitimate function. Without its clear guidelines for right and wrong, moral behavior would be mostly guesswork. Apart from the succinct, surgical command, "You shall not covet," I could have dressed covetousness up to look like a virtue and ruined my life with it. 8-12Don't you remember how it was? I do, perfectly well. The law code started out as an excellent piece of work. What happened, though, was that sin found a way to pervert the command into a temptation, making a piece of "forbidden fruit" out of it. The law code, instead of being used to guide me, was used to seduce me. Without all the paraphernalia of the law code, sin looked pretty dull and lifeless, and I went along without paying much attention to it. But once sin got its hands on the law code and decked itself out in all that finery, I was fooled, and fell for it. The very command that was supposed to guide me into life was cleverly used to trip me up, throwing me headlong. So sin was plenty alive, and I was stone dead. But the law code itself is God's good and common sense, each command sane and holy counsel.13I can already hear your next question: "Does that mean I can't even trust what is good [that is, the law]? Is good just as dangerous as evil?" No again! Sin simply did what sin is so famous for doing: using the good as a cover to tempt me to do what would finally destroy me. By hiding within God's good commandment, sin did far more mischief than it could ever have accomplished on its own.”
A WAY OUT OF THE MESS
What, then, can we do? Are we to die in this sin, as helpless prisoners to its deceptive and evil power? We are guilty of breaking the moral law and are under a death sentence because of it. But there has been made a way to new life, by the only one that was able to keep and fulfill the law. He took our punishment upon himself, though he himself was innocent, and he became our advocate.
16-18"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him. 19-21"This is the crisis we're in: God-light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness. They went for the darkness because they were not really interested in pleasing God. Everyone who makes a practice of doing evil, addicted to denial and illusion, hates God-light and won't come near it, fearing a painful exposure. But anyone working and living in truth and reality welcomes God-light so the work can be seen for the God-work it is." John 3:16-21.
You are not guiltier than I—for we both have sinned and fallen short of the standard of “goodness.” Here is the difference: The one who says “yes” to God is pardoned and says “yes” to the gift of eternal life; while the one who rejects God, also says “no” to His gift of freedom from the condemnation of sin and death under the law. This gift is not earned, for it is freely given. But even a gift freely given, must be received. God is not asking you to give up your freedom, hopes, and dreams to become His slave. He is asking you to give up that which enslaves you, so that He can give you your hopes and dreams, and set you free.
FOR GOD OR AGAINST GOD—YOUR BELIEF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
It is not as complex as it seems. There are two choices: Agree with God, or agree with those who oppose God. The choice is the most important you will ever make—so do not decide flippantly. When considering this choice, please be reminded that ‘Religion’ or those that say they represent God can be flawed and many do a very poor job of representing the true, living God. God is not a God of fear—for He even says that His perfect love casts out all fear. Those who use the “scare tactic” of “you better believe or else…” are using methods that, in my opinion, are not in alignment with the heart or ways of God. The best example of God can be seen in the person of Christ. If you want to know what God is like, study Jesus, for He, Himself, said that He is the exact representation of God. Make an informed decision—it’s not quite helpful to say “no” to a God you’ve never actually, really met, or have misinformation about. And to choose to be an “Atheist” is not a neutral choice. Just as the Christian has beliefs and are “for God,” so the Atheists have beliefs and are “against God.” If you are not sure—be Agnostic until you are confident. If you consider yourself to be an Agnostic, I’ve written a prayer just for you. Click HERE to see the prayer.
I’d like to close this article by sharing some statements of belief. You’ve probably heard of a “Creed,” which is usually associated with a religious statement of belief. Those that believe in God usually have a Creed by which they adhere. Those that don’t believe in God have a set of beliefs by which they live, as well, but they probably haven’t written it down and called it a Creed. Philosopher and apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias has taken it upon himself to create a creed that represents the common philosophical beliefs of most Atheists. Please see this creed below. If you would like to see my own, personal creeds that I’ve created regarding my beliefs in God, I’ve created links at the bottom of this article. No matter your belief—here are my final thoughts. You are valued—you are loved—you were created on purpose, and for a purpose. May you seek and find Truth and may the Truth set you free. May Goodness be upon you and within you and may you live your life with Love and without regrets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Atheist's Creed by Dr. Ravi Zacharias
Note***My intention for including this Creed is not to "poke fun" at the Atheist. Although I have not authored it, I felt it to be important to include it because it shows, even if in an exaggerated way, how the main arguments of Atheism seem quite contradictory when looked at as a whole.
“We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin. We believe that everything is ok, as long as you don’t hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your definition of knowledge. We believe in sex before, during and after marriage, we believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun, we believe that sodomy is ok, we believe that taboo’s are taboo. We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated and you can prove anything with evidence. We believe there is something in horoscopes, UFO’s and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Muhammad and ourselves. We believe he was a good moral teacher although we think his good morals were really bad. We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness, they only differ in matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes nothing because when you ask the dead they say nothing. If death is not the end then there is heaven for all except maybe Hitler, Stalin, and Khan. We believe in Masters and Johnson, what is selected is average, and what is average is normal and what is normal is good. We believe in total disarmament, we believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed, and that the Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians will be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good, it is only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society, society is the fault of conditions, and conditions are the fault of society. If man does what is right for him, then reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will re-adjust, history will alter. We believe there is no absolute truth except that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought.
If chance is the father of all flesh, then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. When in a state of emergency the sniper kills the child, the youth go looting, or bomb blasts rock the school, it is nothing more than the sound of man worshiping his maker.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To see my Creed on what I believe about God CLICK HERE
To see my Creed on what I believe about Jesus CLICK HERE
To see my Creed on what I believe about Holy Spirit CLICK HERE
To read about other reasons why some people believe in God CLICK HERE
To read a prayer I wrote that changed my life CLICK HERE
To read a prayer I wrote for the Agnostic CLICK HERE
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (6)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful (2)
- Interesting (5)
CommentsLoading...
@ Franto:
Here's an issue as to why you perceive as you do: philosophy first, and science second.
Greg explains this better than I would so instead of trying to summarize what he's already said, I'll just copy it below for you to read. This is the problem we are having:
Following the Evidence
By: Gregory Koukl
Can the argument really be made that the Christian view is less biased than your average scientist's or historian's?
How open are you or what is it that compels you to make particular decisions about your beliefs? Two or three weeks ago I talked about a book I was reading called The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, and he made the case that morality is a result of the process of evolution. I think he's wrong.
The author makes the point that the world does seem designed. This is why he feels comfortable using design and function language to describe the process of naturalistic evolution. If a thing has a function, it was meant to accomplish a particular end; and if it's meant for or designed for something, there is an intent of how it is to be used, or an intent involved in what it is to accomplish. Intent is a function of mind. You can't have design without intent, and you can't have intent without mind. That seems to suggest that every time you use design language to describe the universe, you're really talking about a mind behind the universe. Many people call that Mother Nature, which is no mind at all, but just accident and natural selection.
This is what Robert Wright believes. My question is, if the universe looks designed, why do we opt for a naturalistic, non- intentional explanation for the so-called design features, rather than saying that somebody, someone, designed it? He essentially admits that a design explanation is as adequate in itself to explain the features we find in the natural universe, as is natural selection. I don't think it's a toss-up, though. I don't think natural selection is really capable of explaining the universe as we find it. But even if I were to grant that, or say, "Yes, natural selection can explain this, and supernatural design can explain it. We have two empirically equivalent explanations for the same effect--when I say "empirically equivalent," I mean the evidence equally justifies either one.
What's being done here is philosophy first, and science second.
The question is, why must we opt for natural selection? The answer is that in the minds of Robert Wright and many others who hold this view, design is simply not an option. He makes this point in his book, "What other options are there?" He argues like so many others, Here we are, so we must have evolved, which shows that they don't even consider the option that God might have created as a viable one. The question is why? Is it the case that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, and it's just a ridiculous presumption, a function of wishful thinking of religious people? That it's just a mere invention, and since it's only an invention and we have no reason to believe it at all, we are stuck with the natural order of things? No, that isn't the case at all.
What's being done here is philosophy first, and science second. This is very important because wasn't this what we were just talking about with the Jesus Seminar? You read in the papers, "The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," or the miracles in the Bible, or the sayings of Jesus, and there is no evidence. It's just not there. Or conversely, they will say, "New Evidence Proves the Stories are Fiction." Of course, they're not talking about real evidence at all, and what they offer is not new at all; it's the same old thing. When we look at the details of why the scholars would believe this, not just what one believes, then we see a different situation. We see philosophy done first before history is even attempted.
A lot of these discussions--the scientific discussion I just mentioned, the historical discussion we talked about last hour-- are preceded by a prior discussion that is not scientific or historical at all, it's philosophical. The difference between a J.P. Moreland, or a Greg Koukl, or any other informed Christian arguing the case is not that we are biased so we must conclude what we do, but it's that our philosophy broadens the possibilities of things we might consider, depending on where the evidence leads us.
I'm a Christian, I am open to either a naturalistic explanation or a supernatural explanation. Both are possible in my world view. I can follow the evidence where it leads me. That's the case whether we're talking about cosmology or the historicity of the Gospels. I can follow where the evidence leads me. Someone who has removed the possibility of God acting in a certain way prior to examining the physical evidence has started out with the idea that God is not involved and there are no miracles, whether applying to science and cosmology or to the historicity of the Gospels.
If you start out there, guess what you'll never be able to find, even if the evidence shows it? You will never be able to find a miracle. Why? Because before you've started you have arbitrarily excluded that from the possibilities and , I might say, without proper justification. You see, bias on a Christian side (meaning that he has a point of view) doesn't inform the conclusions in the same way that these biases inform the conclusion in the case of a Marcus Borg on the Bible or Robert Wright on the issue of evolution. They must come up with a conclusion that leaves God out of the picture because their philosophy demands such a thing. I don't have to come up with that conclusion. I can follow the evidence where it leads me, and that's the most critical distinction.
@ Franto: We may just have to agree to disagree here. My position is firm that you are making very bold claims with insufficient evidence. Just because you feel absolute and strong about it, doesn't make it so. I can see that my claims are triggering anger in you. Might I ask why this is the case? Thanks!
You keep missing the central point!
The whole natural world DOES exist with out demonstrating any requirements ever for any gods.
Nature provides support for all kinds of life on planet earth. Humans are just one form of life among many who can and DO exist without requiring some god.
If aunts, bees, birds and fish exist right next to use humans, and nature is our common origin and basis of support, why the hell do you want to inflict this crazy demand on nature to require your silly idea of a god when it demonstrates constantly the remarkable ability to function so well on its own without such an absurd religious invention as that god of yours - even though you are sure to survive and flourish quite well with out this illogical mental crutch?
@ Franto:
I am serious sir, yes I am! Yes, I cannot exist without what is provided in nature—everything that I need to survive is just right. The earth is not too close to the sun nor too far. We have just the right amount of elements, gravity, the tilt of the earth’s axis, etc. It’s quite amazing that such a habitable zone even exists. All of this is just the way God created it to be. What is that “dark matter” that holds all things together? That mysterious, invisible energy that sustains life? Interesting how when scientists explain the characteristics of this “dark matter” that it sounds just like how the Bible describes God as being. It’s interesting how Quantum Physics sounds just like how the Spirit realm works. It’s interesting how all of this was in the Bible before we “discovered” such grand mysteries of the universe through science. Look at the collective information that is out there—it overwhelmingly proves the existence of a creator. Many of the brightest minds in Science and those who study astronomy come to believe that there is “something” that exists beyond ourselves. I believe you have failed to look at the many brilliant scientists, philosophers, historians, etc. that believe in the existence of God and are far from being “delusional.”
In regards to your example of digesting my food, I’m thankful that God thought of the perfect way for me to digest my food. Your description of nature being awesome is indeed true. The glory of God’s creation is quite incredible—just imagine how incredible the God is that designed this all! You state facts about nature, many of which are true, but still you've not provided good evidence about the origins of nature. These grand theories overlook the most important part of an argument—the foundation. They crumble upon themselves. I still see no intellectual, compelling evidence for origin.
I agree with part of your statement in regards to God making “no sense.” His ways are higher than our ways and it is absolutely true that an infinite, supreme being cannot be fully grasped.by the finite mind. Nature is grand, indeed, and the most grand part of nature is the human being. What a divine mystery! What a complex and beautiful creation.
Even if all the parts of evolution were true (and I believe some parts are true), there’s no reason why God could not have created such a process. It’s not that I want “more” evidence necessarily—it’s that I want compelling evidence.
Regarding Dawkins and others, this is not a new argument. To begin with, let’s clarify how things are made. If you are a cook, you are not making something new in the sense of making a whole material object ex nihilo. You are taking various ingredients and putting them together and the result is a food. A builder takes various ingredients and puts them together and makes a house. An artist takes various ingredients and makes a painting.
All of these can be considered creations. In evolutionary thought, this is the kind of creation that would be taking place. New matter is not being created. Matter is just being put together in new ways. The other way to make something would be an ex nihilo type creation. This is the kind of creation that is typically ascribed to the God of Christianity, in that He created the world out of nothing. In what sense is it meant to ask, “Who created God"? It would seem that Dawkins would want to go with the former. However, can this really apply to God? No. God is not described in Christian theology as a material being, meaning there are not material origins of God.
So in what sense can God be said to have been made? Is God made the latter way, ex nihilo out of nothing? Of course, if we go this route then the question simply gets pushed back further. “Well who made that god?" When the baker bakes the cake, the cake did not exist as a cake before. When the builder builds a house, the house did not exist as a house before. When the artist paints a painting, the painting did not exist as a painting before. The only exception is that these existed as ideas in the minds of their creators.
The same can be said to ex nihilo creation. If the universe is created ex nihilo, then that means there was a time when the universe did not exist, and then it was brought into existence. With each of these points, we are considering existence to be an attribute. When something is made its existence is, what we would say, actualized. It is made a reality.
So what is God’s relation to existence? God alone has it as the case that His form IS existence. What it means to be is found in God. There cannot be any differences in nature when your nature is only one thing, existence. God’s nature is existence, but existence is not God’s nature. Other things that exist do so by the will of God contingently. Even if something existed eternally, it would still be dependent on God in the sense that its existence is not its own. There are different ways things can be, and nothing is the same way God is.
The question then of “Who made God?” is like asking “What made existence?” If it was an existent thing, we have a contradiction as that which existed, existed, and then made existence. If it was a non-existent thing, we also have a huge problem because that which is not cannot do anything.
An eternal universe is not its own existence. Neither is a multiverse. Evolution talks about the ways existence can change. It cannot explain existence itself. This is the fundamental question to be answered. How do you explain existence itself?
You can't be serious!
Some god created nature but nature being supreme is a manmade religion? Where is your sense of reality?
If you are not clear in your own mind and absolutly sure of the fact that you are a product of nature, unable to exist for another day without nature as your bases of support in all you require to stay alive, which reality do you live in?
One can obviously live without thinking of a god, wanting to be loved by one, and all the other absurd, god delusional ideas about a "DEVINE" god as the creator of nature - that's a fact!
You can't even digest your food without the help of natural processes which gave you the ability to host a variety of bacteria inside of you to get through another day - another fact!
That's how evident it is to most people with some degree of knowledge, understanding of science and reason that gods are a product of fiction - but life on earth is a purly natural product perfectly well suited for us to exist without any gods of any kind - forget totally about a cultist christian god and all the religious myths as well!
Gods make no sense, never have and never will!
What more evidence do you want that no life can exist on planet earth were it not for our naturally evolved - not god created - environment!
What do you really know about nature? What are your qualifications and/or areas of study of science to ever reach an understanding of nature which would point to a god like "BEING" capable of "CREATING" nature?
What a total absurdity!
Sure, you can say anything you wish ... but why don't you listen to the conversation the Cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss had with Richard Dawkins at the Arizona State University, so we can talk about substantive issues here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U&feature
The Origins Project talks exactly about your question of "Something from Nothing" without any gods - two hours of highly informative insights ... and makes it very clear, to invoke and give credit to gods, is not at all reasonable before we grasp the fact "Nothing" does NOT exist in the cosmological context!
Change is continuous, but we are far from undestanding all forms of change possible in nature ... listen to the part where Dr. Krauss talks about how the Big Bang may have come about with out any gods @ 0:37:00
Empty space has energy because "Nothing" is unstable!
Before you can be so sure about your god, let's see how sure you can possibly be about nature demanding a creator to start genetics - unlike your TV or PC, etc. which are not alive and have been obviously designed by humans during the recent period of technological development.
You claim to know so much about your god who created nature, but do you know enough about natures requirents to demand the existance of a god without even understanding the anthropic principle?
Again, check @ 0:46:00 where they show that deistic gods were NOT required as creators and again in a reply to a question @ 1:50:20
There simply is no factual basis for any gods, especially some sort of christian deity!
Your god delusion is firmer in place than I thought, and since you seem to like it that way, what else would you suggest we try to restore a greater sense of sanity and rationality into your life?
Good luck,
Franto in Toronto
@ Franto: You are welcome—yes, it is good discussion. It is ironic how you view my views as absurd and I view yours the same! Let’s be honest about this first: each person comes from an angle of having presuppositions about a particular topic. If you have your mind totally made up that to believe in God is absurd, then you will filter any evidence, whether good evidence or bad evidence, through that filter. It is hard to take off one’s filter and to be truly, truly objective. The reason I think that I’m objective is because I’ve studied this from multiple angles before coming to a conclusion. I didn’t blindly accept “God as real” and believe everything I ever heard. I am a deep thinker—a person who likes to research, understand, analyze, and am a passionate seeker of truth. I didn’t start with the conclusion saying, “God must exist therefore let me find evidence to prove this is the case.” I started with the premise that “If I really study all of the evidence and search for truth, I will find truth.” It is BECAUSE of intellect, logic, evidence, and the objective search for truth and reality that I believe in God.
I must stop right here and make a distinction between “God” and “Religion.” Many use these two terms interchangeably, but to me, they can be quite opposites. Religion DOES fit your definition of being made up by man for his own intents and purposes. God, on the other hand, is not religion. Religion is a manmade system of beliefs—many of them false. God is not a belief—God is a being. Religion often brings manipulation, control, brainwashing, and damage. God brings freedom, choice, wisdom, and revelation. Where religion seeks to conform people into a mold and expects them to blindly trust, God seeks to free people to be the unique individual they were created to be and gives this a record of faithfulness so that their trust does not need to be blind.
Where we are at in impasse is that where you believe that I believe in an illusion, I would say you are blinded by an illusion. For one to search all of the evidence that nature has to offer for the existence of a Divine Creator and to say “the evidence is not there” is exactly what I must call an illusion.
The concept of “God” got into my head through what I was taught and heard from others—but the REALITY of the real God got into my heart through what I’ve personally experienced in relationship with Him.
You say there is no evidence for nature being created by God—I beg to differ. I could say that you have no evidence to conclude that it WASN’T created by God. You could give me all of the evidence and facts for how nature has created its various components, and I could say, “And God created nature—God created that process.” Let’s use simple logic for a moment. Is nature not simply amazing? Does it not have a breathtaking design to it? Would you think I was absurd if I told you that nobody created this laptop that I’m writing on right now. Would you say its logical if I told you that my laptop has everything it needs to have created itself and you can’t prove to me that it has a designer? Yet why is nature, something that is so much more complex, allowed to exist without a designer? I could give a million examples and you would agree with all of them except when it comes to the same logic that applies to the existence of God, you would say that is illogical. Either a way of thinking and the law of causality is true or it is not true. It cannot be true for all things except for God. That “lack of logic” is not really a lack of logic—it is a lack of you wanting to believe. You see only the “evidence” that you want to see. Perhaps experiences such as your experience with your Aunt have also assisted in your coming to the conclusions that you now state are “true.” It may be true that you believe such things, but you cannot prove that these things you state are objectively true. You cannot prove that what I believe is objectively not true. I would say that any evidence you give me in terms of science and logic and reason is the very same evidence that proves the existence of God. How can two look at the same evidence and come to two totally different conclusions? That is a good question, my friend. I do not believe as I do because I am ignorant—quite the contrary. I’ve attacked this topic from every angle. Unfortunately, many self-professed Christians cannot say the same. Many stand for and represent a “God” that is not really the true God. If people got a glimpse of what God is really like, they would stop hating Him and fall to their knees in worship because of how amazingly good and awesome He is.
Let’s get to the bottom line. Where did nature, in all her glory (she represents the glory of God) first come from? Can you tell me it is logical to believe that nature—or matter—or creation—came from nothing? That nothing just existed and then BOOM—something began to exist? Or would you tell me that the environment was just right with the right gasses, etc. for life to spark? Where did that environment come from? Did it just come from nothing? It is more absurd to believe that something came from nothing at all than to believe that there exists a supernatural being that is outside of time and space that created the first spec of whatever was first created.
You ask me what I can’t see the truth in reality which shows “no evidence” of nature depending on God—I can’t see the truth in that reality because it is neither true nor reality—that is why I can’t see it.
Why can’t I let nature be supreme? Because it is not. God created the heavens, the heavens did not create God. God is supreme. Why do you believe nature is supreme? What evidence do you have to support such a notion? You cannot say that “God does not exist” therefore you don’t have to provide evidence. Your statement of God not existing is a statement, not a proven reality. You have made plenty of assumptions and statements of belief, but where is your evidence? Just as you demand evidence for my claims, you too, need to provide evidence that supports your claims. I’ve heard claims and ideas and theories from you—not evidence.
You say I have wishful emotions that projects my own desires for what I want reality to be upon my stated beliefs. I say the same about you. You don’t want there to be a God, it seems, and you project your own desires for what you want reality to be onto these pages.
I agree that religious ideas are absurd. And your manmade religion that essentially declares, “Nature is supreme” is, in fact, an absurd, manmade religion.
You ask me if I’ve ever questioned the division between what is rational and what is irrational and my answer is yes—I’ve done this all my life. Do you do the same? I don’t require the existence of God—I admit to the existence of God because of the overwhelming evidence I’ve seen, learned, and experienced that leaves me unable to make any other conclusion than the existence of God. As sure as you feel that there is no God, I believe and know there is.
I’ve studied the natural sciences. I’ve studied quantum physics. I’ve studied philosophy. I’ve studied religion. I’ve studied nature. I’ve studied humanity. I’ve studied God. I’ve studied literature. I’ve studied these things and more and this is precisely the reason that I believe as I do.
Thank you for the engaging dialogue, sir!
Thanks for your reply.
I'm pleased we are able to share all these insights in an open and honest way for anyone to read up and take part in ... what interests me a lot about your views of reality and objectivity is the border line between rationality and absurdity.
How can you see truth in a non-existing illusion? You said that you can see that religion is a product of the human mind, but your idea of god is not. How is that possible? How did this god thing get into your head?
You really think some god created nature? Why can't you see the truth in reality which shows no evidence of any part of nature ever depending on a god which humans made up in their confused minds by not taking nature very seriously in all she represents, including the ultimate resource and support of not only all forms of life but the entire cosmic reality in this universe and beyond.
Why can't you let nature be supreme by putting these man made gods back into the story book where they belong and see the truth in reality as a rational point of view instead of projecting wishful emotions onto things so you can include such absurd religious ideas in your version of reality which can't possibly be what you imagine them to be ...
Do you never question if your division between what is rational and what is not is even close to how reality works and the obvious conflicts which exist between an objective understanding and your wishful projections which are far from it?
How can you possibly suggest some god having created nature to be anywhere near to being the truth of how nature unfolds before us? Why would you require your idea of some kind of god before you take nature a lot more seriously as being the foundation to an objective reality?
Why not study natural sciences first ... in much greater depth before looking for some gods to have to come along and create nature?
Yes I have free will, but people of faith could not...we have went over all this. I will never believe in this nonsense because I know it's just that....nonsense.
@ Franto: The benefits are many...eternal life is one. Supernatural peace is another. Freedom, blessing, love, acceptance, provision, meaning, purpose--are more. A relationship with God--the benefit is indescribable. I can't use words to explain what it's like to experience the love God that God loves me with. It is tangible and real. I've offered what I can offer through this forum by way of a sampling of some logic, some philosophy, some scientific evidence, some testimony from others and myself, but it appears you don't believe any of it. Can I ask, why are you so interested in trying to figure out why I believe what I believe? Is there anything at all that would convince you otherwise? Do you feel compelled to enlighten me? I'm just curious about the reason behind your passion to disprove God's existence. Thanks for your time!
Thanks for the links but Ravi Zacharias is a hopeless story teller with no solid basis in reality!
Gods were never killed because gods never existed in the real world to start with ...
Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and many others, make the point very clear ... the moral law GIVER is a human creation, just like all the ideas of any gods.
Marx, Freud and Darvin were much greater thinkers than Ravi the story teller will ever be!
Yes, I do objectively examin evidence that is presented with great care and the overwhelming evidence that no gods can exist follows from the fact that nature has never, ever demonstrated that non-causal events or miraculous things have ever happened or ever will ...
If miraculous events were possible, anything would be possible and scientific thoughts, experiments and tests would have lost all value.
If gods ever existed and miracles were possible, the rational world would be at its end and an absurd reality would dominate us ... which is exactly the kind of reality religious god delusion has created in the minds of people - like you - who can't even grasp the absurdity of their god and all the faulty arguments story tellers like Ravi try to present, but, in the process, only explain their limited ability to present a solid reason for their religious views.
W. Lane Craig uses good reasoning but his arguments for some god to exist is as faulty as all the Intelligent Design and Creationist arguments because these people don't even credit natural factors with enough power or abilities to be credible ... but his presentation is a lot better than all the silly stories Ravi is telling!
The fact remains, religiosity is not present in nature, gods have virtually no likelyhood of existing in the real world ... and are only a major mind polluting factor of our times!
My question: "What benefit do you think to gain from this mental pollutant in your head?"
Franto in Toronto
@ Mike: it's not a matter of "need" if is a matter of design. Free will, my friend. The foundation that we disagree upon makes all the difference!
Seek-n-find
I have already found truth, it's that god is just pretend. If your god was so powerful he would not need me to do anything. Like I said your god is impident...
@ f_hruz: and one more video that gives argument/evidence for God from one of the brightest academic thinkers...here's more logic for you!
@ f_hruz: If you are looking for intellectual arguments from people who have a firm grasp on what is rational and logical then check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EP4JsaLH6Q&feature
I posted the testimony videos before because I figured that for you to have come to the conclusion you believe, you must have already researched the facts/logic. I've posted this all before--but here's the first in a series that might be a better fit for what you are looking for right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EP4JsaLH6Q&feature
@ F-hruz: Here is an argument instead of a video:
A logical argument against, "I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God."
That does not mean there is no God.
Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.
Therefore, it is possible that God exists.
If it is possible, then faith has its place.
If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)
It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.
But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.
Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.
Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?
If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no evidence for God.
If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
Does Christianity fit within that criteria?
If not, why not?
Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?
Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example:
Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory?
Even if that did happen, would you believe He existed; or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort, or a trick played on you?
How would you know?
Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?
Do you want Him to make square circles or some other self-contradictory phenomena, or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up?
If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since he is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because He would violate His own nature -- which He cannot do.
Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?
Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?
But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?
If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence.
Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.
If so, then God becomes unknowable to you, and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position.
Do you define the miraculous out of existence?
If so, on what basis do you do this?
If you assume that science can explain all phenomena, then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.
If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.
Your last two videos are fabrications of peoples imagination ... how can you possibly build any rational understanding or an intelligent world view on these fictitious illusions?
What's wrong with your mind? Why are you doing these distortions of reality to yourself?
Did you take a look at the videos I left for you? Please post some intelligent comments instead of raising non-issues with imaginary dream stories!
@ Mike: Have you ever heard of Howard Storm? He used to think the same. If you genuinely seek you will find. It is truly up to you. Thanks for the update, though. I will continue to pray and I hope you shall truly be open to seeking truth. I bless you with joy, peace, wisdom, revelation, understanding, truth, and goodness.
P.S. Here is a link of Howard telling his story if you've not heard it before...
Still no sign of gods....your god is impident...
All of the rational, intellectual, well-educated, mentally healthy and emotionally balanced people I know have no use for any gods or I wouldn't consider them rational.
Your link is to a video delusional types use to justify their mental condition.
Now take a look at the following videos and try to weigh the difference in substance and quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcO4TnrskE0&feature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U&feature
Next, please review these two hubs written by a person who managed to cure himself from god delusion:
http://titen-sxull.hubpages.com/hub/Misconceptions
http://titen-sxull.hubpages.com/hub/Pascals-Wager-
Franto in Toronto
@ Franto: Watch this and tell me what you think...watch the whole thing so you can see all the different pieces of evidence...it is evidence of life after death. I'd love to hear your response! :-)
@ Franto: Thanks for sharing. Have you ever had interactions with people who were rational, intellectual, well-educated, healthy, balanced, realistic, successful, kind, and happy, who have still believe in God despite their apparent "delusion issue"?
Thanks for asking about my background how I can know so well in my own mind that gods are fictitious creations of and for people with a warped belief system.
I had a religious aunt, who my dad discussed religion with at times. Her limited science background and my own fathers reasoned questions made it quite clear to me that nature knew no gods, had no use for them even though some humans had created cults, myths and a long tradition of turning deities into idols instead of focusing their intellectual capacity towards the study of nature using critical observation and scientific thought.
Much research has been conducted now which points out how damaging irrationality can be over the long run and why god delusion is such a soci-cultural ill of our time.
That's why I would like to start a serious of therapeutic hubs to show some individuals on here what they can do to advance from the confines of their delusion into a mental and emotional space free from such retarding factors imposed by imaginary gods with magic powers to create false hope and wishful, instead of healthy and realistic expectations in peoples lives based on a solid grasp of reality free of any absurd religious myths.
Your symptoms are clearly delusional but if you wish to face the facts, your condition can be addressed with good chances of success ... so you may not have to remain delusional for the rest of your life.
Best wishes,
Franto in Toronto
@ Franto: Why thank you so much for your concern--it is appreciated! However I must say that your concern is for naught, for those ideals you wish for me are already a part of my life. What is your background/experience with God? How did you come to believe as you do? Thanks! :-)
Dear Seek-n-Find, many thanks for your reply!
By going through your list of 'reasons' for wanting to see, hear and experience a non-existing, man made mythological construct which defies all reason, logic and objective, critical analysis, it is clear to me that you have created a self inflicted mental condition for yourself which is referred to as god delusion in the rational world.
Your attachment to an unreal thing you call god, speaks very clearly to an emotional dependency which quite obviously distorts your sense of reality to a large part as it forms the basis to your god delusion.
I'm not sure what it would take to help you regain enough sense of reality for you to even start to understand the value of a clear view of reality and a better grasp of the mental and emotional disability this god delusion has created for you.
One thing I am sure of, you can be helped only if you replace your delusion with a clear focus on intellectual and emotional self development free from any myths of gods and religion ... the resulting personal growth which may help you over come this mentally limiting delusion, will be well worth it ... there are a number of very good examples right here on HubPages.
If you like to take a closer look at some, I'd be pleased to assist you further.
Best wishes and kind regards,
Franto in Toronto
@ Franto:
Yes, this Atheist's Creed by Zacharias is one perspective, though it is not a random gathering of ideas. He gathered these ideas from Atheists based off the reasoning and ideas that they've given to him in debates, etc. He is simply bringing them together for the purpose of showing how looking at them as a whole makes no sense. Of course this does not describe all Atheists, but it does represent a representative sample. The point is not to pin one's belief on another but to make a point about the substance of these real claims made by many.
The "God delusion" as you call it has existed for as long as man has existed. The first story goes back to the first humans. The development of various religions, however, has been a process that has taken place throughout history, as well. Stories and religion and history and beliefs not all the same thing.
I disagree with the statement that says there are no signs of nature needing a God. Go back to the beginning. What existed before matter was created? How was matter created? Did matter come from matter?
The roots of my belief in God are many. No matter which angle I look at it, I see God. History shows the existence of God. Archaeology supports the history. Logic shows the existence of God. Nature shows the existence of a Creator. Science points to a Creator. Math points to an ordered universe. Beauty points towards a Divine Love. My own life which was at one point horrific and I'm now transformed was due to encounter with a real, living God. Wishful thinking would never have saved my life. Delusion was not the solution, it was the problem and it took reality, God, to bring hope and restoration and healing and newness to my life. I sense God's presence, I hear His voice, I experience His love and grace and mercy, I receive the favor of His blessings, I am transformed by His love, I see sick people healed, including myself, I see depressed and suicidal people set free, I see broken marriages restored, I see angry people find peace, I see hateful children return to loving parents, I see answers to prayers...shall I go on? The only thing that would be delusional would be for me to ignore the fact that overwhelming evidence for God permeates every part of my life and existence. For me to stand in the middle of the ocean and say, "There is no ocean" would be the highest level of delusion. I am not delusional sir. :-)
@wba108: Thank you! I appreciate your comment. I often find that the very methods that give evidence for the point I'm trying to prove are those used by others who oppose what I'm saying, yet they are using the very same logic to prove their point as they state that the logic I'm using is not valid. Interesting conversations those are. :-)
Beautiful presentation of this issue on this fine Hub!
"But how can there be the problem of evil if there is no evil? The problem of evil cannot be solved by stating that God does not exist."
I love this statement of yours, if you say that evil doesn't really exist how can you say anything is evil?
When someone says that your judging them, thier judging you for judging them! Or, if humans are the source of moral law whose to say Martin Luther King is any better than Hitler, you must have an unchangable standard from which to judge!
This Atheist's Creed by Zacharias is only his idea. Why do you want to pin his point of view onto every other rational being?
God delusion only exists since humans created stories about gods and developed various religions.
There are still no signs at all anywhere that natural processes require the existence of some deities of any kind ... so, honestly, what's the root of your own god delusion and your faith in the super natural?
It is simply silly to many of these points seriously, don't you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eEfQ8pPMj4&feature
Franto in Toronto
@ Civil War Bob: Thank you! I guess I felt like the topic needed a building argument that explained piece by piece how the layers fit together. I have to work hard to be concise--I'm such a big picture person--I hate writing on one piece of a topic for fear that a person will think I'm trying to tackle the whole topic. At the very least, I try to make it clear that I am focusing on one tiny aspect of a much larger, complex whole. Blessings to you!
Well written Hub, if lengthy...voted up, useful, interesting. Thanks for including Ravi's Atheist Creed. Keep steadfast in your walk! (1 Cor. 15:58)
(See there is absolute zero temperature. It is absence of any temperature. Rest is derivative of zero temperature. There is absolute darkness. It means absence of light)
Vladimir,
Nice try but a miss. Temperature is a scaler - there is no such thing to nature as "absolute zero" - nature doesn't give a rat's hiney what temperature you think it is.
Next, one cannot define by using a negatition. Saying dark is the negation of light does not explain what darkness is - it is a statement about the relationship an obsever has to light/no light.
That means it is an abstract concept. In other words, it is all in your head - just like the non-material world is all in your head.
@ AKA Winston. I wold like shortly focus on your statement. You said everything is relative, there is no absolute.
Relative is applicable only to material world. Still you should change world theory of relativity to physical relativity.
See there is absolute zero temperature. It is absence of any temperature. Rest is derivative of zero temperature. There is absolute darkness. It means absence of light. I think you would have problem to rename "theory" of relativity.
There is an unseen spirit world. That is absolute.
@ Seek-N-Find
I don't have time to answer all your posts, because I would have to go back and remember what I said, then look at your reply...too much time. But on the last post you made about names, I am assuming you are referring to my pointing out that all we know about these anonymous people were their first names? The point was not to debate did people have last names in those days, but to point out that we really don't know anything about them or if they even existed. You say we know this and we know that, but no we don't. You can point to all the fairy tale writings you like as evidence of these people but that all means nothing to me because I don't believe any of it.
@Seek-N-Find
I see you answered a lot of things I must have posted, but it was so long ago I don't even know what you are responding to now. Are these old posts?
Anyway, as an update...no gods to be found yet....
@Mike. Also, they didn't use last names in the first century. They used first names, and also the father of that person, as in "James and John the sons of Zebedee" as Matthew through John say. So their first names are not all we know about John who wrote the Gospel/Book of John. We also know that John died on the island of Patmos, of old age. We also know that Luke was a doctor. We also know that Luke was hanged when he died. We also know that Matthew was a tax collector, also called Levi. And on and on. Does someone need a last name for them to be credible? Do you know what Homer's (who wrote the Illiad) last name was, if he had one at all? Do you doubt the Illiad? Is that what this is really about?
@Mike. Also, Mike, that wedding invitation actually isn't the only invitation you've gotten, you had an invitation to write back to Seek-n-Find and you did, and I'm sure you've had an invitation to stop and red light you drove up to and did. There's at least two right there : )
@Mike. Also Mike, I don't see that Vladi was insulting your intelligence or saying you can't read, obviously you are reading and writing words on here and responding accordingly. Also, obviously he is not American, so there is some broken English (unless he is :), and so he must have meant one has to know how to read "it", but he left out the "it." And that is definitely true, as the Bible contains not just one form of words or literary style as we basically have on here with these comments, but it it has historical accounts, poetry, mail/letters, cultural phrases/subjects, three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), apocalyptic literature, journals/personal records, metaphors, literals, etc. and it does take knowing how read it accordingly to be able to understand it rightly, just as any other type of literature mentioned above as well.
@Mike.
Yes, well again, design comes from a designer. This is a principle of life/the universe. The more intelligent the design, the more intelligent the designer. Just as an author writes a book, putting letters into words, words into paragraphs, etc., so a designer put our genetic code together, that is infinitely/magnitudes more complex and intelligent than a novel. As well as a tree or an insect as you said, etc., the universe shows immense design, just as a building shows a builder, then so the universe shows a designer, the main English word for this designer then is "God," whether you want to call him the flying spaghetti monster or not, in this sense, is irrelevant, this the first point, that there is a designer, the next point, is the identity of the designer. Again, just as a car didn't make itself, or a tree didn't make a car, but were made by outside intelligent beings called humans, so an all the more outside intelligent being referred to as "God" made humans and the universe. Shalom/Peace/Wholeness.
@Mike.
Okay cool, yeah I will read that article, thanks for writing it to bring clarity.
Haha. That’s weird. Yeah I thought the point of that would be to write whatever view you had in that certain position, not a view that conforms to what they want. Glad you found freedom and Squidoo.
@Mike.
Yes. More credible than other famous ancient documents that no one seems to question at all, from an objective historical context of the earliest manuscript and the number of manuscripts, two of the most important qualities of credibility:
+ Earliest Manuscript:
- Homer’s Illiad: 500 years after
- Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars: 1,000 years after
- Pliny’s History: 750 years after
- Thucydides’ History: 1,300 years after
- Herodotus’ History: 1,300 years after
- New Testament: 25 years after
+ Number of Manuscripts:
- Homer’s Illiad: 643
- Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars: 10
- Pliny’s History: 7
- Thucydides’ History: 8
- Herodotus’ History: 8
- New Testament: 24,000 plus and increasing (5,500 Greek; 9,000 Latin, very old; 10,000 others)
Why does no one question Homer’s Illiad, or Pliny, etc. but only the Bible? It makes no natural sense.
Also, as I said below, it is credible in the experiential, doing the things that Jesus and the Apostles commanded and did (Matthew through Revelation), such as love your neighbor as yourself, forgive those who wrong you, pray, speak good words over yourself and others and everything, think on good things and truth and who the Word of God says you are, etc., many things that modern day science is finally catching up to realize and confirm, and much more. I encourage you to read what I wrote below again, as I see you have not responded it, why I’m not sure but whatever the reason I respect that, but it is the main basis of my belief, my experience, my experience of the truth, not just words on a page, or claims, even as you say why someone should believe, and grace, grace to you to have your experience and freedom choice to believe or not and for good genuine motives and reasons, that's adequate.
As far as the origins, specifically with the New Testament that you referenced with Constantine. Where are you getting your information from? Yes, that’s right, many people don’t know the origins of the Bible. And many don’t know what really happened at the council of Nicea, and what was fabricated as what happened (just as many think that only three hundred Spartans stood against the Persian Empire under king Xerxes in the battle of Thermopylae, when it ended up being the three hundred Spartans and about seven hundred Greeks that stood at the last, while also having Themistocles lead the Greek’s navy to fight off the Persian Empire’s navy or else there would have been no battle of Thermopylae. And how do we know this is authentic? Because of Heroditus and the other historians that wrote about everything. So bits and pieces of it have been known by people and they thought that was all there was, but looking at the whole story/history the whole story is known). Many don’t know that there were twenty-seven main letters/books (Matthew through Revelation) that were written in the first century that the whole church noted and experienced as having apostolic authority/authenticity and inspiration from God (the concept of like how an ambassador represents a country, so an apostle represents God). And that the “canon”/”rule”/”measure” of what was the Bible was clear and obvious in the first century. Now there were uncertainties at first about certain books such as Hebrews as far as who actually wrote it, but in time was confirmed. There are letters and books dating all the way back to A.D. 96, just sixty years after Jesus died and over two centuries before the Council if Nicea. Those letters quote certain books as being the Bible/Book/Word of God. There are lists of the books constituting Scripture dating back to around A.D. 160 (the Muratorian Fragment, for example, but there are several before Nicea). From these sources then, we see that the Bible we have today has been basically what we have today, with no significant points of the message being changed by any discrepancy or uncertainty. Specifically then, the council of Nicea, to know what really happened we must look to those who wrote about what happened, primary sources specifically: a letter from Eusebius back to his church at Caesarea, preserved in The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus and in Athanasius' Defense of the Nicene Definition. A description of the proceedings by Eusebius (who was there) in his Life of Constantine Letters from Constantine and from the council passing on its decisions to the churches. The 20 "canons" [this just means "rules"] passed by the council. Some references to the council by Athanasius, who attended as a deacon before he was bishop; however, his only description of the council is a copy of Eusebius' letter to Caesarea. So we know what the council addressed, and therefore, what they did not. They did not address the books of the Bible, and therefore could not have changed them, there’s no evidence. And they didn’t have a “Bible” in the sense of one bound book like we do today, that is a product of modern technology, but they had the collections of the books, and what was accepted only varied over a few as said, and the most significant being the apocrypha like Macabees etc. that do not change any significant point of the message.
Also, Isaiah has sixty-six chapters in it, the first thirty-nine are about Old Testament realities, and the last twenty-seven are about New Testament realities, just as there are thirty-nine Old Testament books, and twenty-seven New Testament books, Isaiah is a miniature Bible.
Also, the biblical writers speak of and confirm one another themselves.
As I have said above, I have said below why I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, my supernatural experiences of it.
@Mike.
Thanks for your responses.
It is possible that we will agree. I also see that we do see the question the same way, but you haven’t explained your position, you have just said and restated what your position is, specifically with why foreknowledge means no freewill/predestination. Whereas I have given explanation of my position, such as that knowledge is not a force, knowledge does not force/cause things to happen, it is perception, an observation, apart from or outside of the actions themselves, therefore not being able to take away someone’s free will. I’m not knocking you, as I have shown before I think you’re a cool guy and I like you as a cool guy, and acknowledge and honor you and your sharp mind and passionate fiery standing strong heart, I’m just saying what I see. And I see more of what you are saying now as you have said it in a different way and used different wording, and that helps a lot, thank you. If you aren’t saying that someone knowing what you will do forces you to do it, then how can you say that you had no choice to, since you are basing your lack of free will on their foreknowledge? That equation comes out to their foreknowledge being the cause/force of your choice, does it not? I don’t see how it couldn’t. Also, why does foreknowledge cause predestination, again, how does that knowledge before hand cause/force that to happen then/be predetermined/predestined? Yeah I see what you’re saying Mike. But again, where is the connection where someone’s foreknowledge of what you will do means you only had the choice of the one thing that you did do? This is the nature of time, that is a trinity/tri-unity/three-in-oneness of past, present and future, where the present is a thin line that converts the future into the past, and two different events cannot happen at the same time, naturally, someone cannot eat oatmeal and not eat oatmeal at the same time, they cannot eat oatmeal and a cereal at the same point in time (haha, obviously unless they combine the two, but obviously I’m saying there cannot be oatmeal in the bowl only and cereal in the bowl only, at the same time, this is a law of logic called the law of identity), so while there is the option of eating oatmeal or cereal in the future/in the realm of possibility, only one can come to pass in the present. An outside observer though, that can be in all three dimensions of time, past, present, and future all at once, can see, like a 3D movie, the two different options of oatmeal and cereal in the future like two scenes in a movie (movies do this a lot, they flash forward and show one possibility, and then flash back an forward again show another possibility and then go back and show what possibility happens, as in Sherlock Holmes: a Game of Shadows when Sherlock and Moriarty both envision the fight going their way), and see the one choice of oatmeal in the present come to pass. Did all this force the person to eat oatmeal or take away their freewill? No, but merely was an impartial, outside observation.
Seek-n-find:
“Yet both the container and the water inside the container are matter.”
The water container was an analogy demonstrating the difference between something and the thing that contains it or encompasses it. The point is that the two do not have to operate according to the same laws or properties.
“the universe is matter.”
No. The universe is the container of matter. It contains matter, as well as energy.
“The stuff in the universe… and the universe itself… have the characteristic of being an objective reality that is a ‘thing’ for lack of better words”
I agree with that. I also note here you make a distinction between universe and the stuff in the universe, whereas in your previous statement the two were one and the same.
“It makes no sense for the universe to be eternal… the ‘Big Bang’ points towards the fact that the universe has a beginning point.”
The Big Bang explains the early known universe. That’s it. We must be precise here. Contrary to popular interpretation, the Big Bang does not in any way demonstrate that the universe “has a beginning,” in other words, that at some point the universe did not exist, and then suddenly it existed.
It is possible that the universe existed for a very long time as a tiny singularity, and then began rapidly expanding. It’s possible it was created out of nothing by a divine force. It’s possible it erupted from the quantum foam as I said in my previous comment. It’s possible it is eternal and uncreated, and has gone through an eternal series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. We simply do not know for sure what happened, if anything, before the Big Bang. But the most likely explanation, according to modern science, is the quantum one I cited. Which implies an eternal uncreated reality (metaphorically, an ocean), even if the universe itself (a bubble in that ocean) is created and not eternal.
“Since time is a dimension of the universe, time began when the universe began…”
This depends how you define time, which is a well-known problem. Let’s not get bogged down in that discussion. I will just say that if time as we know it began with the universe, AND we assume the universe has a beginning (which we don’t know), that does not preclude a larger reality from existing. “Time” in that larger reality would not be understandable to us, but it may still exist in some way. Or perhaps “time” does not strictly exist in that larger reality, but there is some other equivalent medium. You see, there are many possibilities that can be imagined, none illogical.
My original point stands: universe or at least reality can be eternal, contrary to the assumption of the theist.
@ Secularist: Yet both the container and the water inside the container are matter. Matter may have different characteristics, but it is still in the same group of "reality" as in both are forms of matter. The reason I included the info from CARM is because you asked why can't eternal and uncreated apply to the universe--the universe is matter. The stuff in the universe (i.e. the water in the container) and the universe itself (i.e. the container) both have the characteristic of being an objective reality that is a "thing" for lack of better words--whether it be matter that can be touched or matter that can be observed--it is still something. It is in the same category. It makes no sense for the universe to be eternal--science--even the science often quoted by atheists in support of the "Big Bang" points towards the fact that the universe has a beginning point. Since time is a dimension of the universe, time began when the universe began (Stephen Hawkings even says this) and therefore how could the universe exist before time because before time there was not matter? Do you see how your question is linked to the origins of the universe issue?
Seek-n-find:
“Many have a subjective reality in their heads that says God does not exist, but there is ample objective substance/evidence for His existence.”
Well, that is what you are supposed to demonstrate. Correction: many have a subjective reality in their heads that says God exists, but there is no objective substance/ evidence for his existence. :)
“His name 'I AM' even correlates with your definition of reality.”
Well, if God does not exist then the name “I am” is simply the name created by the ancient pre-scientific peoples who wrote the Bible. So this hardly means anything.
“I would say that all matter is reality, but we don’t observe all forms of matter.”
I agree with that. And if you read what I wrote, I never said that matter and reality are one and the same, I said that matter is a part of reality. There are other parts.
“[energy] is something that exists and that science shows us exists, but you can’t pick it up like an apple.”
There are basically two ways to determine something exists: (1) we observe or experience it (the empirical), or (2) we deduce its existence from observation (the rational). Matter and energy satisfy one or both of these conditions, but God satisfies neither.
“It does work for reality. God IS reality.”
I assume this is just a rhetorical statement. Unless you have become a pantheist.
Unfortunately, your extended quote, while very interesting, does not address my argument at all. It refers to the universe. I did not refer to the universe, I referred to reality. I indicated in a previous comment that it is quite possible/ likely that reality extends beyond our universe. This is a current major idea in physics, given the insights of quantum mechanics. I’m no expert, but the basic idea is that the Big Bang erupted from a wrinkle in the quantum foam. If reality is an ocean, a universe can be thought of as a bubble. It can arise spontaneously.
But aside from all of this, there is a totally separate issue. And that is the assumption on the part of the theist that the container must obey the same laws as the contained. Just because matter and energy inside this universe operates according to certain laws, why must the universe ITSELF operate according to those laws? Or even more powerfully, why must reality itself operate according to those laws?
If we realize this is not necessarily the case, then we see that matter and energy can operate according to cause and effect (and the laws of thermodynamics for that matter), while the universe or larger external reality does not.
Quantum mechanics creates a loophole in the laws of thermodynamics, which is the final nail in the coffin of the argument from CARM.
Just for kicks, let’s check out Wikipedia:
“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermod )
And a physical system is:
“In physics, the word system has a technical meaning, namely, it is the portion of the physical universe chosen for analysis. Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in analysis is ignored except for its effects on the system. The cut between system and the world is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_system )
So we are dealing with a portion of the physical universe. Even if that portion is defined to occupy the size of the entire universe, it is still not the universe itself per se. It’s like if you have a 300 mL container of water. The water obeys certain properties, and it may occupy all 300 mL of the container. But the container itself is another story entirely.
@ Secularist:
Based on your definition of real, what is really real is what is objectively real, not what is subjectively thought to be real. You also said: “Reality is an objective thing outside of us, but we also have a concept of reality in our heads.” Additionally, you stated that reality is a thing, not just a concept (as per your example of the concept of tree verses an actual tree that exists outside of your head). You say that emotions are real, too, because they have a substance (electricity/chemicals). You say “to be/to exist/to be real” are all the same thing. Tie this to another conclusion you make that “reality is eternal…this implies a reality outside our universe…eternal and uncreated.” Your final question is—if it can work for God, why can’t it work for reality?
Many have a subjective reality in their heads that says God does not exist, but there is ample objective substance/evidence for His existence. His name "I AM" even correlates with your definition of reality.
First, I have to say I agree with some of your definition, but not all of it. I would say that all matter is reality, but we don’t observe all forms of matter. Science is still discovering the different forms of matter that exist in the universe and in the quantum world. I say this to point out that there can be more matter than that which we can observably experience. I agree that matter is a part of what is real. But there is more than just matter to include in reality. Think of energy, for example. This is something that exists and that science shows us exists, but you can’t pick it up like an apple.
You ask if it can work for God, why not for reality? It does work for reality. God IS reality. Rather than summarizing the premise of the argument regarding the universe, matter, energy, etc. myself, in this instance I will cut and paste because why reword what another has already crafted? See explanation to your question below:
The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease because all the energy that exists will be, more or less, evenly distrubuted so that no work can be performed and no life and exist. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.
1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy was gone.
B. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
2. Because the universe had a beginning, it is not infinite in size.
A. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size.
3. All events have causes.
A. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
i. We've already established that the universe cannot be infinitely old.
ii. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
iii. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
4. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
A. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
i. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than, or equal to, itself.
B. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
i. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
ii. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
C. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe, which is finite.
i. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
D. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.
i. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.
ii. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
5. This uncaused cause is supernatural.
A. By supernatural, it is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it.
i. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
@seek-N-Find
Yes we do disagree, and I will never agree that anyone that believes in this God has free will. God needs to make himself known to me just as anyone else would that I might meet. Until he can do that he stays in the myth box with Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy where he belongs.
@ Mike: Aha! But this is where we completely disagree. God does believe in free will--we've discussed this and just go in circles. Yes, God knows what you are about--He knows what it would take for you to believe. He knows your heart. I'm in prayer. If He gives me a specific, I'll let you know. By the way, what do you consider to be "real proof"?
If he truly knows everything and what I am about, then he knows I will only be convinced by substantiated evidence. If he is incapable of such a feat, he will always be in the myth world for me because that's all I will accept.
@Seek-N-Find
Your God does not believe in free will. He knows in advance that I do not believe in him and never will without proof. By proof I require real proof, not a fictitious book with questionable authors. Real proof. I want him to make himself known to me in a way that is indisputable, not through some vague incantation or other nonsense.
Seek-n-find:
"So, would you say existence=reality?"
Yes. To be/ to exist/ to be real, etc--these all mean the same thing.
"Must reality be a 'thing' or can it be a 'concept?' For example, are emotions considered "reality" or only those tangible things which have some kind of substance?"
Depends what you mean. A "tree" for instance can be both a concept and a thing. There is the idea of "tree" in my head, and then there is the objective thing outside my head. The concept refers to the thing. So in that sense reality is an objective thing outside of us, but we also have a concept of reality in our head. Emotions do have substance, namely the chemicals and electricity in the brain.
"If something is real, does it mean it is exclusively true? A mirage... exists in the form of the chemical reactions that are happening in the brain... but the water in the desert is actually not there."
Just because you believe something or assume or feel something does not mean you are correct, such as with a mirage or hallucination. I think what you are getting at is the difference between our subjective feelings or beliefs, and objective reality. So, yes, there is a difference. They don't necessarily line up.
"Are emotions not real because you cannot touch them--or are they real because you experience them?"
Actually in a way you can touch them, you could touch the electricity and chemicals in question. But yes, they are real.
@ Secularist: "Reality--quite simply, everything that exists/ the set of all things that exist." So, would you say existence=reality? Must reality be a "thing" or can it be a "concept?" For example, are emotions considered "reality" or only those tangible things which have some kind of substance? Next question: If something is real, does it mean it is exclusively true? A mirage, for example. It exists in the form of the chemical reactions that are happening in the brain, so it seems real to the person experiencing it, and it has matter in terms of brain chemicals, but the water in the desert is actually not there. I need a little more on what would constitute as "real" and "not real." Are emotions not real because you cannot touch them--or are they real because you experience them? And if they are real, does that make them true? If I am angry because I think you hit my cat, my emotions is real and my experience of anger is "true" but based on a false assumption because you actually did not hit my cat. This may seem unrelated to the question--but it is. :-)
I'll come back to "eternal" and "created" after the issue of what "reality" is becomes flushed out a little more. And after that, we'll get to the morality question. :-)
@ Mike: I don't mean "literal" invitations (though I supposed they could be). :-)
@ Mike: Nope! I'm not suggesting that you separate logic and reason from your mind. I'm saying that what you feel may be the ONLY answer/logic may not be so. Why is something required of you and why doesn't God show up in your face saying, "Hey Mike...here I am!"? Free will, my friend. He won't force you.
Seek-n-find:
I hear you. I do some consulting work myself actually. I had actually forgotten about this hub, looks like you have quite the symposium going here.
Reality--quite simply, everything that exists/ the set of all things that exist.
"Eternal" means having no beginning or end, "uncreated" should be self-explanatory, not created.
If you scroll down to my first comment (at this point it is about 6 weeks ago), you will see it all there. I will just briefly summarize by saying that a secular morality is not only possible, but logically superior to a theistic/ supernatural morality, and that theistic moralities have a problem in that they must decide if X is good because God said so, or God said so because X is good. If X is good because God said so, then this "morality" is simply whatever God happens to decide at any given time, and thus, arbitrary and unpredictable. If God said so because it is good, then God is playing by some larger moral standard, in which case God himself is not actually needed for morality.
The only invitation I have received lately was to a friends wedding in June...hmmm God does move in mysterious ways, lol.
@Seek-n-Find
If it requires that I separate logic and reason from my mind and accept this on faith, then it will never happen. But why would anything be required of me? He is God, he can do anything right? Including show "the light" without my having to do anything.
@Vladimir
I assure you I can read and write well beyond the elementary mind it takes to read the Bible...
@ Mike: So, I was just praying for you and this is what God brought to my mind: Look for invitations from God. They may be small, subtle, things you could glance by if you are not looking for them. God offers invitations, not manipulations. You've had invitations already--invitations of the mind, invitations from others, invitations of the heart, and invitations in various other ways. You can choose to ignore--to say no--or to say yes and explore. If a thought pops up in your mind that leads you to thinking about things in an alternate way--pay attention to that thought. If a song catches your interest with a certain curiousity, pay attention to the lyrics. If a memory pops up in your head randomly, pay attention to the impact of that experience. In conversation, through writing, reading, and in dialogue with others, pay attention and look for the invitations. If you walk around with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears (not saying that you are doing this--just an analogy here) and scream, "God, show yourself!" you can't be open to see or hear. A genuine openness will help you to recognize the invitations.
@ Mike: Also, good way of wording it: "God-free." You know how we've been debating over the issue of free will? God will not override your free will. You will likely experience what you desire/hope for. He may be standing by, ready to respond, but waiting for your genuine invitation. I'm doing my part--He's doing His part--but your part makes the biggest difference.
@ Mike: He's listening. Are you listening? :-)
The Bible is reliable, but one has to know how to read.
See, with Renaissance of writing everybody make opinion and publish it. It enter to our mind a lot of fruit of "Good and Evil".
One comment I would like to response, that Constantine was not theologian and was not Christian until deathbed. He just seen practical to equalize Christianity with pagan world. It was the time since Christians were many and found being good people.
@Seek-H-Find
Update....still God-free...maybe God is not listening (-;
@Spirit
Since a lot of people are confused with what the term Anarcho-capitalist means, I wrote an article on the subject:
http://www.squidoo.com/why-i-am-a-libertarian
By the way, if you are wondering why I do not write for this website, it's because they pissed me off the first time I did write something and they kept taking it down because it did not fit within their "standards" whatever the hell that means. I finally said screw it and went to Squidoo and have not had to deal with all the crap I had to deal with here. If that want people to write, they need to let people write what they want and how they want.
Everything I write is at Squidoo for this reason:
@Secularist: Sorry I didn't respond to something you brought up earlier. I can get overwhelmed by the amount of interactions on this site, especially when I have a huge work load for consulting (which at this time, I do!) Did't mean to forget about you, but you got lost in all the words.
Okay--so one point at a time. First, I feel like I'd need clarification on the terms we are using. Can you give me a definition of what you consider "reality" to be? Also, can you tell me what are the characteristics necessary for something to be considered "eternal" and for something to be considered "uncreated." Once I have those terms clear to make sure we are on the same pages, I'll answer your question about if it can work for God, why can't it work for reality.
Also, can you refresh my mind--what exactly was your question to me regarding secular and theistic morality?
Thanks!
@Spirit
The Bible is credible? Really? The entire thing is is subject to debate, hardly what I would call credible.
Most people are not aware of the origins of the Bible. Before the Bible there was what were known as 'Canons.' These Canons were simply manuscripts that were written by different authors (most of them anonymous) over a span of about 1600 years. There were many Canons, and not all were included in what came to be known as the 'Bible.' The method to determine what would be included, and what would not be included and left out was the system of voting.
Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered 'holy' and thus 'the word of God' and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
Emperor Constantine, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the 'word of God' into existence, but The Church leaders didn't finish editing the 'holy' scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed.
So, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine!
Theists will tell you they have proof of God. It's usually something like pointing to a tree or an insect. Next they will ask you to consider all the delicate and complicated intricacies of these things. They will then ask how could these things have come to be without God? Of course to anyone else that actually is capable of intelligent thought, this does not prove God anymore than it might prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster created these things.
If we were to treat faith and religion in the same manner as we do with matters of the legal world and our justice system, what would happen if using those same rules of evidence that we do in any other judicial matter we put God On Trial?
What evidence could be presented to validate this claim? Many would say the Bible, but the Bible is not proof of anything. Do you know anyone that actually witnessed God or Jesus? As far as we know there are four main people that can testify on behalf of these stories, but they are nothing more than anonymous fictional characters with no last names. The entire story relies upon 4 men who all we know are named Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. I say they are anonymous because nothing else is known about them.
Imagine a police officer filing a police report about a crime and naming four people named Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark...no last names, no addresses, no phone numbers...nothing more than just first names and then to make it worse, these 4 anonymous people cannot be called upon to even testify because no one knows where or who they are. Would this case hold up in court? Would this case even be charged by a competent district attorney?
If this case was brought to trial, who would we call as witnesses? What evidence could be presented other than the written testimony of 4 anonymous men that no one knows anything about or how to locate them? Could God Himself be called to testify on His own behalf?
There are more than 730 established Religions in the world which are broken out into more the 3200 different sects. Christianity, for example is one of the major religions but has more than 200 sub sects, each with their own unique traditions and interpretations of the bible.
The actual number of religions is much higher than this even because a religion can be defined in so many different ways, so there is no way to know exactly how many religions may exist, but even with the example above, how can you be sure you have selected the 'one true religion?'
Of course there are things for which we do not know the answers to, but making up answers to fill this lack of knowledge is not an intelligent way to try and define these things. Would it not be better to just admit there are things we do not have enough knowledge to understand yet, rather than try to replace this lack of knowledge with equally unknown answers?
Hello Seek-n-Find
I didn't read the whole discussion here since my earlier comment, but I want to address something you seem to be bringing up a lot:
"Where did the matter from which matter came FIRST originate?"
This question assumes that matter came from somewhere. Why? Why are you assuming that matter has an origin? Why can't it be eternal (an idea that would be consistent with the law of conservation of matter, BTW)?
But a more precise and fundamental version of this question is to ask "where did reality come from?" Because reality encompasses everything, including matter. God is considered to have created all reality.
The answer to this question is the same: why are you assuming that reality was created? In fact, everything we now know in physics, cosmology and others leads us to the conclusion that reality is eternal. This obviously implies a reality outside of our universe.
Eternal and uncreated. If it can work for God, why can't it work for reality?
(I would also be interested in hearing your response to my earlier comment about secular and theistic morality.)
SPIRIT n TRUTH
Mike. You're welcome. And thank you for sharing your views and positions. That's interesting that you say that Anarcho-Capitalist believe in laws, I didn't know that they did, I thought that was part of their position. So, what are the laws specifically? And like what do you mean not about laws about property/bodies? Thanks.
Hi Spirit,
You are confusing Anarchy, with Anarcho-Capitalism. I know they sound a lot a like, but are completely different. Anarchy (as in, chaos and disorder) would be a lawless society, which would be impossible.
Anarcho-Capitalism on the other hand:
@Spirit
You and I are never going to agree on this because we just don't see the question the same way. I have never said that someone knowing what you will do in advance forces you to do something. What I am saying is if someone knows what you will do before you do, then it is pre-destined and if it is predestined that means you had no choice in what was going to happen. Does this mean someone forced you to do anything? No, but what happened was destined to happen and you had no free will over it. You had no real choice because it had already been pre-determined. You can say you had the option of changing your mind, but someone else still knew what that final choice would be, it had nothing to do with them forcing you to do anything, they just knew what you were going to do. If I was able to do something other than what they knew I would do, then I have free will, if I am unable to do something different because it is pre-destined, then I do not.
From what I understand from what you have said, yes to you and what you think/worldview that is true. But you,from what you have said, are coming from a worldview that says the physical world is all there is, the supernatural is not real, empiricism is one name for it. This excludes any possibility of the supernatural happening or being legitimate beforehand.
But if you have a supernatural worldview, or, are looking objectively (meaning with no preconceived ideas in essence) then these things are possible, they can happen, and therefore can or should be tested historically, practically, experientially, logically, etc. Of course supernatural things are nonsense/untrue to someone who doesn't believe in them or believe they are possible, but not to someone who does, to them it is the other way around/nonsensical to say otherwise. Ya know.
Mike.
Thanks for responding. Okay, well let's just stay with this one concept right real quick, that's why I said not going ahead of this specific thing, ya know, to build upon it eh. So buildings must have builders, paintings must have painters, etc. What is the principle? Design comes from a designer. And the more complex/intelligent the design, the more complex/intelligent the designer. So, therefore, looking at trees, flowers, plants, animals, the stars, the planets, oxygen, etc. and of course human beings/human bodies, these things are magnitudes if not infinitely more complex/designed/intelligent than a building or painting, therefore one they all had a designer, and two that designer is that much more intelligent as well. God is the main/basic word used for this person/being/designer/creator.
As far as who this designer is, as you have started going into, the next step or a next step in this process/reality. Why is it not credible to say it's the flying spaghetti man (by the way, me and my friends found out about this religion or whatever a few years ago and were surprised amongst other things by it : ), well spaghetti is a non living organism, made usually from eggs or flour, other nonliving/nonintelligent organisms, they are also part of the creation/physical world itself, and although there are some things in the physical world that produce other things, it's impossible for something to have produced everything including itself, as it is scientifically impossible for nothing to create everything, as shown by the above principle of design comes from a designer.
As far as specifically what makes my, or rather, the Bible/Scripture/Word of God as it refers to itself as, credible. One writer put it this way:
Here is a book:
1) written over a 1,500 year span,
2) written over 40 generations,
3) written by more than forty authors [if you line up ten people, five people, two people and try and have them agree on a minor subject it probably won't happen, definitely not on a major topic and the Bible deals with all of life with over forty people agreeing to sound unity, astonishing), from every walk of life-including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars, and more: Moses a political leader trained in the universities of Egypt, Peter a fisherman, Amos a herdsman/farmer, Joshua a military general, Nehemiah a cup bearer, Daniel a prime minister, Luke a doctor, Solomon a king, Matthew a tax collector, Paul a rabbi,
4) written at different places: Moses in the wilderness, Jeremiah in a dungeon, Daniel on a hillside and in a palace, Paul in prison, Luke while traveling, John on an island, others in the rigors of a military campaign,
5) written at different times: David in times of war, Solomon in times of peace,
6) written during different moods: some writing from the heights of joy and others from the depths of sorrow and despair,
7) written on three different continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe,
8) written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,
9) Finally, it's subject matter includes hundreds of controversial topics, yet the Biblical authors spoke with harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revelation. There is one unfolding story.
You line up three people and ask them to agree on a noncontroversial topic and it's not going to happen. But the Bible has this with over 40 people 1,500 years apart, covering basically every topic of life and they write with continuity. This is then reasoned to say that there was a common thread weaving the story together, and that God is that common thread.
Also, it has timeless/transcendent wisdom, timeless/transcendent morals, thousands of fulfilled prophecies, a multitude of manuscripts untouched by any other ancient document (interesting how no one doubts whether Homer's Illiad is legit, thought it was written 500 years after the events with 673 manuscripts, yet the New Testament alone has 24,000 manuscripts written starting 25 years after the events, but it is questioned and attacked and whatnot as legit. This doesn't naturally make sense), as well as power for life such as I have seen personally and in other people miraculous healing, miraculous provision, miraculous knowledge, miraculous love, and more. I've seen deaf ears open at the name of Jesus Christ being spoken, an irregular heartbeat and two hernias needing surgery instantly healed, oppression and seizures instantly healed, broken hearts mended and restored, etc. I've tested it logically, practically, experientially, historically, etc. and found it to be true, working, powerful, fulfilling, supernatural, and more. These types of things are what influences me to believe the Bible is God's Word/Book, that this is the identity of the Creator, I have seen these things nowhere else, therefore I, because I have seen and heard and experienced these things, I cannot rationally believe otherwise.
Mike. You're welcome. And thank you for sharing your views and positions. That's interesting that you say that Anarcho-Capitalist believe in laws, I didn't know that they did, I thought that was part of their position. So, what are the laws specifically? And like what do you mean not about laws about property/bodies? Thanks.
Mike.
Yes we see what free will is. But no, I've asked and portrayed how someone having knowledge of something happening doesn't cause/force it to happen. Another example, I am in the stands at a football team's practice, I see how a drill runs, a wide receiver runs out, turns and the quarterback throws the ball to him, the third wide receiver goes and turns, I know that the quarterback is going to throw to him, then he does, did I cause/force it to happen? No I merely observed what they were doing. If I went up to them and said, because I knew you we're going to throw the ball to him in this drill you had no free will to do it, they wouldn't believe me, and rationally so. Also, I know that I am going to type the word the in parenthesis right now..."the", did my foreknowledge of that choice cause it? No, rather my desire/willing/choosing caused it, no one and nothing forced me to, only me choosing to, or the word "and" and so on. You still have not shown logically how observation or foreknowledge of events causes them to happen. I don't see how that makes any sense. I can see how if God knows what we are going to do, then we will not do something else, because He knows all the choices we could choose and the choices we do choose, but that doesn't not force us to do them, but is part of His nature of being omniscient (knows everything) and omnipresent (everywhere at once, including past, present, and future).
The best argument against Christianity…is the story of Christianity.
@spirit
Thanks for looking over some of what I had to say about government. Anarcho-capitalist's by the way do believe in laws, just not fake laws like the ones relating to what adults chose to do with their property (bodies).
No on to your question. Have I seen a building without a builder? No, I have not. Does this prove god? No, it does not. What if I said the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Lochness Monster...or Unicorns or Leprechaun's created everything; what makes your claim any more valid? Because you have a book written over 1600 years ago by anonymous and questionable authors? Ever read "Horton Hatches the Egg?" by Dr. Seuss? it's a book also, does it prove elephants can hatch eggs? Where is the proof for your claim? Is this method of replacing one unknown for another a good way to explain our world? If so, what other things should we use this method to explain? How about we say wet sidewalks cause rain?
@spirit
Okay now that we agree on the definition, then it's obvious you do not have free will if you believe someone knows what you will do. We keep going around in circles, but you are not proving your point.
Mike.
Okay yeah, I actually have been meaning to read your articles, just so much of my time is not my own working full time, going to school half/three-quarters time, etc. but I will as I can. Yeah I genuinely see that you are a good writer, have a sharp mind, and I love and honor your passion and fire.
Yeah yeah I do remember seeing that you said that before, okay. Thanks for your honesty, transparency and realness.
Heh, yeah I see what you mean about government, especially ours, and especially now in our day, quite crazy eh. Though I do see the need/strengths of having government, but good government/ruling, as the police are a type of government/ruling, or as we govern our minds and choices and lives and such. A lot of corruption has crept in in two hundred or so years eh.
Yeah I see the strengths of Capitalism. Yeah instead of people being rewarded for doing bad jobs but their name is on the ownership papers or their dad’s is or whatever, it’s not even related to them and their bad job their doing. I see what you mean and why.
Yeah, I see what you mean. You want to see something to believe it, you want to be rational, you want to be logical, you want to have evidence like in a court if you are going to believe something or make a decision about something. I do get that. Oh, I thought there actually are a lot of atheists in the world, but I guess numbers can get skewed by multiple factors like where you live or don’t or what you see or don’t (example like how 92% of the world doesn’t own a car, I wouldn’t have thought it’d nearly be that high, but I live in America where almost everyone has a car or even multiple cars). Yeah I see what you mean, you want to be intellectual and not throw your mind away in what you believe not just blindly hope or think or believe something to be true, and have freedom in that too. And that we should no open our minds or ourselves up to something that doesn’t stand the test. And again, I see that I am coming from that same place, and have tested and weighed and proofed these things. And I’m sorry if anyone has tried to cram or jam claim without proof or rationale or whatnot to you, or just made claims based on “just believe” or whatever. With this specifically, about evidence, I have a question, in the point of the creation or design of something and the evidence of that having a creator or designer, do you know of/have evidence of a building that didn’t have a builder such as your house/housing or workplace or whatnot, or a painting without a painter, or something with design without a designer? Just with these concepts/things themselves, not going ahead or outside of them, do you know of any/have proof of any?
Mike.
Thanks for responding and putting the Webster dictionary definition in of free will, I love looking words up in the dictionary, and it is a great place to start and see the different facets of words.
Yeah I see that that does sum it up. And, maybe surprisingly I see that that definition goes along with what I am saying. That we make voluntary choices not determined by prior causes or divine intervention, such as your example of choosing to eat oatmeal (maple and brown sugar is my favorite eh) or not or something else, and mine say of driving up to a red light and choosing to stop, we make these choices freely and God knows what we will choose freely before we do, He observes the past, present and future all at once because He is not bound by time. This a basic part of the concept set forth in the Bible (for discussion it's okay that you don't believe the Bible or God or whatever, and I respect/honor your beliefs, I'm just stating the concept). Thanks again. Ian.
@ Oliver: Thanks for your patience. Regarding the universe existing in a cycle--sure--that is possible. YET the same issue remains. Where did the matter from which matter came FIRST originate?
Matter still had a beginning. Physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of the existence of matter. Time exists when matter exists. Time has even been called the fourth dimension. But God is not matter. In fact, God created matter. He created the universe. So, time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask where God came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to God in the first place. Because time has no meaning with God in relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity.
Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end -- and/or no beginning. God has no beginning or end... He is outside the realm of time.
Even a universe that cycles exists within time--it is matter--therefore it is not outside of time and therefore could not have created itself. Science and logic must work together in harmony for this to make sense. Scientific evidence points to the existence of matter and points to time and points to a beginning. But it cannot account for what was before the first point of the existence of matter. It is not something "natural"--it is "supernatural."
This analogy may not be the best one--but let's see if I can demonstrate the main point here. Let's say I created an ant farm. I put the soil, the food, and whatver else the ants needed to survive. Then I placed the ants within the ant farm. With the ants' limited understanding of the human world, the ant farm is all they know. They may come up with theories to speculate where their container came from, how the soil got there, and how the conditions for their survival turned out just so. I'm a human and what is hard for an ant to understand is very easy for me. I put them there--I created their environment--and I existed before their "ant planet" did. I'm outside of the realm of 'ant world.' I want them to know me but I'm so big--how will I communicate with an ant? I'll become an ant and go live among them as an ant and teach them about the things of humanity. I'll teach them things and model what I say by how I live my life, and even do things that seem like a miracle to an ant (I bake them brownies, lets say) but to me, its just a part of being a human. God is so BIG--so OTHER--so above and beyond. We can understand certain things but there is much that is beyond our capacity. What kind of God would God be if I could know and understand all there is too know about Him? The ant could try to understand my human ways for generations and I'll always be "beyond" their grasp.
That is all I have time for today. Looking forward to your response!
@Spirit N Truth
If you would like to know where I am coming from, you can read my articles. I write for a lot of different websites, but most of my articles are on Squidoo:
http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/GodlessHeathen
If I were to sum it up, it would be:
I am an Anarcho-Capitalist Atheist and I wear that fact like a badge of honor.
Being an Anarchist means I own myself and I do not need a daddy (government) to tell me how to live my life.
I am a Capitalist because there is no better system in the world. In the free market people get rewarded for doing a good job, and punished for doing a bad job...I like this concept.
I am an atheist for the same reason I am an Azeusist (someone who does not believe in Zeus) because there is no proof for the existence of Gods...not one, not any.
I am an Atheist because there is no evidence to support the God myth. Being an atheist places me in a small group of people in this world, which are also the more intelligent free thinking people which is something to be proud of. We demand proof for claims that are made, we do not have blind faith.
My mind is not for rent, to any god or government.
Webster defines free will as:
Definition of FREE WILL
1
: voluntary choice or decision, I do this of my own free will
2
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
I think this pretty much sums it up, what about you?
@Mike. Thank you for your response. If you are going to speak, I request that you do so with respect, as you should expect of me or anyone else as well. This includes not making judgements and condemnations such as I don't get something or theists are brainwashed (braindirtied rather), etc., comments like these could potentially be said by both sides, but it is not necessary nor respectful. Thank you.
Why is that the definition of free will? That you have to be able to do something different than God thought you were going to do? Where are you getting this definition? Why are those terrible examples? Again, why does knowledge of something, remove freedom/free will to do it? Why does knowledge/observation equal forced action? Why does it have to be either/or, either your free to eat oatmeal or not, or do something different than God thought you were going to? Why can’t it be that you are free to choose multiple things to eat, and God knows all of those preferences that you have, and that you will freely choose oatmeal? If you are driving and see a traffic light turn yellow, and you know that it will turn red, is it your knowledge that causes it to turn red by force? No, it is the electrical circuit that is set up a certain way, a certain wiring. So God and can wire us a certain way, or give us a potential for a certain wiring, that can have multiple combinations of outcomes, yet as the Creator, knowing what will happen. If that were true, then when someone hurts someone or kills someone, if someone knew they were going to do it, then they were forced to by that person's knowledge and not free and therefore not responsible for their actions. Where does this come from, for you? I want to understand your beliefs/origins of where you at now. Thank you.
Most people are not aware of the origins of the Bible. Before the Bible there were what were known as "Canons." These Canons were simply manuscripts that were written by different authors (most of them anonymous) over a span of about 1600 years. There were many Canons, and not all were included in what came to be known as the "Bible." The method to determine what would be included, and what would not be included and left out was the system of voting.
Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
Emperor Constantine, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence, but The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed.
So, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine!
Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new "holy scriptures." It seems with the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which "holy" books would stay and which would go.
There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.
Knowing this, and still believing the Bible to be in infallible word of a God, only further illustrates just how intellectually void the mind of the believer is. One might ask themselves, had the vote gone another way, would people of faith be believing something entirely different than what they believe to be the word of God today?
@ Oliver
You see,
I do not like eggs in the file.
I do not like them in any style.
I will not take them fried or boiled.
I will not take them poached or broiled.
I will not take them soft or scrambled,
Despite an argument well-rambled.
No fan I am of the egg at hand.
Destroy that egg! Today! Today!
Today I say!
Without delay!
Just another fairy tale....
Oliver Pendle. See God is so great that He created angels moral agents with free will. It means one can say yes or no. More, God created man to His own image again free moral agent. It took a lot of Billions year when rebellion happened. But God had the plan for the man. And it is good news. God corrected to have victory and He set us free. We still retained free will. The same time Lucifer was defeated.
That's quite alright Seek-n-Find, It's hard for me to comment alot, this is about the only time frame where we're both online - It's about 7.40pm atm here so the time differences make it hard to have a constant debate.
@ Oliver: I understand what you are saying. It will take me more than a minute to respond and unfortunately, about a minute is all I have at the moment. I do have a response which I believe answers the points you bring up and also addresses the alleged moral issue. I will write back when I have a chance. Thanks for the engaging discussion.
Firstly, I can understand what you're saying about God, but it seems far more easy and logical to understand something that just happened randomly or for our own world to never have a beginning than for something else to have no beginning and then spontaniously decide to create a whole world which was eventually corrupted by evil - Lucifer - a creation of God... And For Evil to corrupt Good it means that Good must have a weakness of some kind - this is the case for any type of corruption, it comes through weakness, therefore a flaw in one's "design". That is evident no matter how you word it. So God may not be perfect, that doesn't disprove God, that only disproves the Bible and Jesus... SO maybe God does exist but is the master of all, he created Good and evil and we are but people in a story being sold on the shelves in the world of this marvilous author? How is that any less logical? At the end of the day, with the arguement that all must have a beginning that means that all must have an end - however, this is illogical, if something ends, it ends forever - this cannot be so, for nothing can last forever: including nothingness it's self. In the end it's all a complete contradicting circle - so either we accept that things go in a cycle or we trip over ourselves trying to find a beginning. We ask outselves: What came first; the chicken or the Egg? Well we can never answer this and so we say: "The Chicken, because God put it there?" "Who put God there?" "No one, it is why he is God." "SO God comes from nowhere which defies the very laws that religion creates and brings up a law which religion refuses to understand - in the end, God is eternal, therefore God never started (Or Ends) yet you refuse to believe or understand the concept that actually the universe could have done the same thing - and never started and never end... Tell me, which is more easy to believe: The concept that life will rise and fall and rise and fall in the cycle of the universe or that our universe is dictated and controlled by a being which never started and never ended and created Earth for some unknown reason and was overcome by evil and sends humans to heaven or hell? It sounds like a good bedtime story - but lacks the moral message.
@Spirit N Truth
Those are terrible example and not even free will examples.
Having the ability to change your mind and select something different than what your god thought you were going to do is an example of having free will. You just don't "get it" as most if not all theists don't. If your god knows what you are going to do, you do not have free will. If he knows I will eat oatmeal this morning for breakfast, am I now free not to eat oatmeal? If you say no I am not free then there is no free will, if you say yes I am free, then god does not know. It's pretty simple really, but then so are a lot of things theists don't get.
I went to listen to a talk last night by John Compere.
I sponsored this event and brought John in:
http://www.meetup.com/atheists-447/events/49775562
John was a 5th generation baptist minister, now turned atheist. He explained the mindset of the theist and why they chose to ignore the obvious. It's a conditioning (brain washing) that you are all subjected to. He agreed with me that it is much like a mental disorder
@Mike. How are you doing (genuinely)? Thank you, and thank you for your responses. Thank you for your fire.
Why does someone knowing that something will happen remove free will? Why, if God has knowledge of what we will do, mean we have no free will? Why does knowledge remove freedom? If you see someone bend over to pick something up, do you not know that they will straighten back up? And does that mean that had no choice but to stand straight again? There was no possibility of them staying bent over? Or laying flat on the ground? Or when you buy something at a store with cash that is more than your purchase, you know that they are going to hand you change, but does that make them a robot there? No, sometimes they forget to hand it to you, sometimes they hand you incorrect change, because they made a mistake, and they would have to take responsibility for that, not say oh well you knew it was going to happen or God knew it was going to happen. Otherwise, no one would be responsible for their actions, but so we are, even in a human court, let alone a divine. Also there would be no love, only robotics. There are many people who know what we are going to do before we do it, such as banks, employers, friends, coworkers, acquaintances, from little details to big. But them knowing what we choose does not mean that we don't choose. So God can see out into the future, forward on the timeline/space-time continuum, and see that I desire to have oatmeal because I like it, but His knowledge of that choice from that desire had nothing to do with Him knowing about it, and everything to do with my preference toward oatmeal. Observation/knowledge is not force, not a forces that makes things happen, but a perspective that informs the beholder.
@ Mike: Oops--I mixed up the people. I think I have a fair idea of what you believe and why.
@ Oliver: I do get what you are saying--but we have two different presuppositions it seems, so something that is logical to me seems illogical to you. God--an eternal Being--exists outside of time. Creations needs beginnings--He is not a creation--He doesn't have a start. He always was. It is illogical to think of things as having an eternal past within our natural realm because they don't--but get outside of our natural realm--only something that supercedes natural law--such as something supernatural--could logically exist with no beginning. A human can't grasp this because a human is human--is a creation. So does it make more sense for there to be a Divine Being that is above and beyond that always was and that created--or for matter that is limited to natural law and existence to spontaneously spring up from nothing? They both take a level of faith--one more than the other.
Good and evil is not a disease--you misunderstand me. I said evil is like a disease. I'm trying to use metaphors here. A disease corrupts and destroys something that is good. But the good was still good until the evil got to it.
Different cultures/languages--see the story of the tower of Babel when God changed people's languages and they were scattered about the earth.
To see how people can have different skin colors, etc., see this link (too much to type here)
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-skincol
God did come up with a plan to vanquish evil. God is a just God and He must do things as a just Judge. Sin has a consequence. That consequence could not just be swept under the rug--the price had to be paid--so that's why Jesus was able to pray the price for sin. The first Adam (Adam) brought sin to all but the second Adam (Jesus) brought righteousness to all, but not without paying the price.
These are good questions--I don't think I can do justice in the comments section--I've studied for years and years and read tons of books and articles to get all my questions answered. You might want to check out www.carm.org. It is user-friendly and answers many of these questions and more.
You're not getting what I'm saying - You say that all things need a beginning - so where did God come from?Evil and Good isn't just a disease - how can we call it a generic disease that's been spread by humans? How could we have such a diverse species spread over several continents from two people alone - the different races, cultures and customs... the different langauages, art and architecture. Plus, God apparently creates every human - if so, why can't he vanquish evil from them - after all, he is the Alpha and Omega.
Ayn Rand (who wrote Atlas Shrugged) was an atheist, she saw this the same way I did Jenna...no John Galt saw "god" just as it is...a fairy tale and he also was dead on, when it comes to this ridiculous "original sin" nonsense.
@ Mike: John Galt has some good points--and the people to whom he is responding probably did things in a way that was not God's way--whenever there is force, etc. that is not God's way. Again, people doing something in the name of God does not mean that's what God wants. John doesn't have a context of understanding what God actually said--he's responding to what the people were (wrongly, in many cases) doing in the name of God.
I approved this comment, but like I said before, please use links for long ones.
Thanks--I'm out for the night--not feeling well and need to retire the computer for the evening.
@ Mike--could you please just post a link to your Hub or article that has the content you want to share instead of posting such a ginormous amount of info in the comments section? It's too much info for this context and I don't want people to read hubs within hubs in the comments. If they are interested, they can click on your link and read the whole thing. Would you mind reposting with links instead? Then you can have conversations about it on your hubs, too. Thanks.
? Don't know why--I'm approving your comments!
@ Oliver: Would you like to look at some articles or books that explain this? I'm not sure which questions you think that I avoided--I answered them--I just don't think you like my answer. At this point, I would just be repeating myself. I will say a few things, though, to clarify. All creation needs a beginning--yes. Does that disprove God? No--He is not a creation. He is Creator. The first humans were made perfect. Satan did not recreate them--I never claimed that. But when they listened to him and acted in obedience to Satan instead of God, the curse of the knowledge of good and evil came upon them--this is what corrupted their flesh--think of it like a disease that comes in and alters/mars and is then passed down through generations. It wasn't that they hear the Devil's knowledge only--they acted upon the lie. One who thinks about murder and one who murders have done two different things. In response to the horrible things done in the name of God--I agree--they are horrible. And this is why humankind is marred by sin--who would do the horrible things you suggest in the name of God? I could commit crimes in the name of Oliver that you never sanctioned and just because I said I did if for you, doesn't mean you ever told me to do it. Religion is flawed--it is man's design, not God's. I'm not religious and don't advocate religion. Jesus--the representation of God--told the religious leaders of his day that they were the children of the devil. He didn't like what the religious people were doing either. Dinosaurs existing in now way rules out God--how do you figure? I can suggest many resources to share if you seriously want to pursue the answers to your questions. Thanks!
The two biggest piles of crap about "god" are original sin and free will. Both of these were dealt with brilliantly by John Galt in Atlas Shrugged:
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's impossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than its neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath: I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
My Comments keep dissappearing - it's rather annoying
Here is a short clip that talks a little bit about original sin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CDZUZ1Y8PQ
And one more about are we born good or born bad?
Surely if everything has a beginning that means that God did too - which implies he was created - so that is far more illogical im afraid. And Human's can't have been made perfect if they were able to be tempted in the first place - that is also illogical, There is nothing in the Bible to say the Devil recreated the humans or physically placed evil within them, he merely offered them knowledge and they accepted. How could Adam and Eve been created in the first place, when there is substantial evidence that humans comes from a common ancestor - Evolution. You accuse me of having assumptions and holes - you avoid answering my questions - you imply that God is the most rational thing there could be and that jesus somehow showed people the "light" - yet Christianity is the biggest cause of genocide on this planet. You had priests in the 15th and 16th centuries selling deeds to heaven for money... and you had a pope who raged war on people. From Christianity we got "the divine right of the Kings" that god picked them to be in their position - after all they were born into power - so would you have a king rule your country? I dont think you would. We see Christianity spread across a world, a world which it deemed flat and when it realised that there were people living on other continents (not so easy to get to by foot in a few thousand years time, that's how old the world is apparently) they destroyed them and converted them. Go to a natural history museum and look at the skeleton of a dinosaur, or a fossil which is over a 100 million years old... then tell me that "God" and the Bible are correct.
@ Oliver: Nope. Every created thing must have a beginning. To say that the universe doesn't have to have ever began requires more faith than it does to believe in God. It is simply not logical. Again, the chances for a random occurence of life just springing up out of nothing with no cause--again--that seems much more illogical and relying on blind faith in something that has no evidence, is not logical, and is not even plausible. Sin is around and it is within. God did not create humans with sin. He created them good--sin came into the picture with Adam and Eve--and sin marred creation (humans and natural creation--the earth, weather, animals, etc.) Me saying I believe means what it says--this is what I believe to be true. You believe it to be false. Do you not know if it is false or not because you believe that it is false? God made humankind to be in charge of the earth. They messed it up. He did come up with a solution--that is Jesus. It is still people's job to partner with God to make things right.
Humans don't have a downfall in their design. They were designed good--then sin came in and flawed/marred that design. The work of Jesus removed the sin that flawed mankind--but only for those who accept it. There will be a day when the earth and all of creation is completely redeemed--evil will be punished and done away with--and all will be good again. Thanks for trying, but your argument is not tight, valid, or carry much weight. Too many wrong assumptions and holes--but I do like that you are asking questions and thinking--that is more than many people do. :-)
Wow Mike--at least you practice what you preach. Of course I completely disagree with what the sticker says--but a warning label of some sort could be helpful. Things like, "This is not one book made up of many books. Notice the different literary genres and read accordingly." and "All of these books are a part of a larger story--do not take it out of context and distort it for your own use--God will not like this." or "Don't read without assistance from Holy Spirit--lest your foolishness will be as wise to your own eyes." I'm sure there are a ton of cool labels I could think of. However, that really doesn't relate to the article or the discussion at hand so--done with that topic.
1. The Universe doesn't ever have to have started. And if it did, it makes far more sense that it was a random occurance. 2. Are you saying children die because of sin aroudn them? So because there is Sin in the world, or because their parent's have sinned? 3. Notice how you say "believe" - implying that you do not know. If God exists then why doesn't he solve the world's problems - solve the world's disasters and help mankind? Why does he leave it to "miracles" in order to show himself. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge - also a metaphor for sex - but blamed the Devil for tempting them (they forgot God) In the theory of Christianity, Humans do not act in evil because they are human, but because they are tempted by the devil - but surely this is a contradiction, as temptation is, on its own, a hamatia - a downfall, implying that humans have a flaw in their design - a design created by god - who is apparently perfect. Oh and GodlessHeathen - Those are awesome!
I once bought a roll of a 100 of these and placed them on all the Bibles at Barnes and Nobles and other bookstores in my area:
Warning Label:
@ Oliver: But where did the first universe come from? These theories fail to ever address the cause that started the chain of cause and effect. I don't mean to say the children die because they are born because they are evil. Death, for children or otherwise, is a result of sin. So if babies die before they are born, I believe 100 percent that they grow up in heaven instead of on earth. God doesn't unforgivingly send people to eternal doom. God made a way (through what Jesus did) for ALL people to be freed from the consequences of sin. He offers a gift of eternal life for all. But God created free moral agents that get to choose to say "yes" or "no" to God's invitations. Love could not exist without choice, and God is a God that has free will--God is a God of love. He created mankind in his image and in their prefallen state they were only good because the effects of sin had not taken place, but they still had free will. Thus the choice to say "yes" to God and his ways means the choice to say "no" therefore the option for 'not God' is available. When Adam and Eve chose "not God's ways" when they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they went from having a knowledge of only good, to having a knowledge of evil, because they listened to the lies of the temptor instead of God's wisdom. In the ancient text, Eve actually said, "I forgot" yet we often read it as "I was deceived." She forgot who God really is--and forgot her true identity and thought she needed something else (that which the tempter was offering and calling it good was really evil). The curse of sin came into effect. Jesus came to lift the curse and redeem people--free them from bondage of slavery to sin and the devil. But if a person does not receive the solution (Jesus) then they continue to live under the curse. People who go to hell are the people who in this life wanted nothing to do with God and so in the next will get their desires eternally fulfilled. God will not send a person who truly never had a chance to hell. He will make sure they get chances for truth throughout their lifetime and people are only judged based on the knowledge that they have. That's why the more you know, the more responsible you are to act accordingly because you know better. Does that help to clarify my point?
Oh, and by the way, the devil is the same today as he was back then. He calls good evil and calls evil good. He blames God for things that he (the devil) does and he hinders God from getting credit for the good that He (God)does.
Thanks.
Surely the idea of reoccuring universes makes far more sense than a "God" that creates all things. You didn't answer my question fully - unless you are implying children die before they are born because they are predicted evil in the first place? God is apparently merciful and forgiving, and the devil is apparently evil - yet God unforgivingly sends people to eternal doom and the Devil punishes people for their sins?
Your assuming that what you say is true. Replacing one unknown for another is not answering anything. You think that because you have made up an answer it is right? Like I said why do you dismiss the Spaghetti Monster theory? How do you know that is not the right answer?
Your whole argument rests on your answer being correct. What you are saying is okay if we don't know then it could only be a god....and you think that sounds intelligent?
So "no answer" is a better answer then a supernatural being that is outside of the natural order? Creation coming from nothing is better then saying it came from a creator? "What is X?" or "Who is X?" is more satisfying than saying "Ignore the X and pretend its not there."
If I say, "Does the moon exist?" you are saying "It doesn't matter if the moon exists or doesn't exist." But here I am, looking at the moon, wanting to know what it is.
I know I know...God gets all the credit and none of the blame. If it's good that's God, if it's bad that's....someone else.
That's the good thing about fairy tale characters, they can do no wrong...
It was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I can prove it too:
http://www.venganza.org/category/sightings/
Do you see how ridiculous what you are saying is? What makes my claim any less believable, yet you discount it?
Replacing one unknown for another is not answering anything. What you are saying is:I don't know, therefore it could only be a god." Okay if that satisfies you, then so be it, but it does not me.
Also I don't have to even have an answer. My mot having an answer does not make your made up answer right by default. Because you made up something does not mean it's true.
All the Theist has done is replace one unknown with another unknown. Think of God as "X" in a mathematical equation. If you were given an equation to find out what "X" is and you simply made up a random number as your answer, would you have solved the equation? Of course not, all you have done is replace one unknown for another. Actually their math is even worse than this example, because they are claiming "X" equals "Y"...okay so what is "Y" then? They have answered the question with another question.
No--God created the possibility for evil. He did not create evil. This goes back to the free will thing again--which you claim to not believe--so I don't know how you can understand this. But free will is the key. God wanted mankind to be able to love. He wanted companions, not puppets. He had to give the choice for love and for humans to say yes to God relational invitation. Therefore that had to be the possibility for them to say no. Saying no to God and His ways means saying no to goodness. Evil--sin--is the lack of goodness. He created the choice. The creatures, when rebelling against God from their free will, chose the "not God" option and thus--evil/sin.
You have not given me any information that has answered my question. You can't because there is no answer. No scientific theories are able to account for origin. I know you think you have me trapped there because you are saying, "What were God's origins, then?" But that's exactly why God can be the only answer. Only something supernatural--outside of time and outside of our natural order--can make sense. Evolution says that something came from nothing. Creationism says that before something existed, there was an eternal someone that existed. If God is eternal, He doesn't need an origin, a beginning, or a Creator. It's outside of the system that we live in where things have a beginning and an end. Only a creative force not bound by time can exist before time and can create. Your argument makes no provision for the supernatural, above the laws of our natural order. So you are the one without an answer. If there is no God, where/how did matter first originate? Did something come from nothing?
@Seek-N-Find
Your remark on sin. If your God created everything then he was also the architect of sin. This is where theists always trap themselves, by claiming God created everything, but is not responsible for anything evil.
@Seek-N-Find
I did answer your question, did you watch the video?
I also stated that it is not atheists that believe something came from nothing, that is what theists believe. Until you can answer what created God, then you are saying nothing created something, because if everything needs a creator, you are stuck now.
@ Oliver: The answer to your question is "sin" Sin is evil. Evil is the absence of good. The reason there is death and disease and deformity and sickness--it's all realted to sin and evil. Just because somebody calls themself a representative of God (i.e. Christians) does not mean they are rightly represented Him. The real question is--why would God allow suffering and evil in the world? Would you like me to elaborate on this?
Thanks for your comment.
@ Mike: My question is still not answered. Regardless of the time it took for the universe to create or what happened over those billions of years, my question is what created the "stuff" that was used in the creation of anything? Where did matter/stuff/being/existence come from--the first thing?
@Seek-N-Find
Evolutionists do not believe that something was created from nothing, theists do. You believe that this thing called "god" created everything, yet you also say that nothing created "god" ...meaning that nothing (God) created something (the universe).
We believe that it was created over billions of years and through to over 13 billion to be precise. This has actually been proven by the fact our universe is still expanding today. They only people that do not believe it are those that have everything to lose...theists, because if this is true...there whole story is exposed for the fairy tale it is.
Start here:
@Seek-n-Find
Of course this would be that there is no evidence for a God...nothing. I know you will have all kinds of things you consider evidence, but as I have already pointed out, it's not.
There is much more to support that there is no God. I have listed a lot of it in my Hub.
@GodlessHeathen - Well Morality doesn't neccesarily derive from god, it derives from incentive created by society. I don't know about everyone else, but I would rather not follow a book that has: "Stone disobedient children" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) within it. We see this as wrong now because we have developed morals, however, our faith in God has fallen. Has Crime increased since the days of Jesus? I highly doubt so. I ask you this; If God has a plan for all of us, why do some children die before they are even born? And if we are all in his image, how can you explain deformity, downsyndrome and madness?" Because years ago, Christians defined them as evil and the image of the devil - why, if we are somehow less moral because we are more atheist, do we now believe this is wrong?
@GH (from here on out, Mike): Here is the first question I have for you. Skeptics often say that God is inconceivable because how can a Being just "exist" without having been created? My question is similar. How does anything created--whether the earth, animals, humans, molecules, gasses--whatever--exist in terms of origins? They could not have been created from nothing or just 'appeared' in the air one day. I want to go back to the very root--back to the beginning. From what (or how) did matter FIRST originate?
Thanks! Feel free to send a link to a hub or article if the answer is too long to post in this comment section.
Good Morning GH!
Okay--since there is so much content and its hard to know where to start, as you mentioned, I'll start with this question for you: What is the number one "flaw" or "problem" you see in terms of the existence of God? What is the question you hold that you would most like to be answered--the thing that bugs you the most about this whole "God" thing.
Let's start there. Let me know and then I'll respond. If you can, please try to be concise and clear with the issue/question so I know exactly the root of the issue so I can best respond. Let's do one issue at a time. Thanks!
I am fine with here or email.
Someone once told me to pray for them, they said it was the least I could do....I agreed with them.
GH: One more thing, do you have a preferred method of sharing information? I don't think posting it on this hub will be the easiest way to share. E-mail? Or should be create a forum for each topic?
@GH: You have me beat in age, although I am not as young as I look, and I've always been wise beyond my years--so perhaps you will learn something after all. You can send things my way. One of the times my faith actually grew the most was during the two years that my very passionate, atheist friend tried to convince me to leave my faith. He would send me things to read and I'd read them. I'd send him things to read and he'd read them. We both learned a lot during that time--but even with all the facts and evidence I gave him, it was the God encounter that ultimately convinced him. So we can exchange information and ideas--I'll pray for you--and you can not pray for me.
Also, I don't think I have it ALL figured out. I don't think anybody does. But I think I understand more than many who call themselves Christians. I'll tell you that I'm not a typical "believer." I've also studied with some of the best so this will be an interesting journey!
@Seek-N-Find
Sure send me anything you like, but trust me I have seen it all. I did not just start reading and researching all this last week, last month or even last year. I am 51 and have been researching this since I was in my teens, so I am sure you think you have some great bit of wisdom that somehow in all this time I just missed, but I very highly doubt it.
I want you also to look at things I send you. You have so many things wrong it will take a long time and I am not sure where to even begin.
I know you think you have this all figured out, but at your age (and I am only judging by your picture) you are not even close. I have studied with the best, so be sure to bring your A game if you want to do this, you will need it.
@ GH: I think we agree on more than you think--and I can see you are a smart person. In terms of the evils of government and religion, I think we actually have many similar views. I believe religion and who the real God actually is are quite different.
I read your very long hub about religion. I just think you have some facts mixed with experience mixed with other forms of misinformation and are missing quite a few facts. It's like having the pieces to 100 different puzzles but you don't have all the pieces and you put the pieces together as best you can and say "See--this is the picture." I would say that you have a lot of right pieces but there are many that you include that do not belong and there are many missing that it doesn't appear you've yet to see.
There needs to be a sorting out of information--a lot of the "religious" answers/attitudes/experiences, etc. need to go. When Jesus was on the earth, the religious people were the ones He was most upset by. He called them children of the devil. Why? There are reasons for this that were true both then and today.
It would take a very long time to address your Hub point by point--but I can tell you upon reading it that there is a suitable response for each point. I'm going to try to think of an efficient way to engage with you in the discussion. I can't get behind on my writing jobs or no paycheck for me! So though I'd rather spend hours just responding to you on Hubpages, I will have to ask for you to be patient. I will try to respond to your points. Would you be open to me sending you some resources? There are many people who have addressed the questions you ask in a solid way and rather than me rewording the work they've already done, I can point you in their direction, because I would say the same thing.
By the way I agree that Freedom is the answer. How does one live in the fullness of freedom? Truth. This is the journey we are on.
The Bible was written in digital mode (not in analog). Nothing can be removed or added. Now Dead Sea Scrolls preserved two important Books and it is Prophet Isaiah and Gospel Luke in the same as Bible is. There were no changes and there were strictly trained those who copied the Bible. The Bible clearly stated that anyone add or remove anything from Bible will be in bad shape. The people believed it. Constantine was not even Christian, he was pagan who his life.
All of this is really not that difficult. There are two matrix's running religion and government. Both are dangerous on their own, but when mixed are lethal. My philosophy is simple: Freedom is the answer, what's the question?
My philosophy can be summed up by reading John Galt's speech from Atlas Shrugged.
Hello readers and commenters: I want you to know that I love discussion--disagreements are great because its one of the best ways people can learn. Disagree and discuss all you want, but I'd like to ask for you to please remain respectful towards others. I want to stay focused on the topic at hand and not get into finger-pointing and insults. I'm out at class for the night and will respond to queries, etc. when I can. Thanks for the lively discussion all!
Hi everyone. I had not possibility to read all posts. Once I was an atheist but no satisfaction I received. It was only short and it was deception. Almost all communists were atheists. All murderers were atheists in the Europe.
To my experience I do not like the word religion since it is man made opinion. Atheism is opinion then it is the religion - believe system there is no God. Relation with God depends on the faith, which was broken in the Garden of Eden. The way back is the same way restoration of faith. God is the Spirit and outside of matter and time. There is no way one can prove there is God with fact one may expect. There always was God, still over 200 years atheist did not prove there is no God. Evolution does not exist since there wasn't any. Logic shows that 0+0=0 regardless of time. The time never produces anything unless there is the seed.
I do not claim I am religious. I am believer. If one do not believe I am not willing to prove anything. You may stay in atheistic religion. It is your problem.
Oliver Pendle,
What makes you think that the bible was changed and rewritten by Constantine? There is absolutely no reliable historical evidence for any such a thing ever having taken place.
@Oliver Pendle
You are correct...and also where then do my morals come from if I do not believe in this "god?" I have no thoughts of salvation or some type of afterlife, so why then would I not live my life as if there where no tomorrow, because I do not think there is.
Christian's may require this belief to keep them in check, but the atheist does not. So this proves that morals do not come from a God, if they did, I would have none.
GodlessHeathen,
Thanks for the clarification. I was using the 'typical' definition, which is why language is important.
I am no more in favor of 'big government' than you are it seems. In my opinion the function of governmant is only to provide security for the state, and enforce the rule of contract law.
The Logic here is flawed - It is like the arguement that A table has four legs, a dog has four legs, therefore my table is a dog. You are saying, rightly, that law is created, and that there is a univeral law (Is there?), therefore that law must be created by god... this is not so. Law is created by humans (AS is God, most likely) this law is based on our mistakes and from learning - it's called empiricism. If Law is universal, then there would be an equal set of morals across the globe - this is clearly not so, as christians found out during colonisation of lands - thus the destructive osmosis of religion to the false equillibrium we have now. Don't forget the bible was changed and rewritten by COnstantine after he adopted christianity as the offical religion of the Roman empire in order to allow war - how can anyone follow such a book which has been manipulated by tyrants? How is that God's universal law?
Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common usage or various anarchist movements.
Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (includes opposition to the State)
Contract: a voluntary binding agreement between persons
Coercion: physical force or threat of such against persons or property
Capitalism: economic system where the means of production are privately owned, and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined through the operation of a free market rather than by government
Free market: a market where all decisions regarding transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services are voluntary
Fraud: inducing one to part with something of value through the use of dishonesty
State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion
Voluntary: any action not influenced by coercion or fraud perpetrated by any human agency
Anarchy is not lawless chaos as most people believe it to be...or at least that is not what I mean when I use the term. I use it to mean self-rule. I rule myself and you rule yourself. But this does not mean we get to do anything we please.
It means you can do whatever you like with your property and I can do whatever I like with mine AS LONG AS what one of us does do not interfere with the others equal property rights. So of course this would limit us from stealing, raping, murdering, etc right?
What this would do though is eliminate all "Fake Crimes" those being things like drug use, prostitution, anything that involved the use of a particular property in a way that was victimless.
To be more precise, I am an Anarcho-Capitalist:
GodlessHeathen,
Okay, what does anarchy mean?
So then this is not a bet at all. With no time limit you can easily blame it on a number of things, it has not been long enough, God moves in mysterious ways, only God knows...you could even say it's my fault for not truly having an open mind...as if I would somehow be powerful enough to outwit a God, lol.
No, I do believe in free will, what I am saying is theists cannot truly believe in free will. Here is that section from my Hub:
Free Will?
When theists are presented with a dilemma such as all the ones I have raised here, their go to response is "free will". This is not only a cop out, but not even an acceptable answer. A theist cannot truly believe they have free will while at the same time believing God knows their every thought and action.
If God knows what you are going to do before you do it, that would mean it is predestined. It does not matter that you have the option of changing your mind, because in the end, God would still know what your final decision would be. Even if you were to change your mind 1000 times, God would still know what your final decision would be. If God knew yesterday that today I would eat cereal for breakfast, am I free to not eat cereal today? The problem is of course if I am free to not eat cereal today, God would have been wrong in knowing that I would eat cereal today.
If someone knows in advance what you will do, you do not have free will because it was decided ahead of time what you were going to do. Although you might have convinced yourself that you had free will in your decision, you did not because God knew before you did what you were going to decide.
Either we truly have free will and God (or anyone else) does not know what we will do tomorrow, or we do not and our future has already been decided.
Free will does not answer any of the dilemma's I have placed here, so if you use free will to try and explain any of this, I will discredit your answer based on your not having free will and your misunderstanding of the meaning of free will.
We can keep in touch as long as one of us is alive if you want. I have no idea how long it will take--but I'll ask for it to be quick.
I'll take a look at your article. If you don't believe in free will--I'm not sure about how that will impact things--but I'm willing to pray nonetheless.
This experiment is much more exciting than coins--and much more meaningful.
Okay, I have a ton of consulting work to do so I need to hop off Hubpages for a bit.
So this is one of those you can't lose bets. If in 5 years I tell you nothing has happened you will simply say it has not been long enough or that God moves in mysterious ways.
By the way, I do not agree with your free will statement, nor do I believe you actually have free will. I cover this and many other topics in my Hub if you are open enough to read it:
And Mike--it's nice to meet you. Thanks for thinking of such a great idea. You made my day. :-)
I can't put a time-frame on God. I've seen Him answer prayers super fast--I've had to pray for some things for years. Let's just start and see what happens. The most important factor is your free will. God respects free will. If you don't want to see evidence, you probably won't. But, like I said, if you are open, then it will happen.
Oh I forgot, my name is Mike Wasdin...I have nothing to hide, if you Google me you will see I am pretty open about my views. I have written for many websites so you will have no problem getting any information you need.
I have been in the news many times, I am also suing the Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer for her "Day of Prayer" proclamations:
@Seek-N-Find
I am 51 years old, I have had many people offer to pray for me and I have always accepted the offer. My mind is always open...do your magic...you're on!
Is there a time frame? I mean how long does it take for God to do his magic? If he created the Universe in 6 days, this should be a small feat wouldn't you say?
@ GH: Interesting proposition! I'll take you up on the offer under one condition. You must be open to the possibility that something might happen--that God may be real. If you agree to being just a tiny bit open minded, then I say yes, let's do it. If you are totally closed off, God Himself could appear to you and you could come up with some explanation of why it wasn't God. So--are you in? Is there room to crack the door open of possibility? If so, let's do this thing and I will pray for you daily. We can check in on a monthly basis--that would be good. :-) Great idea!
One more thing, can you let me know your name? I'd like to pray for you by name if that's okay. You can send it to me in a private message if you don't want to post it on this hub.
@ Coming Of Age
"I try to be more focused on solutions. If government and religion are the problem then what's the solution? For me it could never be anarchy."
That's only because you do not understand what Anarchy means, I know you think you do, but you don't.
@Seek-N-Find
This is your “evidence?” This is sad, I was not even going to respond because I thought if this is really what you have, then there is no point, but I could not just let this go without at least addressing it.
At first I was reminded of an episode of The Beverly Hillbillies (this may be before your time) where Mr. Drysdale has a cold and he is over at the Camplett’s house where Jed informs him that Granny has a cure for the common cold. Mr. Drysdale of course is curious about this “cure” so he inquires further. Jed then tells him that all he has to do is take 3 teaspoons a day of this elixir Granny has and n 7-10 days his cold will be gone…poof just like that. Normally that’s where the joke ends, most people do not need an explanation beyond this but since you believe in miracles I will explain further. You see, most colds run their course in 7-10 days anyway, so the elixir had nothing to do with it.
No, how does this relate to your headache story? Most headaches also run their course and end on their own, so your praying did nothing, it was going to end anyway. All these other “miracles” you describe are not proof of anything either. They are merely stories that you have convinced yourself to be “proof” but since I do not know all the details involved, nor was I there to see these “miracles” I will dismiss them as also mere coincidences or that they never happened at all. After all, I have to consider the source that it is coming from someone that talks to invisible people.
In the real world this is not proof. For something to be defined as proof the theory would first have to be tested, then tested again, then tested again and again. It would be peer reviewed, then critically reviewed. Did you perform any tests on the hundreds or even thousands of other things people prayed for and never received or did you just take the handful of times your praying actually materialized as proof? Of course you never gave any thought to it would have turned out that way had you prayed or not. I discount your story because it is not proof of anything. Am I to believe that your “god” took time out of his busy schedule to answer your meager prayer about a headache?
I can be convinced though if you want to make this an experiment. Try praying for your “God” to intervene in my life and make me a believer, I will check in monthly with an update and let you know how it’s going. If it works, you are right, if it does not you are wrong, what do you say? Of course you would never be willing to put this to any kind of real test that could be proven using a test subject as myself, because deep down inside, you know it would not work. Just like you did not want to take my flipping a coin test, because you knew no matter how much you prayed it would not happen. You prefer to stay in the safe world of not having to really prove anything…that is your choice, but I do not believe you have little green men living under your bed, if this is the best you can offer as “proof.”
If you really wanted to test your prayer theory you easily could, but we both know you won’t…
As far as you not getting the freedom part, I get that know too….
GodlessHeathen,
"I see it as part of the same thing. Government and religion are two wings of the same bird of prey, two different matrix's."....That's fair enough, you're entitled.
I try to be more focused on solutions. If government and religion are the problem then what's the solution? For me it could never be anarchy.
@ GH: As I see that we are going in circles and just do not agree, I will make this my last response. Nothing is hard about the topic; I simply look at it differently and your logic, which may be simple, does not seem to work. That's how I see it. That's not how you see it. We disagree. What we do agree on, is that I am responsible for me and you are responsible for you. We agree on a few things!
Back to prayer--again we disagree. I believe you are making a bold, unfounded statement. The burden of proof is on anybody who makes a claim--especially an absolute claim. It doesn't matter if the claim is for or against. In court of law, people that argue both for and against something being true or untrue both bring evidence and an argument to the table.
I have plenty of evidence for God's existence and for the power of prayer. If you choose to dismiss the evidence, that is up to you. It's not that the proof isn't out there--it's that you look at probably only a portion of the evidence and call it unfounded.
Here is one example of prayer working (and I have many). I was at work recently. God revealed to me that my coworker had a headache. I asked her if she had a headache and she said yes. I asked her if I could pray for her and she said yes. As soon as I prayed, the headache immediately left. I then went on to listen to God's heart for her and I encouraged her using words that touched her so deeply that she cried. There was no way that I could know of the things I was speaking of. I didn't know anything about her life--but God revealed to me and so I prayed it and she was shocked/amazed because of the detail in which I spoke.
Here's another. My friend ended up in the ER about a year ago. Doctors and specialists were called in and nobody could figure it out. She was having stroke-like symptoms, paralysis, and fainting. I prayed for her and felt like God revealed the root of the issue as being spiritual, not physical. I went in and we prayed together. The illness left. Boom--gone. Just like that. Doctors were perplexed.
Here is another. A child in my class a few years ago had bed-wetting issues. Every day she had an accident in the classroom. EVERY day. This had happened for half a year. Doctors were trying to help, giving her meds--nothing was working. I perceived it was a fear issue. I prayed for her. That day, no accident. Day after that--no accident. The day I prayed, accidents were gone and did not come back.
I had a friend who was sick and who had to take meds or he would not live. One day while talking to him, I had a strong sense that God wanted to heal him. He was agnostic at the time--he believed in some kind of energy force, but wasn't sure what it was. I prayed for healing in the name of Jesus and guess what? He went to the doctor a few days later and his disease was gone--totally. He'd had it almost his whole life. Gone.
I had a friend who was a very passionate atheist. He was always trying to convince me to join him. I prayed for him every day for over 2 years. I asked him if he was so confident that he was right, then we could study one another's evidence. I gave him reading materials, he gave me reading materials. I prayed for him to have an encounter with God that he could not deny. One day--it happened. I was with him and we both experienced it at the same time. It is undeniable. It is hard to explain, but let me put it this way: If you saw a fire in the room--if a bucket of water poured on your head--etc. you would know that it happened. These are tangible experiences. This is what my friend and I had together at the same time--a tangible experience of God's presence.
Shall I go on? I could write for hours with story after story of my own experiences. Then I could give you books full of others' accounts--many even backed by eye-witness testimonies and medical records. Would this convince you?
Based on your previous posts, it seems no matter what is presented, you already have your mind made up--which is your right to do. So rather then entangle both my time and your time going in a circle that is going nowhere, I will simply end this conversation.
I do thank you for your opinions--it has made for some interesting discussion and perhaps it will be of interest to other readers.
Take Care!
@Seek-N-Find
As far as prayer, not a bold statement at all, there has never been a prayer answered period. When something happens that you prayed for, it's because it was going to happen anyway. Your talking to your invisible friend did nothing at all.
You may think you are talking to someone that is real, but you are only talking to yourself. If prayer worked then my experiment would prove it. Anyone in the world that thinks their payers have been answered is simply delusional. These same people only point to the times the things they prayed for happened, they never talk about the many other times they did not, and they only happened because that is what was going to happen anyway, with or without prayer. Not one prayer has ever been answered ever, not a bold statement just the truth.
The burden of proof in this matters lies on you, not me.
In legal matters, as well as most other things in the real world, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. If someone accused you of murdering someone and you were charged with the crime of murder, during your trial it would be up to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the murder that you have been accused of. Indeed as it should be the "burden of proof" would be on the person or entity making the claim. It would not be up to you to prove you did not commit the murder, and this of course is how it should be.
Most things in life operate this way...except in the area known as religion. I get asked all the time to prove there is no God, and although I believe the evidence weighs heavily in my favor, I can't prove a negative. I also do not have to because the burden of proof in this lies with the one making the claim, the theist. Someone could not claim to be an atheist had there not been a theist first, so it stands to reason the theist made the claim and has the burden of proof in this matter.
If I were to make the claim that I have little green men living under my bed, and at night they come out and talk to me, most people would assume that the burden of proof lies with me to substantiate this claim. It would not be up to others to prove I do not have little green men hiding under my bed, because it would be impossible for them to do so, you can't prove a negative. I might say they only talk to me or that only I can see them making it impossible for anyone to prove that I am wrong. But since I am not able to prove my statement, most sane and rational people would discount my claim as the ramblings of a mad man.
Should we give any more credibility to someone making the claim for a God without first demanding they give proof to this claim?
@Seek-N-Find
What is so hard about this? You worry about you and I worry about me and as long as what you do does not infringe on me we are okay. If it does then that is when the law would step in and decide who was at fault.
You are in your house smoking pot, not bothering me or anyone else, great no problem. You decide to then get in your car and crash into me because you were high and not as aware as you should have been, now we have a problem.
Where does this get so deluded that it's hard for you to understand? You are in charge of you, and I am in charge of me...very simple.
@ GH: I'm trying to decide how to respond to your post regarding prayer. If you have your mind made up that there is no God and that prayer is futile, then taking too much time to even respond to your comment seems futile to me. However, I will give a brief response.
When I talk to God, I am having a discussion with a real person. As real as your wife is to you, God is real to me. I could tell you that you don't have a wife, that she doesn't exist, and you just think she's there. Of course you would say that is ridiculous. Why? Because you have a relationship with her--you experience her. Her presence in your life is real and tangible. Nothing I could tell you could convince you otherwise. Just because I've never met your wife, doesn't mean she's not there. I could even try to give arguments as to why I believe wives don't even exist. Even if I had some facts threaded into my arguments, they would be inaccurate. You know she's there--so anybody who argues with you is null and void. That's how I feel about my relationship with God. You can believe as much as you want that He's not there--but I'm telling you--He's there. Logic and evidence is there, history and validity are there. But these are not even my primary reasons. I have personal experience with God. I have relationship. I am a life changed forever because of how real He has been in my life.
Regarding your coin experiment, I would say that God is not to be mocked. God is not a genie who is there to fulfill our every wish and demand. But I've prayed about things much more significant that coins. I prayed for provision--God has provided. I've prayed for healing--God has healed. I've prayed for wisdom--God has given wisdom. I've prayed for God's presence--He's been there. I could tell you a number of stories about real prayers with real answers but I think that you would likely come up with an excuse for every example and tell me that it was not God but was such and such.
Regarding your statement: "There has never been one prayer answered...ever." That is a pretty bold declaration! I bet there are many, many people throughout history and in the world today that would strongly disagree with that statement and they would have all sorts of different reasons/evidences to support their claim. What evidence do you hold in order to make such a bold claim and know it to be absolutely true? Have you debunked every case throughout history of answered prayer? Are you in a position to declare that every person who would claim their prayers have been answered is unfounded?
My inclination is that you have had a personal experience in some way with disappointment in regard to God or religion (which are not the same, by the way) or unanswered prayer. I am sorry if this has been the case (and if it's not, then I guess I'm making a wrong assumption). But when one has such passion against things of God, I tend to believe they have a personal reason. Those that are the true atheists, in my opinion, are the ones who are completely indifferent. They wouldn't even bother to read this article, yet alone respond. I'm not saying you are lying--I believe that you believe what you believe. I just wonder where the intensity comes from when it comes to what you don't believe?
I hope I've not offended you--that is not my goal. I am simply responding to your posts based upon my perceptions.
Thanks again for engaging in discussion.
@GH: I think that this is a point at which we will probably just not agree. I think that while your statement may potentially work theoretically, it doesn't seem realistic practically. I can think of plenty of examples where people's "rights" would clash. If you are relying on some sort of virtue for people to follow some kind of code in which they do not violate others' rights, then this just circles back to my original point--the law of moral absolutes. If you believe that I absolutely should not violate your rights and that you should absolutely not violate my rights, it still remains unclear as to determine what those rights actually are-especially if they impose upon each other. If we are in disagreement about these rights, how do we work through who has the "right of way" so to speak? This becomes a circular discussion and we both keep trying to say the same thing in different ways. I think the logic in the argument you are bringing to the table breaks down at some point and actually supports the case that I am trying to make.
Thank you for your comments, though. As one who is a huge proponent of freedom myself, I'm glad that we both have the freedom to disagree! :-)
Seek-N-Find, you should read Ayn Rand, in particular Atlas Shrugged.
No other book has influenced my life philosophically, politically or emotionally the way that Atlas Shrugged has. It would be fair to say that I am who I am because of this book. This book defined the meaning of life for me and gave me a better understanding of society as a whole. I can still remember how I felt the first time I read John Galt's speech...it was then that I began to "get it."
This is when I learned of the evils of altruism and this "I am my brothers keeper" BS that has been preached by religion and government alike. I owe a duty to no one but myself, and you also should take that philosophy.
@Seek-N-Find
Yes it was hypothetical.
When I talk to my wife I am having a discussion with a real person. When someone prays they are doing nothing more than talking to themselves...big difference.
Prayer is an act of futility. There has never been one prayer answered...ever.
Let's try an experiment in praying. Let's flip a coin 20 times (make it 100 times if you want statistically better data). Make notes how many times you got heads or tails.
Now, take a coin and pray to the Jesus Christ to make every flip heads side up...pray hard. If you need help ask a believer to pray with you.
Gather your family and friends and ask them to pray for it. You didn't get your prayer fulfilled did you? Maybe you even got less heads than the first time you flipped it.
After you have compared the data, prepare another coin, but before you start flipping pray to your car, your kitchen table, or to your toothbrush. Pray hard and then start flipping.
The odds are you got near 50-50 ratio all three times, you were flipping. You didn't get 100 heads. Not praying, praying to Jesus Christ and praying to a random object got you nearly the same results.
Time and time again...nothing fails like prayer.
@ COA: No--you've not offended me, but thank you so much for asking. I enjoy conversation and engaging conversation is even better. :-)
I've not heard of Ayn Rands objectivism, but now that you've mentioned it, I'll be sure to check it out! Always learning--always learning.
Thanks for your comments--I've enjoyed the discussion!
@Coming of Age
I see it as part of the same thing. Government and religion are two wings of the same bird of prey, two different matrix's.
@seek-N-Find
You said: " What happen when my self-declared rights and your self-declared rights are in conflict with one another? What if I believe it is my right to kill, steal, and destroy?"
Your rights end at my nose, just as mine do yours. You only have the right to use your rights in ways that do not infringe on another's equal rights, I said that in my post. No, you do not have a right to kill because that would infringe one another's rights...the same with stealing. This seems pretty self explanatory to me, yet I have to explain it so often.
Thank you Seek-n-Find
I hope I haven't offended you, my intent was to engage, and possibly get some other Christians to do the same.
Sometimes 'two heads are better than one' sort of thing.
By the way, atheism hasn't really addressed the moral question too well either.
On the subject of a so-called "atheist creed", are you familiar with Ayn Rands objectivism?
If not please do a search and pay special attention to the part that says each man is an end in himself, and how she explains it. You will notice that it takes on a 'moralistic' tone...One that is stolen from religion and re-packaged.
Godspeed
@ COA: Thanks for your response. Yes, I realize that I stumbled upon a very big topic. :-) I don't take credit for having thought of these arguments myself--I've studied others ideas (you can call me a blend of a student/teacher/philosopher/theologian/counselor/writer). I study other people who are much smarter than me and I learn from them and then assimilate that information with others and my own understanding and this is how my Hub was formed.
I think natural evils is the easier of the two--I believe sin can explain this.
I didn't really intend to simply philosophize or evangelize. I read another Hubber's article that was entitled the opposite my title--He argued that God is absolutely not needed for morality to exist and claimed the opposite to be true. This is a hubber that I've enjoyed having discussions with in the past and we once before did a partner hub where he was on one side of the issue and me, another. It was really his hub that I wanted to respond to, so rather than writing a hub within his comments section, I created a hub as a response. If it sounded like evangelizing, that was probably just my internal passion and love for God and truth and for others coming out as I wrote. :-)
Seek-n-Find,
Okay, I’ll give you some direct answers. Yes, I am a Christian.
You ask: "Why would God defining moral absolutes be a bad thing?" Or I could say, "What are the implications for believing as such?" Also, "How would you describe the origin of moral law/conscience?" My answer is that 1.) God giving moral absolutes would not be a bad thing, 2.) the implication of believing so means that I am called to make my best effort to follow biblical morality, and 3.) I would probably come very close to your arguments because that is about the best that any believer in a God given moral code can do. Direct answers….Fair enough?
However, where you and I may have some disagreement is what “inerrant” means when it comes to scripture. To me this means that the necessary ingredients for salvation are contained therein, it does not however lead me to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation for example.
I’m not sure if you realize it or not but you have either stumbled upon, or intentionally attempted to take on a philosophical subject (the problem of morality) that scholars (much smarter than I) have been arguing at least a couple thousand years, and as far as I can tell you aren’t making a new argument…In contrast, when Albert Plantinga first posited the Free Will argument as a possible answer to the problem of evil, he did put out something new. His argument only really addresses moral evils, and still leaves us with the problem natural evils.
It’s kind of unclear whether you are trying to address the philosophical question, or if you’re attempting to evangelize?
@ GH: Well, if you think that nobody or nothing is listening to prayer, I guess you are asking this question hypothetically?
There are many reasons to pray, all of which I cannot answer in the comments section of this Hub. But here are a few reasons:
1. Prayer is discussion. God intends to have a relationship with mankind, therefore conversation (prayer) is necessary. Why do I talk to my husband? Why does he talk to me? We build relationship and intimacy through conversation. The same holds true with God.
2. Yes, God may know all my thoughts, but that doesn't mean He doesn't want me to talk to Him. My husband knows that I love him. Still, he likes me to tell him. Parents often know what a child is thinking, but still they want the child to trust in them and to be open and share.
3. God has a divine plan--yes. And a part of that plan is that He decided to partner with humans. If all humans "went on strike" as it were, and just sat there and said, "God--you do it" then we would have a big problem. In fact, that is an unfortunate reality in much of the church today. People think God will just do as He pleases, forgetting that He has chosen the church to be His body. So we pray--we talk with God--we understand His heart, let's say, for the hungry. Then we go out and feed the hungry. Prayer was never meant to be an alternative to action.
4. I believe that though God has planned the final chapter, He has left room open for possibility and free will, so no, I don't think He has it planned down to the last atom in way of, "Such and such a person will do exactly this" because things are conditional based on human's cooperation. For example, Esther was in a position to save her people. But what would have happened had she been afraid to approach the King? God would have a plan B...a plan C...etc. Quantum Physics even shows us that at the micro-level, things exist in possibility. I believe this is how God created things--millions and trillions of possibilities. Why did God choose to make Himself vulnerable to partner with humanity? I don't know, for sure. But He did. And when we don't act in alignment with His heart, His will is specific circumstances may not occur as per His desire. This is why you see God changing His mind in Scripture--it's not that He was confused--He was working within a system that He created where He in some way limited Himself to depend on humanity is a certain way--now of course--humanity must depend on Him in order to accomplish what He desires for them to do.
5. There are different kinds of prayer--prayer is not always asking. Some of prayer is adoration and worship (just like some of my communication with my husband is telling him why I love him). Prayer is also confession--admitting our wrongs and repenting. God doesn't need to hear this--but we need to say it. This is how the lies we believe, etc. come from the darkness into the light and we become freed. This is for our benefit, not for God's. Prayer is thanksgiving--just like I tell my husband thank you when He does the dishes, etc. Prayer is supplication--asking/making needs known. "You have not because you ask not." Many people think that this is the only form of prayer, thought it is just one small part. Prayer is also proclamation. There is power in the spoken word. "The power of life and death is in the tongue" and "He speaks things that are not as though they are." Something happens when words are proclaimed in agreement with God. I don't know why God set is up this way--but this is how I see that it is. If I just believe in my mind and hope that God will do it is different than when He gives me the answer and tells me what to do. For example, let's say I need extra money. I ask somebody for help. They give me a winning lotto ticket. I can say that this person has planned to give me money and that is what they want. But unless I speak up and go and cash in the ticket, will the money come?
This should be a Hub!!!
Hi GodlessHeathen,
I agree wholeheartedly! Is government what the article and subswequent dialogue is about? I thought we were engaged in dscussion concerning where morality comes from?
@ Godless Heathen: I think that the protection of rights is a good thing to desire from government. The question then becomes, however, what are your rights? What are my rights? What happen when my self-declared rights and your self-declared rights are in conflict with one another? What if I believe it is my right to kill, steal, and destroy? This is where a basic agreement of what is right or wrong comes into play with a society. If we can't agree on what is okay or not okay, how will any law exist at all?
I agree that you (or I) don't need a government to tell us what is right or wrong. I believe what is right and wrong is innate in most of us. We collectively decide as a society what the guidelines for right and wrong are and we are supposed to tell the government. Again, how things are set up to work and how they work in real life are not always (or often?) in congruence.
I agree with you that people should just know that it is wrong to kill. My question is this: Why do people know that it is wrong to kill? What is it that exists within a human where this would be the case? Animals don't seem to live by this "law" and if we are evolved from such, then why are we any different?
Can you explain, in a nutshell, where an innate sense of morality comes from within a person?
Thanks for your comments.
@Seek-n-Find
In regards to prayer, why pray? I mean besides the obvious fact that no one or nothing is actually listening.
I mean God knows all our thoughts, all our desires, all that we need and all we deserve or will deserve in the future right? In addition God has a divine plan. He did not create the world without a clear picture as to what He wants. As God is a perfect being, the plan is equally perfect. It is elaborated to the tiniest detail, all the way down to the last atom. After all, it is a perfect plan right?
Considering this and prayers, we have two possibilities:
a) The thing a believer asks for is already in God's plan
b) The thing a believer asks for is not in God's plan
If the prayer is in accordance with the Plan, a believer will get it regardless if he or she prays for it. If what he or she asks is not in accordance with the Plan, he or she will not get it no matter how long he or she prays.
So, the question arises, why pray at all?
The hard work of one, has always done more than the prayers of millions.
@ Coming of Age: I think there is a difference between a moral absolute and what people claim "God is telling them." If two people prayed and asked God something that could be answered in an absolute sense only, I don't think God would give two different answers. But many of the things people pray for are not dependent on moral absolutes for answers. I believe that God answers prayers in a very personal way for each person--depending on many factors. He knows what is ultimately best for their unique circumstance in light of their own life and the bigger, eternal perspective. I would say He is fair, but not equal. Let me use an example to illustrate: If I went to the ER for a headache and you went because you cut your finger off, it would not be fair for the doctor to treat us equally (i.e. we both get sent home with a bandage wrapped around our finger--that would not help me).
I bring this up because some of the examples you brought up have multiple layers and one issue cannot be confused with another. Before responding to more of your comment, I feel it would be beneficial to ask you some questions. "Why would God defining moral absolutes be a bad thing?" Or I could say, "What are the implications for believing as such?" Also, "How would you describe the origin of moral law/conscience?"
It seems as if you are a Christian based on your last comment (yes?) I wrote this article primarily for people who are not believers in response to an article that another Hubber wrote. If I was speaking to a Christian that believes Scripture--I would say that Scripture clearly and explicitly states that God is the moral law-giver. The book of Romans, especially, tells about the problem of sin, the origin of the law, conscience, how the law affected people, how consciences were darkened, the law of Grace in the New Covenant, etc. I guess I'm trying to get to the root of your question/disagreement. Thanks much!
@Coming of Age
Once again, I do not need a daddy. I do not require government to look out for me and protect me from myself. I am a big boy, I know the dangers of an activity before participating in it and as such must accept the consequences as well. If a person decides to have unprotected sex with a prostitute and as a result they catch a disease, oh well who's fault is that? Actually I like to refer to this as natural selection...we probably did not need them in the gene pool anyway.
I will say it again, I don't want the government to be my daddy and try and protect me from myself, nor do I care if people are too stupid to figure this out on their own.
@Seek-N-Find
The only thing I want from government (If there must be one) is to protect my rights. Personally I am more of an Anarchist and would prefer a Stateless society. I also do not believe people require a government or a "God" to tell them that it is wrong to kill...I think people know this already, so the idea that some entity is required in order to have morals is ridiculous.
I am an atheist and an anarchist and yet I am aware of the need for basic law and order so that my property (money, possessions, time and person) do not get violated.
I do not require an outside force to tell me what is "right or wrong" but I am aware that without this, some would run a muck and steal, rape and murder...for those people I only require that a government protect my rights against.
If someone wants to smoke marijuana then that is their right and I don't want the government making laws to restrict that right, but when that person uses their right in such a way that infringes on my right (gets in their car and hits me because they were high) then I expect the law to protect my rights that were violated. And it does not matter to me that it was marijuana anymore than if it were alcohol, it's not the cause it's the effect I am interested in.
The only thing I require of government is to protect my rights, other than that I would prefer they just go away.
Seek-n-Find,
“What I am suggesting is that morality, or conscience, or right/wrong cannot be explained by scientific theories such as evolution.”...Why not?
We have to explain why self preservation is not the beginning of the ‘evolution of morality’. Why couldn’t individuals within a primitive culture recognize that by letting one neighbor get away with killing another and so on, that I could be next? Remember that we are talking about an evolution, or change over time that has to start somewhere, so self preservation is one possible explanation of the (start) of morality, not its end.
You also write: “Science often explains things as occurring for the "survival of the fittest" but when a person acts in a moral way to benefit another, it is not really in line with self-preservation.”...I agree that when an individual feeds the hungry (for example) that self preservation may not explain why he or she is doing it. However, does that provide sufficient evidence to insure his or her motives may not be self serving? Maybe they do it because it makes them feel better about themselves? Maybe they do it to get into heaven (faith without works etc.). Still this would be a self serving motive.
In order to make a cohesive argument for God being the source of our morality we must first get past the self preservation debate with a substanitive argument. Just saying God gave us the morality doesn’t really work does it?
Why would God give two Christians who prayed faithfully two completely different answers to the same prayer? For example one of the arguments that we Christians have made in the past as a possible ‘proof’ for why Christ must have been God is that no one in his or her right mind would have gone to their deaths over something that they didn’t truly believe….Fair enough?
Okay then, based on a similar thought process why would hundreds of thousands of Christian men have fought (and died) in the Civil War? Both sides claimed God to be on their side, If God gives us a moral absolute and plants it on our hearts, or reveals it to us in prayer how the confederates have gotten a different message than God was sending out to the abolitionists?
GodlessHeathen,
Don't all cultures base their laws on a perceived moral code, and isn't that just the point?
You bring up prostitution, and list what some might call a moral code of bodily ownership as to why it might be a personal issue, and then ask: "what right then would some other person or entity such as government have to deny her property rights?"
Isn’t that denial of the prostitutes “right” to sell sex based on a moral code?
I think it is……Here’s one moral argument for why a society or culture might go the other way with their laws:
Unregulated selling of sex has potential for harming a large segment of society by posing a health risk. Sure, some prostitutes may demand that their customers use condoms, but not all. Therefore, does not the good of the many trump the rights of the one?
@Coming of Age: What I am suggesting is that morality, or conscience, or right/wrong cannot be explained by scientific theories such as evolution. When a person does "what is right" it is often illogical and benefits the other, not the self. Science often explains things as occurring for the "survival of the fittest" but when a person acts in a moral way to benefit another, it is not really in line with self-preservation. The fact that people and cultures across time and geographic location have a certain innate sense of right/wrong or moral/immoral shows that right/wrong or moral immoral exist within a person. Where does this come from? This is what I refer to as "law." Because this law exists, there must be a law-giver--one outside of the human experience. Why is this? Natural explanations do not correlate with the things humans do in the name of love, honor, integrity, etc. How does a moral code shared by humanity make sense apart from a Divine Moral Law Giver?
@ GodlessHeathen: I think that I agree with you that morals should not be decided by the law. I am a proponent of freedom and don't think the "law" should decide my morals. Yet having said that, if the system is working correctly, the idea is that the law represents the morals of a given community. If a culture decides that they don't want to live in a culture in which anybody can murder whoever they want without consequence, then that society should elect officials to represent them and put into "law" those convictions which are held by the majority to benefit and protect the majority. Unfortunately, the way government is supposed to work in theory is often quite different from the way it works in reality. If the immoral corruption did not exist, things would run much more smoothly. Law is meant to define boundaries in order to provide protection, not to be used to control or punish.
Hello again Seek-n-Find,
You write: "As long as the question is asked by humanity, "Is this right or wrong/Is this moral or immoral?" then there is a reason for these questions to be asked--this is the conscience and the law that I'm talking about."....Then ask if I think this makes sense. Yes, what you have written makes sense, but it doesn't answer our question of where morality comes from ....Does it? If my interpretation is correct, you are saying that because we have the ability to postulate morality then the answer is already in our conscience, and put there by God. Am Interpreting correct?
Morality and Law
Should something be illegal simply because it is thought to be immoral? Should morality play a role in deciding law?
If you feel that morality should be considered when deciding if something should be legal or illegal then you are relying on some other person or entity to decide law based on their own subjective opinion of what is moral.
Who Gets to Decide?
People like to use subjective terms such as "moral," "right," "wrong," "good," or "bad." when deciding if something should be legal or not. Whether something is legal or not should have nothing to do with someones subjective opinion of whether it is moral or not. There is what is legal and then there is what is someones subjective opinion of what is moral, and the two have nothing to do with one another.
Something may be considered to be "immoral" such as prostitution, while at the same time should be legal. If you agree that each person is a self-owner then you would have to agree that the prostitute owns the property (her body) that she is selling. If she in fact is the rightful owner of this property, what right then would some other person or entity such as government have to deny her property rights? If they are claiming a higher right to her property than she has, then she does not own herself and is nothing more than a slave that is owned by the government.
There are many things that are considered to be "immoral" by some that are perfectly legal such as smoking, drinking and gambling which proves that morality should have no place in deciding law. Law should never be decided by a subjective opinion by some other person or entity. All laws should be based on property rights. The deciding question should be; who owns the property in question?
All matters of law could be decided easily if we were to just recognize and respect each others property rights. By doing so questions concerning matters like prostitution and drug procession and use could easily be decided. We simply in each case ask, who owns the property in question?
Property Rights
If we are truly the rightful owners of our property (by property I mean body, money, time, etc.) then we should have absolute authority over all matters relating to our property. Many of the laws on the books today would be eliminated because they would be found to be a violation of a persons property rights.
Laws that we have today concerning questions like:
Should a person be able to sell their body?
Should a person be able to purchase sex in exchange for money?
Should a person be able to possess drugs?
Should a person be able to ingest drugs?
Should a person be required to wear a seat belt or a helmet?
Should a person be allowed to participate in dangerous activities?
All of these would be decided by asking a simple question; who owns the property? If you are an adult, and as long as coercion and force was not used, then all contracts between consenting adults should be legal. The governments role should only be to protect our property rights. They should only get involved when force or coercion was involved in a contract. if a woman was forced into selling her body against her will, then a crime would have been committed and the State should then enforce the laws against this trespass.
Trespass
There are thousands of laws on the books all covering one very basic crime, the crime of trespass. All crime is really nothing more than a trespass upon another persons property rights. If you steal from someone you have trespassed on that person, if you rape someone, you have trespassed on that person, and if you kill someone you have trespassed upon that person.
Rather than have thousands of laws all pertaining to the same thing, we should have just one law, trespassing. Some will think this is silly because they can only relate to trespassing as someone entering another persons physical property such as an area of land or a home, but trespassing covers everything a person owns such as their money, personal property, time, and most importantly their body.
By having one law, the law of trespass we would simplify the entire justice system. The question would simply be, we there a trespass and to what degree was this trespass? We could have different degrees of trespassing based on the nature of the crime. For instance the crime of theft might be a 5th degree trespass, while the crime of murder would be a 1st degree trespass, with all other crimes falling somewhere in between.
All victimless crimes (what I like to refer to as "fake crimes") would be eliminated. For there to be a crime the State would have to prove a trespass and have a victim. Fake crimes like smoking marijuana or paying for sex would no longer exist; no victim, no crime. As it stands now the State fills in for what would be a real victim, for example: The State vs John Doe. This only proves that there is not a real victim because the State has to inject itself as the victim. I am sure you would be hard pressed to find any real person that feels victimized because John Doe was smoking marijuana in his own home, but the State does.
The State
The State wants us to believe that it knows better than we do what is best for us and how better to run our lives. When we step outside of the States limits on the freedoms they afford us, they punish us; this of course is to protect us from ourselves. Governments role should not be to decide what is best for us or warn us of things that are thought to be dangerous, that is what the role of our parents was. Now that we are adults it should be up to each self-owning adult to decide what activities they choose to participate in. There will be people that make bad decisions and when this happens, then that is when the State should get involved and decide was a trespass involved and if so punish the guilty party.
The States only function should be to protect our rights, not to decide what those rights should be. If you disagree with this, you have subjected yourself to being nothing more than a slave. If that is the case, what other freedoms and rights are you so eagerly willing to give up and turn over to the State to decide?
@ Coming of age: Thanks for your comments. Let me try to respond to your inquires:
"I am referring to a moral law that is built into your very humanity. It is a law that is written on one’s heart—or another way to think of this is as the concept of conscience."
Different cultures do have different views of what is moral or not--I agree with that statement. There is more than one way to look at this. Some cultures may consider something to be "okay" that the rest of the world looks at as immoral. This is an extreme case, but let's look at the Natzi Germany, for example. There was a culture that accepted something as "moral" though what they were doing was not considered moral by most. Just because a culture may be led (for any number of reasons) to consider something as moral, doesn't mean that it is moral. As long as the question is asked by humanity, "Is this right or wrong/Is this moral or immoral?" then there is a reason for these questions to be asked--this is the conscience and the law that I'm talking about. I also tried to use extreme reasons to clarify this point--such as a child being tortured just for fun--all cultures would consider this as immoral and if a culture did not, then the rest of us would still say its wrong. Does that make sense?
Your second point is a good question--why are churches coming apart over the issue of same-sex marriage? I believe there are several reasons for this. The cut and dry part, as you mentioned, is that Scripture does go against this. What is not cut and dry is how we are to respond to this. My observation is that many churches get stuck on one extreme or the other. On one side of the issue, they will hold to a high standard of "expected behavior" and when people don't meet these standards, they are judged. This is an issue, in my opinion, because the Bible makes it clear that our job is to love others, not to judge them. However, on the other side, there are some churches that say, "Anything goes--as long as we just love and accept each other." In this case, grace abounds but with no foundation of truth. I've been in a church where the focus is so much on "loving one another" that people are stuck in sinful patterns (which are destructive to themselves and others) and nobody steps in to help them out of it for fear of "being judgmental." For example, let's say that in my marriage I had a spending addiction. If my husband simply judged me, yelled at me, called me names, and belittled me, not only would the problem not be addressed but now there would be new problems added by his lack of love. But if, in love, he told me how much he cared and saw that there was a habit in my life that was harmful, etc. and want to help support me in being freed from the addiction, then I would have somebody who I know loved me. It's like the old saying, "God loves you just the way you are, but loves you too much to leave you that way." The reason you see a complex issue is because there are many issues underneath this one issue of same-sex marriage. At the root of church splits, is not just the topical issue but a whole lot more. Too much for me to go into (nor do I know all of them) for now.
Does this provide clarification?
Thanks for stopping by.
Hi Seek-n-Find,
Please bear with me as I use a couple quotes from your article to set up a few questions for you. Forgive me if I have paraphrased too much, and please point that out if you feel that your original intent does not come through.
"I am referring to a moral law that is built into your very humanity. It is a law that is written on one’s heart—or another way to think of this is as the concept of conscience."
Well, wait a minute. Don't different cultures have different views of what is moral and what is not? I think we would agree that stealing is considered morally wrong in most cultures today, but in several American Indian cultures the theft of a horse from outside of the close knit tribe was just the opposite. If a Lakota brave stole a horse from another tribe he was doing a moral good. Why did 'Steals Many A Horse' not feel an attack of "conscience', or conviction on his heart?....Befrore you say that no one was hurt, of course they were; whoever was left afoot was hurt, and could potentially die (that's why whites hung horse thieves). Not a current enough example? Okay let's look at something that is at the forefront of the Christian debate right now.
There are few (if any) denominations in Christianity today that are not having to dance around the question of morality where same sex relationships, or marriage is concerned. This is true for laypersons, and clergy alike.
I have to tell you this is seriously perplexing to me. First of all, on the surface this may seem like a cut and dry issue from simply referring to scripture, but in reality churches are coming apart over it. Why do you suppose that is?
"Both adults and children alike can experience guilt, shame, and regret, even if they haven’t been “taught” such responses to having done “wrong.” If there is no “law” to break, then there could be no concept of having done wrong."
This seems a bold statement....How could anyone know that a child (even an adult) that has never been exposed to outside influence would feel guilt for stealing something?
Hub Pages is a great place for different opinions!
I also have a Hub on this subject, although I see it a little different
Thank you for the beautiful words. I got teary-eyed again... God loves you too.
@ Tenkay: God in your heart--that is what is most important! I used to have faith in God just because I was taught He was real. Then I decided that was not enough and I needed to learn for myself. I then had faith because of my own personal experience with God--but that was not enough to convice my very good friend that God was real. So then I went on a logic journey and in the process, not only did my friend become convinced that logic and evidence leads to God, but my faith deepend quite significantly because I had both faith and reason. If one is willing to search, one will see that there is a whole lot of evidence out there for the existene of God and of the supernatural.
Thanks for sharing from your sister's diary. What a gift that you were able to find that entry! I'm sorry for your loss, but that journal entry makes me feel as if you will see her again one day.
Prayer is powerful. We often resort to it as a last step, but can be the best first step! I just went through a season of my life for many months that were some of the roughest months I've been through. I felt like the caterpillar in the dark cocoon--alone and like a falling-apart-mess. I trusted God through this and asked for wisdom and guidance. He was teaching me how to rest and allowing the "junk" in my heart to be exposed. I believe in His promises although I saw no light at the end of the tunnel. He had been faithful in the past--He's been faithful to others--so I prayed with confidence that He would be faithful to me. And I one day, a few weeks ago, woke up and had this "aha" revelation and things just made sense. Things lifted off--and the tirednes and lack of energy and the sickness and heaviness--it just all lifted--in one day! Total breaktrough and transformation were slowly taking place beneath the surface--like a flower that is beneath the ground growing. We don't see it until it emerges--just like we don't know the caterpillar turned into the butterfly until it emerges. I am flying now and I hope to never have to crawl on tree branches and eat leaves again. :-) I share this to encourage you that wherever you are at, pray with faith in the consisntecy and reliablity of God's character. Seek Him and fill you mind with truth--set your mind on things above. Be blesed and thanks for your comment. Peace,
God is in my heart. That's enough for me. I see myself as a logical person but where faith is concerned I don't apply this. Yes, there was a time when I questioned my parent's religion and the belief I grow up with. But I realize there's no answer to some and there are lots of answers to others too.
I guess I was lucky enough to encounter people who shed light into the darkness I was once in, who showed the path fitted for me, who was there when the questions started to come.
My faith get swayed sometimes by intelligent words, logical words, beautiful words... but I ask my heart when this happens, am I comfortable with this new knowledge? There are times it scares me, these words are so logical, so much more reasonable, but so different from what I believe in - and so I plead to Jesus again and again, Lord please guide me.
I want to share an entry from my sister's diary. She wrote it exactly a month before she died of small cell cancer. "There is a God and Jesus Christ is always there watching us little points of energy." She wrote it October 13, 2001 and she died November 13, 2001. I was so happy when I accidentally read this line. I know because of lots of circumstances that surrounds her life, she became an atheist, and don't want to discuss anything that's related to religion or beliefs. A month after she was diagnosed with cancer, I asked her if she still know how to pray. "Yes, I do pray, there's nothing else I can do", was her answer.
I am in the stage of my life where I feel same way too... there's nothing else I can do but believe in God,Jesus Christ. Pray to God... because there's nothing else I can do.
Peace to all hubbers.
Hey everyone--if you've left a comment and I've yet to respond, its because I'm otherwise distracted at the moment! Or perhaps I'm actually focused on other things and am trying not to get distracted by Hub Pages right now. I will get back to you when I can--for now--I need to fulfill my non-cyberworld responsibilities. :-) Thanks for the interesting discussion everybody!
Hey IM and FH: I love discussion! I totally don't mind if you have this discussion the comments field, I just ask that you please express yourselves honestly yet with sticking to the issue and not getting into personal attacks. Humor and some light-hearted bantering are fine (I like sense of humor) and you are free to agree or disagree--just please try to keep it respectful. Thank you much. :-)
@f_hruz: Yes, my name is intended to symbolize the masses.
I said Gods of Science on purpose, and you reacted just as I thought. LOL!
Now, you said: "You can't think for yourself as long as you have no idea what reality and nature is really all about ... and fit this category very well!"
I've been thinking for myself for quite a long while, now please explain what "reality and nature is ALL about," since you may have traveled around the cosmos and back, and have received the all-knowing answer to that age-old question. I'd love to hear your insightful response, since you claim to know what existence is all about. Hell, don't just tell me, please enlighten the crowd...
@ isane - that's a good name for some one writing such nonsense - gods of science?
You can't think for yourself as long as you have no idea what reality and nature is really all about ... and fit this category very well!
The quote from Zacharias is unfortunate, to say the least. Every time I've seen him speak he seems like a pretty smart guy. But evidently he doesn't know the first thing about atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with Marxism, for one thing. Just a bunch of myths, fallacies and confused ideas about what atheism is and what atheists actually believe. Such nonsense does not belong in an otherwise well-thought out and well-written article.
This is the most important question in the article:
"For the one that does not believe in God, what valid reason exists for explaining why harming others “should” be wrong?"
If there is no God, then why is X right or wrong? This is a very long and drawn-out conversation, of course. I have written a few hubs related to these topics:
http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/God-as-Hitler
http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Secular-Moral
For now, suffice it to say there are 2 main issues: the superiority of a secular morality, and the failings of a theistic morality.
If there is no God, then morality becomes a human project. We do have instinctual tendencies toward ethical action because of evolution. But the more compelling fact is that logic and reason provide us with the tools to determine reliable moral rules.
Quite simply, since we are the ones thinking, we are automatically lending credence to the idea that we should survive and continue to exist. This is the kernel from which all subsequent moral rules can follow.
Meanwhile, a theistic morality fails for several reasons. It is impossible to know for sure what God actually wants. This is why countless God-believers over the centuries have had vastly different moralities. Some have been extremely peaceful and compassionate, and others extremely violent and sadistic. Who's right? We can never know what God really wants.
Thus, with God, everything is possible. I can claim tomorrow that god wants me to do X, and nobody can categorically disprove me.
In addition, theistic moralities have a problem. They must decide that either something is good because God said so, or God said so because it is good. If X is good only because God said so, then this means only whatever God says is good. If God commands you to make peace on Monday, then peace is good. If God commands you to make violence on Wednesday, then suddenly violence has become good. It is totally arbitrary depending on whatever God happens to say at the moment. Thus there is actually no reliable, consistent, ABSOLUTE moral standard here at all. The standard is simply "whatever God says."
It is a utilitarian, might-makes-right approach to morality. Ironically, the very state of affairs that theists claim to reject!
If on the other hand, God recommends X because it is good, then this begs the question: why is it good? There is a larger moral standard being used that transcends God. And therefore God is not needed for morality, only that larger standard is.
@ f_hruz: Although I'm not a big fan of organized religion either, as it does seem to slow down progress to a certain degree, especially Islam & Christianity, I can't help but notice that your infatuation with this "man-made god" has slowed you down more than you'll ever admit. Hence forth, it all leads to a unity, whether it is quantum physics, spirituality, or simple observations of nature and the universe (within limited view, of course) and it seems that people who are on the opposing end of such actualities, end up being retarded in reality while claiming that others are, since they didn't play by a strict rulebook like the Gods of science that you most likely worship.
Hey, this thing is quite large, much like our imagination, and in fact, the human brain is a universe in itself - try that for a proportional theory. As I'd hope that the universe is infinite, as most of our imaginations our; go figure... Happy dreamland with blessings of surreal thoughts; praise be and all the rest... Ha!
Thanks very much for your reply - we are getting closer to the real issue here!
I can see very clearly where your mind is stuck and unable to see nature as part of your own reality like she exists as part of an objective reality for all forms of life, energy, matter and motion on earth and beyond.
You are not convinced about nature, what she is and how she works, but you give full credence to a man made god and creationism very clearly for the wrong reasons.
We all know, all things man mad have humans as the creator of these artificial things - that's very obvious and requires no explanation.
To think of nature as requiring the same kind of creator is part of this mind infliction called god delusion which thinks wind, rainbows, the sun and other planets, just like galaxies, our universe and all the ones beyond require a simplistic god as made up by some humans with limited science education and no real understanding of nature as a whole.
You have the ability to see the visual world with your eyes given a normal eyesight, but to grasp all of nature as she exists and unfolds in reality requires a healthy mind free of any absurd limitations imposed by such mental problems as god delusion or you will always put some god in charge of reality when in fact constant CHANGE is one of the basic laws of nature, just as causality, gravity and the entire radio magnetic spectrum ... which all functions constantly with out any gods having anything to do with any of it ... ever!
It's much easier to explain who created gods - obviously humans - but you require a lot more science to clearly understand how silly it is to even think of gods having created the kind of reality which has nature unfold in front of our eyes BUT even more so, before our critically thinking minds, to KNOW for a fact that gods are simply myths of very limited intellectual value only to those inflicted by god delusion!
A much clearer view of nature and a better understanding of reality is almost ready to welcome you to a much brighter moral, cultural and intellectual beginning as a born again atheist ... :)
We know nature is not NOTHING without some man made god. Quite the contrary, we know that gods are only mental limitations in a thinking persons path to greater enlightenment, personal development and intellectual growth ... and therefore, in sum, an enormous problem to a country like the US and it's economic slow down in the world with so many people not living up to their higher mental capacity because of gods and religion holding a large part of the population back from even trying to gain the intellectual ability of coping with life and reality correctly ... and finally putting gods and religions - all of them - in the history department!
Best wishes,
Franto in Toronto
@ Franto in Toronto: You are welcome. Hmmm...I think I might have to give a shorter answer/response here and just write another Hub to really give you a valid answer worth reading. It's hard to answer such big questions in the comments field. :-) But here's a short answer for now:
- I believe that religion is man-made and man-created, but I do not believe God is.
- I agree that many religions throughout history and still today have introduced irrational ideas, but I don't feel that these always align with God's ideas.
- I would say that nature does what she does so brilliantly because that is how God created nature. Humans did not make creation, but I don't believe nature made humans either: God made both.
- Ignorance is not moral, and morality is clear to many, but the origins of morality are not clear to all.
- A smart lady like me does not require a man-made god and in fact, because of my intelligence, logic, and experience, I've chosen to worship the real, true, living God instead of the man-made gods that are presented as being "real."
- Logic shows me that nature is indeed, real. Nature contains the seen realm and the unseen realm. I see birds, but I don't see gravity. I see the effects of natural laws, but don't "see" the natural laws. I breathe Oxygen, but don't see it. From what I've studied, logic leads me to the conclusion of the existence of a Creator being the most reasonable thing to believe and I've found much more evidence to support this than what I've found that supports the opposite. Logic, history, archaeology, the natural world, my own existence, and my life experiences all point me towards the reality of God.
- I do agree that there is an unfortunate "mind affliction" from which many suffer, from both the religious folks and non-religious folks alike. There is Truth and then there are a million versions of distortions of truth. One reason that deceit is so powerful is because it has elements of truth in it, but mingled with distortions, twists, and lies.
- Creationism and God's teachings favor being in harmony with nature and respect, care, and concern for all living things. This is a good thing, yeah? Teachings that say nature is "given to us to make money from it, use it, abuse it, etc." are not teachings that come from God. Why does myth exist? Usually it is based on something real, but it is the story invented by humans to try to explain it. Think about all the origin myths: "How the zebra got his stripes, for example. The zebra with stripes does, indeed, exist. But the story made up is not real, though it is based on reality. Religion can be this way: man's attempt to explain humans and God (both being real) but from a limited understanding and is therefore a false premise based on something real.
- What is an obvious fact to you is not an obvious fact to me. I could call this a very strong opinion, but an opinion just the same. It sounds like you've had some interactions with people or institutions that have given you reason to believe in such an opinion so strongly.
- Can a creation be the product of a creation? A painting (creation) cannot make another painting (creation). How would nature "make" nature? Nature can multiply, but when does a fish say, "I'm going to create a ____ (fill in the blank with a brand new species that does not yet exist). A work of art exists because an artist makes it. A computer exists because somebody designed and built it. My house exists because people designed and built it. Nature, or creation, exits because an intelligent source (God) designed and built it. I think it is much more illogical to consider that creation came from nothing than to believe it came from a Creator Being, God.
I tried to remain concise--hard to do! Thank you for the discussion. :-)
Thanks again for your reply and for clarifying your views.
You say: "We should be good stewards of all God has given us, including the earth, its inhabitants, animals, resources, etc. Mankind being created in the image of God does not imply that man should be free to destroy the earth. I've never heard that, anyway."
Can I take credit now for your enlightenment? :)
Any belief in god(s) is a form of religion or philosophy created by humans. Religion tries to introduce the irrational idea of nature not being able to do what she has done for more than enough years in shaping this universe and in forming planet earth before any form of life, even humans evolved.
How moral do you find such ignorance?
So why would a smart lady like you require a man made god for anything at all, least of which social values and morality?
If you follow simple logic, you will have to admit that not taking nature as the fundamental basis of reality and introducing gods into your interpretation of what exists and what is real, is simply absurd and irrational. It simply demonstrates an unfortunate mind affliction prevalent in the US bible belt called god delusion which tries to replace a healthy, critical and objective view of reality based on a clear understanding of nature with some 1/2 baked religious BS of creationism which supposedly makes a creator inevitable and builds a whole lot more absurd myth around what humans are and how we should relate to nature - not by seeking to live in harmony but by domination because some god gave it to us to use as we please, make money with every thing under the sun and wage wars ...
The obvious fact is: No gods gave us anything at all, ever - because we are a product of nature and not some non-existing god!
Is it not obvious to you by now that nature - very clearly - has no use for any gods of any kind, not now or ever!
Why keep believing in a man mad god when gods never even existed, not then, before humans evolved to populate the first caves, and not now ... gods are part of a perverse religious mind problem which confuses the question of morality, among a number of other vital questions retarding the social and cultural development of a modern global society .... and consequently an immoral idea in itself - especially when used on children.
With all respect, you are old enough to know better than looking for moral values emanating from a wide spread human mental deficiency when it's obviously a dead-end road!
Thanks for the discussion!
Franto in Toronto
@ kayecandles: Thank you for your comment! I'm glad you enjoyed reading this. :-)
@f_hruz: I agree that arrogance and greed--whether it comes from religious folks or not--is an issue. I'm not sure I know of the religious myth you are referring to that says people are free to abuse the environment. I am not religious, but I believe in God and abusing the environment goes against what I find God reveals; just the opposite, in fact. We should be good stewards of all God has given us, including the earth, its inhabitants, animals, resources, etc. Mankind being created in the image of God does not imply that man should be free to destroy the earth. I've never heard that, anyway.
I believe some things out there in terms of supernatural belief are myth and other things are truth. But regardless, living in harmony with nature is a good goal to move towards. I do agree that there is a lot of "mind polluting" going on out there; some of it coming from "religious" institutions; some of it coming from certain educational institutions; some of it coming from governmental institutions; some of it coming from media, etc. and the list goes on. The idea of finding one's morality through "religion" is not what I believe in or was trying to suggest in the article. I believe God exists apart from any labels religions might call themselves and He is the moral law giver. I agree that manipulation is a very horrible and dangerous thing and I am very much against its use no matter where its coming from. Thank you for your comment!
Well, great - thanks for the reply!
So you agree that religious arrogance has made some humans feel they are masters of our natural environment and are therefor free to abuse it any way they wish because of this absurd religious myth ... "We were created in HIS image"?
Where is the moral part in this religious myth that subjugating all of nature, including our fellow man, is ok?
It is quite clear to me, that it would be a lot more rational and moral if we instead eradicated such irrational religious myths along with this immoral economic system called capitalism which it serves and had humanity live in much greater harmony with nature, free of all mind polluting man-made junk like religion, nationalism and commercial exploitation.
Why isn't the US working for the conversion of the Vatican as one of the greatest mind polluters into an international centre for the advancement of the human mind instead of fostering one war after another to get all the oil reserves around the world before it's too late?
Well, maybe it is already too late when so much religious BS is being mistaken as morality when a clear view makes it quite obvious, it's all a game of manipulation to confuse the brainwashed to think they even have enough of a brain to know how to use it!
very good hub. Fery interesting and useful. Thank you for writing and sharing this.
@ AKA Winston: I see what you are saying. Here is how I would answer you conundrum: There is a moral law that says don't kill for unjust purposes (i.e. do not murder; the distinction between murder and kill is to be recognized). So I say yes, it is binary--right or wrong/moral or immoral to kill the girl. However, I don't think "kill or don't kill" are the only two options. Could I make a moral decision of "not killing" by find a way to quarantine the girl, thus saving her and saving the people? Or what if the girl voluntarily sacrifices herself to save everybody else? "To kill or not to kill" are the the only two options. Moral law, as I understand it, allows for just acts of killing, not for unjust acts of murder. Am I forced to kill or not kill the girl? Why can I not act upon a better solution?
I would be interested to hear of your other reasons for morality outside of the existence of a supernatural being of love. Perhaps you are interested in making a hub of it?
Thanks for your comments, once again!
Seek-n-Find,
I see what you are getting at but it isn't supported. The best you can say with your argument is an assertion that there may be some absolute standard, but even it there were the fact that we cannot resolve the moral conundrum I presented is evidence that we do not have access to knowing what this absolute standard might be. If we did, we would know if it was moral or immoral to kill the girl.
Morality as you present it is binary: right/wrong, moral/immoral. If that is the case, if there is an absolute standard that humans can know, then the case I presented to you must resolve to either right of wrong.
And there a much simpler explanations for the reasons we care about others than a supernatural cause, but I don't want to write an essay in comments so I'll trust you to research if you are interested.
@ f_hruz: Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Interesting perspective you have. An area in which I think you and I do agree, is that we, as humans, need to make some changes in not just how we treat others, but on how we use the resources of the earth. Greed and consumption without concern for such things is not a good thing, to say the least. I hope for the latter of which you've mentioned--that the human race will learn from her mistakes and make better choices moving forward. Thanks for your comment!
@ AKA Winston: Hello. I did respond to your proposition, but I'll restate my answer. You asked if a little girl was known to be a carrier of a dread disease whose life would cause untold harm to others, would it be moral or immoral to take her life? My answer is focused not on which is the right/moral or wrong/amoral response. I agree with you that both sides can make good cases. Just because there is not a clear cut "right or wrong" answer, does not prove that there is not absolute morals. The point I was trying to make takes a step back and says, "Because you are even asking the question in the first place, shows that there is an innate concern for right and wrong." Because we bother to discuss this in the first place, is the proof of an absolute standard of morality. The question wouldn't even matter unless we were people that cared about morals and wanting to do what is right or moral. Because we even recognize that this is right and wrong, or moral and amoral, we have a standard by which to differentiate one from the other--thus--a moral code or law. That's the best I can think of to answer that question right now. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? I did not state or infer anything about "passing the buck of these type of problem to an intermediary who knows all things." It has nothing to do with removing the responsibility of each person to make and be held accountable for moral choices. Was there something I wrote that led you to assume this? And I agree that if absolute morals were secrets, it would do no good. I didn't suggest that so I'm not sure what motivated that statement. Thanks for commenting again!
The real question is not what exists or not, but does it exist in nature originally, or is it a human creation?
Radio frequencies exist naturally. We only use them for our own purpose when we transmit radio signals.
Religious, political, moral or philosophical ideas do not exist in nature. All these ideas came about as part of the socio-cultural HUMAN development process - they did NOT require any god(s) of any kind since they are part and parcel of human socialization ... which is a very flexible, relative and temporary process independent of anything nature is or does - nature only responds to human activity as she does to all natural activities.
How else do you think it would be possible for humans to build a society so focused on consumption and production for profit to bring this planet ever closer to eliminating us as a form of life by depleting first all our natural resources and then destroying our natural environment?
Nature would not do this by herself! Only a form of life having reached its end of usefulness would drive itself to extinction ... or learn from its mistakes and discard the capitalistic economic and social model as unworkable and replace it with a model much closer to a model which would sustain our moral, social and intellectual development as a life form fully aware of our dependence on nature and not some religious myth created by some men who had no understanding of the importance of nature as the central point of our existence, and not some man-made god(s) of any number of religions, non of which nature has any use for!
Seek-n-Find,
Back to my original proposition, which I feel you sidestepped. In the thought experiment I suggested, of a little girl known to be a carrier of a dread disease whose life would cause untold harm to others, would it be moral or immoral to take her life?
This is an intractable problem - it has no genuine good solution. And because it does not have a genuine good decision, it shows that there can be no absolute standard of morality. Either side of the argument makes good points - one cannot say it there is a clear-cut answer.
To simply pass the buck of these types of problems to an intermediary who "knows all things" and possesses other magical powers is simply to admit the limits of human moral decision-making, but it doesn't do anything to validate the idea that there is any absolute standard - unless that standard is a secret - at which point it is worthless to mankind because we can never know it.
Okay AKA. Well, thank you for your words and thoughts. I disagree/don't receive what you are saying because of lack of proof, evidence, reason, logic, etc. And I see that you are in your view and not willing to be open or consider other views, at least as of now, but if at some point in the future you are willing and open and will actually consider what I have said, all of what I have said, let me know. And thank you once again for your responses, respect, kindness, and all.
And, perhaps you can respond to InsaneMundane now. He had great things to say.
Grace and peace/shalom/sharp understanding-binging directing correcting authority-that secures and increases the spiritual (Ancient Pictographic Hebrew, www.ancient-hebrew.org) be with you and upon you, all of the noun, it's Person God Jesus Christ first and foremost, it's place in the spirit realm, and it's thing that resides in your heart. Amen.
Spirit n Truth,
I will close our discussion from my end with this response. Otherwise, opinions go round and round with no resolvement.
When you eliminate sentience (pre-mankind, for example), then you also eliminate all abstract concepts that are dependent upon that sentience, i.e., love, moral, truth, etc.
The only thing we can say with some degree of assurance is that it is highly likely that objects (matter) existed before humans walked the planet. We know this by induction and by reading history, that the sun and moon were written about before we were born so it is likely that our opinions about those objects do not influece their existence. Objects are observer-independent. Ergo, the only things that can possibly be eternal (predate man) are objects.
Nature is observer-independent. It does what it does regardless of human opinions, beliefs, or laws. The only truly objective reasoning we can apply is that which eliminates the observer to the best of our abilities, which means we do not test, observe, falsify, model, create, smoke dope, or do the hoola hoola. We think, reason - and that is the best mankind can ever do to his explain his relationship with existence.
See, I don't need to worry about absolute right/wrong, as it is impossible for these concepts to be eternal, and thus absolute. Besides, morality is not about right and wrong but about moral, immoral, and amoral actions. Right/wrong are judgments.
The only way for absolute right/wrong to exist is to posit an eternal sentience, a judging god, and that argument commits the fallacy of begging the question.
...and, what would it mean to you if there were absolute moral/right and wrong (whatever word or whatever you want to call it or say) laws? What is the implication to you? How much of your life would you have to change, being accountable for your actions thus so?
@AKA Winston. Thank you for your responses once again. And thank you for being considerate of the author, and telling why you have been brief, helpful.
Okay, once I again I don’t see how most of your main points are true or logical. I’ve said what I’ve said, and don’t see any solid refutation.
Are your definitions worthwhile after using reasoning capabilities? Are those reasoning capabilities partial or absolute/complete? Does that not show that there are absolute truths too, as well as propositional and/or preferential (I see now more of what you mean by propositional) truth?
Okay. Well, I said truth is that which corresponds to reality, and the Greek (where much of English comes from) word “aletheia” means “true, real, reality, truth, genuine, honest, etc.” Why is truth just a concept developed by man? Because you say so? Is that true? Or false? that truth is just a concept made up by man? Point proving sufficient. But is not God eternal, by nature, and God is truth and has truth, therefore truth/reality is or can be eternal, from the backdrop of God is eternal, to man existing temporally, then picking up on truth with their capabilities, picking up on the eternal?
Again, you can prove 2 + 2 = 4 by using the 2 apples with the 2 apples, which is both a truth that is proven, and a truth that is absolute/complete. Point proving, sufficient.
Okay, so someone “thought up” love and that’s the only reason it exists? Or, love exists and people “thought up” a word to describe what is there, just as a rock exists and in English we use the word rock to describe what is there, physical realities and metaphysical realities, one and the same, both scientific.
Okay. Why is it if you give room for one you give room for another? When a doctor examines you for a job or for a checkup, taps your knee and it moves, does that not exist because you can’t put the pain/feeling in a box and show it to him? Or when they examine your eyes and see if your optic nerve is flat or not, but you don’t see it, so it doesn’t exist? That definition is lacking, at least half, physical presence is only one part of existence. Do the radio waves on the radio in your car have physical existence, color, shape, form, etc. physically? Or the waves from your tv or computer? Gravity? Love? Pain? Etc.? Do they therefore not exist, of course not, they are metaphysical/nonphysical/spiritual realities. Point proving sufficient.
You have a sharp mind and good knowledge. Thanks again. Grace and peace.
It's all one big contradiction, as science and religion end up with the same mystery. In fact, some of the most religious people I've met, have been self-professed atheists. This was an interesting hub to read, as you have covered many of the primary debatable topics that commonly surface within this mad race of confused rats without reason and know-how...
I must take a quick redirect in thought, however, as the Object/Concept religious folks have obviously polluted this hub, so I must commence with:
AKA Winston,
You say, within the forums and throughout this site, that "Nature has no laws. Nature does what it does without need for explaining itself. "Natural laws" are relationships man has noticed and described. The matter observed is eternal. The "laws" describing the relationship are not eternal."
You refer to nature as "it," while you claim that the observations and descriptions mankind provides via the sensory system, doesn't exist. Yet, you speak about what is or isn't possible by way of your own sensory system. You make no sense! Basically, for your "belief" to work, you must always deduct mankind from the equation, or else you have no argument whatsoever, hence forth a previous forum topic of yours: "If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?"
Anyway, "were we born with altruism and a conscience," is what this post should actually be titled.
Outside of the traditional religions, New Age faith, evolutionary & alternative beliefs along with these bizarre object/concept religions that has surfaced during the last few years by uneducated beings, I'd say that the best bet is to rely on the instinctive nature of things and the environment/mother nature or anything else that you were aware of before you was (not that YOU are) brainwashed by anybody whatsoever, whether it be science, religion, or madmen preaching about how light doesn't exist because it isn't an object with shape and a location (ha-ha-ha!), and just live, absorb, learn, and experience.
Why does life have to be so complicated?
I keep hearing about all this definition babble and how people fight over silly semantics... I mean, WTF? I wonder sometimes, if some of these very same people, could complicate a simple cheese sandwich and try to make a science out of melting cheddar inside butter-fried or toasted bread...
Yeah, many folks can't understand the obvious, just as some overly analyze things to the point to where 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 anymore (don't even try to say it doesn't!) or that there is no Yin to the Yang or that there is no sound unless there is somebody there to hear it.
Geez! Where do you get your morality from? I was born with it; go figure... LOL!
Thanks for this entertaining, interesting hub filled with lots of debatable comments; cheers!
Seek-n-Find,
You are correct about definitions, and the lack of precise definitions is the reason this subject has been debated for over 2000 years. However, in a scientific presentation one must define precisely and unambiguously the key terms in the hypothesis and theory else know one understands what is being said. In a presentation such as that, existence is defined and existence then becomes a matter of binary objectivity: it either fits the definition/or it does not fit the definition. Yes/No. Binary.
Nature follows this same binary example - something is either real or it is not. Human opinion is irrelevant and cannot alter reality.
Even then, we must start with intuitive knowledge - we accept that matter is real because we accept the tautology that existence exists, and matter is not dependent upon mankind's belief or opinion about its existence. We can then reason that ideas (abstract concepts like love, truth, morality, etc.) are dependent upon some entity thinking up the concept. No one has to think up objects, like rocks, bananas, or trees. Therefore, reason suggests the only things that could possibly have predated mankind are objects, and thus objects have the potential to have been eternal, but not ideas.
We then use this basis for a precise defninition of exist: a physical presence. That which has shape and location.
Now, when we present our hypothesis to the audience, the audience knows that when I state that "X" exists I am talking about a real, physical object.
On the other hand, the philoso/religio adherents do not want to be pinned down by such rigors as precise and consistent definitions as their specialties are based on speculations about "what might possibly be" and not about "what is". In that world, existence is a much more flexible word - and it is because it is flexible that these scholars use reification as a method to make a point, reification being the act of taking an idea (a concept) and addressing it as if it were a real object, i.e., Love exists and it changes people's lives.
But love does cannot exist by a more rigorous and specific definition of exist. Love can only exist if the definition of exist also allows all concepts to exist, such as leprechauns, morality, unicorns, and law. There is no difference in claiming a non-tangible, non-physical abstraction such as "the law" exists and claiming a non-tangible, non-physical object such as a "unicorn" exists. To accept the possibilty of one means the possibility of the other must be acknowledged. Unless you end the discussion with a precise definition of exist.
Thus endeth the arguments.
@ AKA Winston: Thanks for thinking of the author and trying to be brief. :-) I don't mind the comments back and forth as long as they remain respectful. It seems like with different definitions or understandings of what thing like "truth" and "reality" are, it will be hard for you and Spirit-n-Truth to talk on the same level. Kind of like you are approaching the topic from the red square on level 2 and he is approaching the topic from the number five in a blue room. You have two different presuppositions of the meaning of the vocabulary that you are using and not just what those words mean but what they imply and thus how they can be used within logic. So...I see why this discussion can evolve into so many different levels. As long as you are both enjoying the back and forth and discussing, go for it. Maybe a forum on some of these concepts would be helpful? Thanks for the comments to you both!
Spirit n Truth,
I hate to get these comments bogged down in a back and forth that does not include the author, so I keep trying to be brief. But to answer your questions:
(why can’t I just say that the definition I wrote is a good working definition and that’s all that matters)
You can, but this is where reasoning applies. To be worthwhile, a definition has to indicate the essential properties that make up an object or a concept. We can determine what those properties are by using our reasoning abilities. We don't need a dictionary unless the word is foreign to our knowledge. Once we understand the concept the word is attempting to express, we can then apply a definition to it.
(first, is what you say not an opinion and subjective but only objective and true?)
You still use "true" as if it were synonymous with real, but it is not. "Truth" is a abstract concept developed by man to explain a relationship, i.e., the relationship between The Law of Excluded Middle and the dichotomy it is used to resolve. The only way to establish truth is to resolve this dichotomy. What we call truth is the result of tautology, a manmade construct of logic. Mankind is not eternal, and thus the logical conclusion of these logics cannot be eternal, and hence truth cannot be eternal. (Truth is not a thing, an object, which has the potential to be eternal. Truth is an idea, dependent upon sentience.)
If truth cannot be eternal, then it cannot be absolute. And truth cannot be eternal as truth depends on the sentient resolvement of a dichotomy. Therefore, when I say there is no absolute truth I am only stating the conclusion of logic, which is not absolute truth but a proven truth.
@AKA Winston. Thanks for your response. Well, I rely on authority (quoting the dictionary and other authoritative sources), and reason (using logic, hence my reasoning, thoughts, words, examples, metaphors, pictures, questions, cleverness, wittiness, etc. all of my words that are not direct quotes, which is most of what I write), and revelation (communicating with God, the Word of God, the Spirit of God, etc.), and more.
Why is it irrelevant? Then why can’t I just say that the definition I wrote is a good working definition and that’s all that matters? Especially since the definition you write is in stark contrast the one I write, two very different things. It does matter where it comes from, because the definition/meaning/power you ascribe to something matters, such as if I define a banana shaver for myself and try to use it as such I will not succeed in any measure at getting the hair off my face. The definition source matters, because that is a pivotal point in what is going to be taken as truth/reality, or, what is right and what is wrong here. The flaw is that it has nothing to do with what the definition/meaning/power of what the word means, as said multiple times below, you say it has to do with suffering and happiness, yet all the facets of the definition don’t have anything of suffering and happiness in them, but rather conduct/behavior in accordance with right and wrong, lawfulness, etc.
Okay, first, is what you say not an opinion and subjective but only objective and true? Why or why not? Two, a lot of what I have said, is not my opinion but examples from life, such as colors, traffic lights, etc. to support the points I have. And my opinion, if it is not true, does not matter at all, I could have an opinion that one could jump off a ten story building and not get hurt, but that would not make it true or have any bearing on the result, thus it is to be discarded and not received. That’s a big part of why I stopped going off my opinion a long time ago, and starting going off of truth, that I continually seek to know and experience more, better, deeper. But my views that are not objective truth are still valid to me and valid to be seen and heard and understand and cared about, as are yours, I do care about your opinions/views, and I care about what truth you do have and know and share, both can be beneficial but only objective truth is sure and gives the most impact, and stuff ya know. So, opinion/view is to be respected, but truth is to be received and lived by, said one way.
Or, truth is simple, it’s that that corresponds to reality, or just simply reality, what is real, existence, etc. Those are all simple definitions of truth, accepted by pretty much everyone. But what is true, is not just accepted by everyone, especially when it comes to moral truth, divine truth, etc. Everyone agrees that 2 + 2=4, it is a fact, shown by if there are two apples represented by these lines, II, here and two apples there II then there are four apples IIII, apart from supernatural miracle of sorts. It doesn’t matter how we define it, it is what it is, four apples IIII. This is obvious to our intuition, our conscience/with knowledge. This is simple logic, simple reasoning. No I haven’t been doing some reasoning, I have been doing a lot of reasoning, all throughout here, which, again, you have not fully responded to or refuted, so what else is there to say until then? I see, that there is to say I see you and I see that you are smart, well thinking, carry a great mind, have a good heart in the depths of your insides, have good focus, mean well, are a man of honor and integrity, and so much more. I see a picture of a big hammer striking something inside a big pipe, the sound is metal to metal, the thing struck by the hammer went down, crushed, but not irrevocably damaged, but strong and shooting back it comes back out. I see that the metal thing is you, the hammer is life/hardships, the metal to metal is your willful choice to be strong no matter what life has struck at you, going down into the pipe is a period of experiencing the depths/pits of life, coming back up is your choice to rise back up even still and persevere, and coming out is stepping out again with confidence and valiance and strength even in the face of having been struck, yielding greater glory than before. I see that this is how God sees you, how God created you, what God invites you into, that can have fulfillment in the past, present, and future. Grace and peace to you multiplied. And thank you again. Ian.
Spirit n Truth,
While you seemingly rely on authority for your positions, I rely on my reasoning ability to reach conclusions.
I have not said where the definition of morality comes from - because that is irrelevant. That it is a good, functional defintion is all that is important.
If there is a flaw in the definition, what is it?
At the same time, you keep using the word "truth" as if it is defined, but an easy search will determine there is no single concensus definition of truth. In fact, a little reasoning will show that truth is the end result of a system of logic, and thus subjective in nature.
It really doesn't matter to me what you claim as truth because it is only an opinion.
@AKA Winston
(definition of definition)
I see that that’s a very good definition. Simply said though a definition is the meaning of something/what is defined. Again so an apple is not a tree, by design, by identity, this is the first law of logic (noncontradiction is second actually, my mistake above), the law of identity.
Okay, but why? Why is it regardless of what people say that what you say is true (again remind you this saying that morality is absolutely/truly what you say, especially since you say it “is not” this but “is” that which you say, is an absolute/complete/proposition itself)? Back it up, where are you getting this definition from? You still have not answered this question twice now, and, you still have not responded to most of my responses, so I will take your silence and lack of support/explanation/reasoning as saying that what I have said is true.
To reiterate though, the word “moral” comes from Latin and has to do with how people act in accordance to right and wrong. That is where it comes from, that is what it means, thousands of years ago that is what it meant, thousands of years later this is what it means, thousands of years from now that is what it will mean, not because I say so, but because the language says so, just as I am typing English words right now, I do not get to decide what they mean but rather use them in a context that describes what I mean, as context is a crucial part of definition/meaning. This is the ground level of comprehension and language/linguistics. But, even regardless of all this, it still depends how you define it, we can throw the word morality out and talk about how people act in accordance with right and wrong without labeling it anyway, which is the whole point of this hub anyway, which shows in more than one way, that this conversation has gone quite an opposite way. Thank you thus still. Grace and peace.
@AKA Winston
(there can be no absolute truth is a propositional statement)
- Consider: Why is it proven? I thought you said to have proof you need an object? What object is used to prove this to be true? And if it be proven true, would it not have to be absolute/complete or else it would only be partly true and partly false, which violates the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle? For this to be true, there would have to be truth, and truth in this context must be absolute, versus as said earlier preferential truth or preferences that are true to certain people only.
Also, why can’t concept be true or eternal, why, why is it not rational to say ideas can’t be eternal? Please explain or give reasons for your claims, as I have been doing. Along with that, you are thinking in the context of physical, but consider that there are metaphysical/spiritual/nonphysical realties, as even science is finding and proving, and that spirit is what is eternal and the physical is what is temporal (as 2Corinthians 4 says), what is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal. Just as the thoughts you are thinking that end up on your computer, they are not physical, you cannot pull them out and hand them to me physically, they need a physical channel to be expressed to someone other than you. So it is with truth, it is conceptual/spiritual/nonphysical in nature, but expressed in the natural/physical realm. Take gravity, where are the pins? Why is the earth suspended over nothing (as Job 26 says, thousands of years before the advent of modern science) and not falling to the bottom of the universe? There’s nothing physical about gravity, yet if you drop a ball it falls to the ground every time, so gravity enacts upon the physical realm. So it is with truth, whether absolute/object or preferential/subjective.
- propositions are "statements" that are truth bearers.
- A propositional statement makes a definite truth claim or attributes value to an argument.
- A proposition or statement is a sentence which is either true or false.
- Propositional statement: expression that has a truth value
- A proposition is a statement that can be true or false. Propositional logic uses true statements to form or prove other true statements.
And for the word proposition itself:
- the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.
- a plan or scheme proposed.
- an offer of terms for a transaction, as in business.
- the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and is capable of being true or false
- Compare statement the meaning of such a sentence: I am warm always expresses the same proposition whoever the speaker is
The word proposition is from the Latin “proposition” from the root “propositio” both meaning “to set forth”, so, simply a proposition is something that is set forth, and what is set forth can be true or false, all of these definitions as seen above have no room for partiality but only completeness/absoluteness, therefore the proposition that there are no absolutes itself needs to be full/complete/absolute and this would be self-contradictory, violating the first law of logic, the law of noncontradiction. So the statement/claim cannot be true because it is stating that nothing is true in essence, therefore the statement itself cannot be true since it claims nothing is true, kinda confusing as this is false/circular reasoning.
Seek-n-Find,
Actually I am with you; I like how your mind works, you are very thorough in presenting your ideas; I am more "holistic" in that I am more the eyes; I can see in my mind's eyes the beginning and the end but I somehow get lost in the middle.
I made a new hub entitled "Why I Believe in God"; I present my ideas based on my personal experiences because they are the truth that are acceptable to me personally and which I can prove and incorporate with the Universal laws.
@ Jynzly: Mustard head--I like it! :-) Yes, there is much to know that we cannot know. I like the elephant analogy, too. That's one of the reasons I value dialogue and learning from others--if I've been studying the tail for years and you've been learning about the ear--I want to hear what you have to say! :-) Thanks for your comment.
Like I said, there are as many opinions as there are many thinkers in this world. Every discipline has its own truth and absolutes like they are the only truth that can exist; but they are still opinions and theories proven or not bt the person or group of persons who advocate such "truth" of reasoning or theory. The fact still remains that one person or groups of people may live 1,000,000 years or more and spending all those years studying the whole truth of this universe; they still could only know one dot of the whole. This reminds me of the the story of the ten blind men and the elephant...people are the blind men and the elephant is the universe...one blind man can only attest to the truth of an elephant's tail if he is assigned to study it...another blind man can swear to the truth of his discovery of the elephant's ears if he is there... bottom-line is, both of these blind men never saw the whole elephant...
Therefore, I may say, arguments that concern our existence in this universe will only be for us to think and wonder in awe with the statement in our head "How Great Thou Art" to the one who created all these things...the universe...there must be that GREAT INTELLIGENCE,we may call it God or Universe or Mother Nature... greater than all of us creatures, all fallible, and are bound to die and perish, while the universe lives on...who are we, fallible creatures, to to put the ORIGIN of all things inside our mustard head?
@ hawkdad73: Thank YOU! Your feedback helped me to go back and add a little info to clarify so others understand my tone and my heart. I don't like to argue. I LOVE discussion and to challenge people to think outside the box and I love to be challenged to think. I respect others' freedom of belief, whether I agree or not. I love to discuss issues and I'm usually pretty able to keep issues quite separate from the person. There are people in my life that I love dearly though I couldn't be farther away from what they believe or certain conclusions they've made. I really appreciate that you took the time to ask clarifying questions! :-)
Seek-n-Find
Thank you for the clarification. That's why I continue to follow your hubs. Although we don't agree on a lot of things, you never seem to be looking for an argument.
(Where are you getting your definition.)
Spirit n Truth,
Allow me to explain the meaning of a definition. A definition describes the properties that make up a certain condition. For example, an apple is a fruit of the apple tree. It is rounded with a core of seeds, yadi, yada, yada. In other words, a definition describes specifically what is required to be considered an apple.
As for morality, regardless of who says what, morality is concerned with questions that affect the happiness and suffering of the fellow creatures with whom we share this planet. That is what it is. That is its definition.
@ Lifegate: Thank you. I had to research this topic--these ideas just don't pop up in my head by themselves--I wish I was that smart. But I am good at researching and making connections and summarizing information. It was especially helpful for me to listen to and read messages from Dr. Ravi Zacharias. He is a genius! Have you ever listened to his debates? Thank you for the comment. :-)
SnF,I appreciate your style of writing. I wish I could think more logically like you do. I only know what Jesus Christ did for me and without moral absolutes to point me to the Savior, I'd still be lost. Thanks for sharing!
@ Dave Mathews: You don't have to convince me! :-) It seems very obvious to me in such a thing, but this is not so for many. I wrote this primarily as a response to those that don't believe in God and don't believe in moral law or absolutes. I was trying to present a logical response to the objections I heard. I agree that God is real and for those that know Him, there is no question about it. I have a heart for those that don't know Him. I hope that I can offer some satisfactory answers to those that are asking valid questions. Many have good questions, but the answers they have found have been lacking. Thanks for stopping by and commenting! :-)
"Absolute Moral Laws" eh, hmmmmmmm? Kind of a redundancy I believe. Please see EXODUS: 20: 2 to 17; in any version of Holy Bible you choose to look in.
Here someone who identifies himself most clearly as a being called "God" delivers to a human named Moses what God referred to as His 10 moral imperatives, or laws, or commandments.
God did not call them suggestions, nor reccommendations, but rather God called them His Laws, His commandments.
Sounds pretty straightforward to me. God is real. God has rules and regulations and laws that are moral by nature so that man can co-exist with man and so that man can also co-exist with God.
Spirit n Truth,
There can be no abolute truth is a propositional statement that has been proven. It is not a claim or assertion. Truth is not an object and onhy objects can rationally be thought to be eternal. Truth requires proof, and it is thus an opinion, and as such it is a concept, and concepts (ideas) cannot be eternal as they require sentience to think up the idea and define it.
Thanks AKA Winston and Spirit N Truth for talking about this topic in a manner of respect. Watching your dialogue, I feel, will be of benefit to others. :-)
(as a side note, I say go to carm.org and click "relativism" and it will explain more about this).
Again, to say that it is a fact, means that it is absolute/full/complete. You seem 100% percent sure that that is true, but at the same time you are saying that nothing is 100% true. So is it partly true and partly false? That is self-contradictory, one of the three main laws of logic, the law of noncontradiction. As far as that hub, there is much to say, but basically I see that that person is very hurt and passionate/suffering about truth, God, religion, people, etc. even as he writes in a way of making fun of Christ-ians who I'm assuming are the same people that have hurt him in the past or something, and I see the same in you. Also it says that truth has to have an object to be true, but this is not true as evidenced by even our conversation here, because truth is conceptual not physical in nature, though it can deal with physical things or conceptual things the same. Example, can you put our conversation here in the palm of my hand right now, not a printed out sheet of the letters but the concepts that we are talking about, not the word "the" written out but the word "the" itself? No, because it is conceptual, as humans have the linguistic capacity for such. Same with love, suffering, happiness, etc. that you have talked about, you can't physically put them in my hand because the are conceptual/immaterial/spiritual. Also, if there are not absolutes then that hub that says there are no absolutes is not absolute/full/complete and therefore not true, because it says that truth has to be true in every situation and all the time, but it says that that's impossible. Again, this is self-contradictory. Truth does not have to be applicable directly in all situations at all times, as situations can change, so truth applies accordingly, as in murder in general and a murder case specifically, otherwise there would be no hearing just a sentence. I like ice cream is true because it corresponds to reality, the reality is I like ice cream, but under the ocean there is no ice cream, but that truth/concept is still true nonetheless. It's about how you define it. Regardful, is this really about this, or is this really about that? The that being your heart, life, wounds, hurts, upsets, disappointments, etc.?
@AKA Winston. Okay, whatever you want to call it, the statement, the words "there is no truth" is an absolute statement. As is "You are wrong" is also an absolute statement. So the red light you will drive upon tomorrow or this week, is it absolutely red, or is it relatively red and you can drive through it with no consequences?
@AKA Winston. I see what you are saying. It mostly depends how you define it. But using the word moral indicates right and wrong, conduct, etc. Where are you getting your definition. It's not in the dictionary, it's not in the origin of language wording. Where are you getting this definition from? Further than this, call it what we want there are still things that are absolute or, always wrong. Is it wrong for someone to murder you? Is it okay for someone to punch you? Is it okay to drive through red lights, green lights, and yellows lights all the same? You don't live this way, ?
Is the color yellow invented by man? Is the sky's blue invented by man? Or, are these terms that describe what is? The latter. So it is with morality, what is written in the ten commandments, and what is written on our hearts/conscience ("con" means "with" and "science" means "knowledge", "with knowledge" of good and evil, right and wrong.
(Even making a claim “there are no absolutes” is an attempt to say something that’s absolute)
You are wrong. It is not a claim. It is proven. See Fatfist's hub, There are no absolutes.
(Morals or Moralis basically has to do with how people are acting in accordance with right and wrong)
Spirit n Truth,
Right and wrong are terms invented by man to describe the imagined relationship between actions and an imagined absolute standard. Moral actions, on the other hand, are not right or wrong but only moral, immoral, or amoral, and can only have meaning when applied to the happiness or suffering of the other creatures with whom we share out planet.
@AKA Winston. Taking the definition of morality, as seen above, the first four of the ten commandments are matters of morality, as they have to do with how people ought and are to act, being moral if they put God first and immoral if they do not put God first.
Again, taking that morality has to do with conforming to right or wrong, the two can be compared and contrasted intelligently. Both having to do with ought and are in right and wrong. And in the case of Jesus the Christ, even His suffering was on our behalf giving us happiness in exchange. And, He was innocent of sin/wrong/evil, like condemning an innocent man to death row, this was a wrong thing for man to do, but God used it for good to bring the salvation of humanity out of it, and Jesus laid His laid His life down willingly, willingly dying one of if not the most excruciating (the word excruciating is from two Greek words “ex” meaning “out” and “crus” meaning “cross”, hence excruciating means out of the cross/crucifixion), so that we don’t have to endure eternal death in hell, but have paradise in heaven forever instead. His rights in place of our wrongs, His life in place of ours, His undeserved death for our undeserved life. The innocent condemned on behalf of the convicted murderer.
So everything that needs discussion is relative? Why is that? Show why that is, logically. And actually, the word discussion is from two Latin/Greek words “di” meaning “divide or two or diameter/through/thorough” and “scuss” meaning “to strike, cut, penetrate, dash to pieces,” etc. so really a discussion is taking two things and splitting between them, and/or breaking each point into pieces as when hitting every angle of a subject. It also literally means to consider or examine. And, so if we have a discussion about colors, does that make colors relative? Does blue become red and yellow become black? No, but we examine and converse about what is, making conclusions based on what was discussed, such as yellow is yellow, and green is yellow and blue mixed together. Or if you discuss a business deal or something at work, does it become relative, where you can simply show up to work when you wish, leave when you wish, make what decision you wish, simply because those subjects were discussed? So it is with discussing morality, it is examining what is, correcting faulty ideas, affirming right ideas, etc. arriving at deeper conclusions.
Also, you are making statements, are your statements right, or wrong? Another facet of the diamond of morality, proven/shown again. Even making a claim “there are no absolutes” is an attempt to say something that’s absolute, that there absolutely are no absolutes, which is self-contradictory. Or, in a question, are you absolutely sure? Shown again.
With relativism. What if what’s true for me is that relativism is false? Is relativism therefore false? If you say no, then relativism is false because what’s true for me is not true, showing relativism to be false. If you say yes, relativism is agreed to be false. However, there are relative or better said personal or preferential truths, such as I like ice cream, or I don’t like sour cream in certain things, these are not absolute so that they are true for everyone, they are relative/preferential to me, but they absolutely are my preference. Grace and peace and blessing.
@ AKA Winston. Thanks for commenting and sharing your heart.
Where are you getting this definition for the word “morality”? Moral comes from the Latin word “Moralis” which means “pertaining to customs, character, temperament, proper behavior of a person in society, manners, etc.” Morals or Moralis basically has to do with how people are acting in accordance with right and wrong, whereas ethics or ethos has to do with how people ought to act in accordance with right and wrong, so are and ought is the difference. More on this in Webster’s dictionary can be found at dictionary.com such as: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct; capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct. Happiness and suffering has nothing to do with morals directly, but rather the outcome of acting morally or immorally.
Why does it have to be assumed that if there’s moral absolutes that every action is either moral or immoral? Because something is absolute doesn’t mean infiltrates every single thing, there are mathematical absolutes too such as 2 plus 2 equals 4, this does not mean that everything is a math equation and has to do with the numbers 2 and 4 and addition, etc. Red lights mean stop, absolutely, every time, does this mean that everything has to do with a red light or traffic light? No. Do you stop at every red light you drive upon? I hope so, otherwise there can be very negative consequences.
First of all, that is a situation that is way outside the box, way outside the norm or usual living, so this is actually to major on a minor. And priority of importance, is important. Such as truthtelling versus lying, giving versus stealing, life versus murder, love versus anger, etc. that the world experiences regularly if not daily or momentary. And two, isn’t there another solution? Like quarantining the child or taking them elsewhere, or getting medical treatment? It’s not an intractable problem, but more of unusual and more complicated problem. None of which is belief in God mainly based on, not the inner circles/rings but outer.
I see what you’re saying. But on the contrary, hope can also solve problems. Such as the doctor that has hope that his hands will grip the scalpel, or that his procedure has a possibility or succeeding, otherwise he would not even try or do a good job, and that would be lose-lose. Hope can motivate someone to do something about a problem versus sitting back with no hope and so no effort of even trying at all. And there are different kinds of hope as well, such as when someone says I hope the traffic lights will be green mostly on my drive today, or another kind when you order a pizza at a restaurant and are given a number and receipt, you have hope that they will bring you your pizza and you have substance and evidence to show what pizza is yours, and that is what hope in God is like, God is God and so He is just and merciful and good and true, etc. so you hope in Him acting as such. I have experienced this many times and wouldn’t be breathing alive right now if I hadn’t.
@Hawkdad73.Thanks for commenting and sharing your heart.
There isn’t anything in this that is generalizing, stereotyping, sarcastic, or negative in bad ways, but simply stating different groups of people as they are and speaking to declare truth in love. But just as a burglar doesn’t like having a light shined on him, so can people do not like having moral, etc. light shined upon them. The burglar and the burglary are what they are, whether liked or not, justice is meant to help all parties.
Yes, but the source of that joy is important to know, because by design no one can have anything good unless it is given by the Designer, God, and God is glorified as such when this is acknowledged. As when a parent gives a gift to a child and they are joyful, it blesses and brings joy back to the parent when the child thanks them for it, acknowledging their gift being from them with thankfulness in heart. Yes, I went through a dark valley and pit of indescribably hell, when I was in religion. But then I was found by God. Because religion is man trying to reach God by his own efforts, which man can never do because he is not perfect or able in himself, having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, lying, stealing, lusting, coveting/jealousy, unforgiveness, anger, etc. Whereas Christ-ianity, or, Jesus Christ, is God reaching down to man in the person of Jesus Christ, God taking on human form, living a perfect sinless life as one of us, then dying for our sins, sickness, poverty, pain, evil, etc. in our place on a cross and three days later rising from the dead to raise us to new life. That, is a relationship God, not a religion works program of trying to reach God. Religion is about “doing”, God/Jesus Christ is about “done.” Grace and Peace. Blessings.
@ AKA Winston: Thanks again for your reply. I suppose we can agree to disagree. I believe that most definitions of morality have to do with "right and wrong" and not simply "happiness and suffering." Within this context, the ten commandments, or any other law, would fit into this category of "right and wrong." I disagree with the statement that Jesus' actions had nothing to do with the happiness or suffering of others--I would say the contrary is true. He did not commit an immoral act by dying, but he died because of the immoral acts of others. You posed the question of killing a child would be immoral or not--and then later state that it is, indeed immoral. That statement is once again a proof in the existence of morality--of right and wrong. You wouldn't just say it is joyful or not joyful for a child to be killed--you would say it is right or wrong. Therefore, it is a moral. There actually is a moral codes book--there are several of them. Religions have moral code books. Societies have moral "code books" (in the form of laws) and even if no books existed, people have a sense of what is right and wrong. This is quite the opposite of moral relativism. I won't write much more because I would be repeating information that is already stated in my Hub. But the moral code by which I, and many others live, is that each person is entitled to their own opinions so while I disagree with what you have presented and cannot find the logic in it, I definitely respect your right for having such an opinion. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment! :-)
Seek-n-Find,
The first question to answer is: what is morality? Morality has to do with the happiness or suffering of the other beings and creaturs with whom we share this planet. That's all it is.
The first 4 commandments of the Ten Commandments are not statements of morality.
As to Jesus, to compare the innocence of a 33-year-old man and a helpless 2-year-old child is IMO disingenuous. The voluntary actions of Jesus to allow himself to die had no bearing on the happiness or suffering of anyone other than himself, and thus was an amoral act. If he could not prevent it, then it was a legal act of the legal state of the time, and its moral considerations are up for debate. At the same time, the killing of a child is an immoral act, because it causes the suffering and loss of happiness of that child, and he or she would have no choice in the matter.
If there is a discussion needed around the idea of what would or would not constitute a moral decision, then there can be no absolute standard else all we would have to do is look it up in the morals code book. Discussion is opinion which means relatavism. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.
@AKA Winston: Thanks for the comment and thank you for posing a question in a non-critical way--makes for easier dialogue. :-) When I referred to the example in my Hub about killing a child, I worded it as I did for a reason. I said that all would feel it is morally wrong to "torture and kill a child just for fun." I did mention that there are many discussion around the morality of when it is just or unjust to kill. I don't think that your example weakens the argument that I've made in in way. In fact, your example is a perfect example of the very thing that God did. There was an innocent who died for the good of the masses. God allowed His son to be sacrificed to save everybody else. I don't think what you brought up is an intractable problem--but it actually supports the idea that there is discussion needed around the idea of what would be moral or immoral killing. The fact that such a discussion even occurs is evidence for moral law which when following what I've mentioned above, leads to the conclusion of the moral law giver. :-) Thanks for your comment--I'd love more dialogue on this if you would like.
Seek-n-Find,
Let me submit the following explanation as a questioning but non-critical response. I have used this thought experiment elsewhere in hub pages but it is worth repeating.
If we assume an absolute standard for morality, we are assuming every action is right/wrong, black/white, moral/immoral. It must be so.
Next we have virtually 100% agreement that it must be immoral to kill a child.
However, suppose there were some way to know that this innocent child carried a horrible disease (as in the real case of Thyphoid Mary), and by allowing this child to live we would be condemning 100,000 innocent people to die because of the disease she spread.
Would it then be morally right or wrong for society to put her to death as a child?
This is obviously an intractable problem, and intractable problems are the basis for belief in god(s). If we place our faith in an all-powerful being who can perfectly answer these types of questions, then we as humans do not have to find an answer.
Belief of this type is the basis for hope. Hope does not resolve issues, but it does make difficult issues easier to deal with on a psychological basis.
But I would submit that the sooner we abandon irrational hope-based solutions, the quicker we will act as humanity to determine real solutions to difficult issues.
@ intouch with Toni: Thanks for your comment. It can be very easy to respond emotionally when there is so much disagreement about something that is so near and dear to your heart--especially if people start making personal attacks. We all have our moments when things slip out in a way other than we would prefer. The important thing is to take notice and go back to the root of love. Jesus--the perfect unity of truth and grace! I'm not a logic debater but I felt that I was supposed to address this particular issue in this fashion. I would love to read the Hub you do on the relational aspect. Let me know when it is published! Thanks for stopping by. :-)
Seek N Find - Thank you so much for this well-thought out comprehensive response. My biggest fault in responding to the hub you reference was shooting from the hip emotionally in MY response (and in the fog of a bad cold) rather than crafting an answer. I found myself wishing I had the clear thinking of Ravi to make the argument LOL, but you have done it beautifully. And I love what you say in your response above regarding religion. I believe it is hard for some to understand that true joy is found in relationship, not religion. They can't really argue relationship...they need the concreteness of rules and law to do battle - but I've been made free from the law by the blood of Christ. In fact, I was told by one responder that it was selfish of me to think an almighty God would actually take time to be involved in my life! I'm not sure why that is, since I don't think it's only my life He works and in and through, but I found that to be an incredibly sad observation. I think since you have made the 'logical' argument so well, I may just look at it from the relational standpoint in a hub.
@ Man from Modesto: Thank you! :-)
@ Hawkdad73: Thanks for your comment. I wasn't meaning to generalize and sterotype--that is why I started the Hub by saying that I have written this in a response to what I have been hearing many people claim about this topic and that I am focusing on just one aspect. I'm sorry this sounded sarcastic and negative to you. That is definitely not the tone I was writing with. Although I do try to write about things in a kind of light-hearted way and use some humor here and there on such deep subjects. I am totally fine with people finding their own path. I simply wrote this as a response to many questions that I heard those who are seeking were asking. Rather than replying with multiple threads on the forums, I read people's questions and statements and wrote a Hub to try to answer those questions and respond to why I believe what I believe--to explain the logic. My joy has been found in God--when I tried "religion" it brought the opposite of joy. I wish you the best--thanks for the comments and allowing me to clarify my position and my heart. :-)
Were you meaning to generalize and stereotype? This hub seemed sarcastic and negative. I only hope you miscommunicated that an atheist should have a creed.
Many atheists and agnostics have traveled their own road of disillusionment from either horrible experiences or curiosity. Many are negative, religious or not. Many find joy and are able to live with themselves, religious or not. I have found more joy outside of religion, looking in than I ever had as inside. The majority of atheists and agnostics I have conversed with want to learn. They are seekers of knowledge outside of something that either has failed them or that just does not make sense.
I acknowledge that you have found that joy in religion. How one experiences that joy should be irrelevant from one person to the next.
Wow! Outstanding. I really enjoyed the Atheist's Creed by Zacharias. I have heard a LOT of that coming from atheists in threads.
f_hruz Level 5 Commenter 4 weeks ago
Yes, I was hoping you had a desire to grow and learn intellectually so you could grasp the limitations you have created for yourself with your god delusion ... it's too bad I have to see, you are not at all open to reason.
So all I can say to you, dream on good lady, it's your own mental and emotional limitations which keep you from knowing that gods are creations of 1/2 wits with no true knowledge and little interest in learning all there is to know what nature really is and how things work in the real world!
No gods will do the thinking for you ... you have to start learning on your own how to grasp reality and get your head around the fact that all religions are man made and all gods are pure figments of human imagination.
Quoting passages from your favorite story book will keep you as blind as long as you can stand it ... to brake free from it, takes a bit more than false hope in a god who never was and never will be.
Seriously, what's stopping you from becoming a realist who knows your brain can be used to learn and apply it creatively before you lose your mind totally to religious myth and obvious absurdity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZw3lxyuhEU