cardw Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Quote: So where do the "laws of reason" come from cardw? The laws of reason we use today come from largely secular sources. Religion tends to argue from authority. The scientific method comes from secular sources, not religious ones. Read the history of the struggle of science and religion. The basis of what I use for moral reasoning is the reduction of suffering. That is built into every person's experience. We don't like to suffer and it's reasonable to assume that other people feel suffering much like I do. I know that I don't like to watch other people suffer and I can observe many animals don't like suffering. It's basic empirical reasoning. Now you don't know where the laws of reason come from any more than I do. We are essentially talking about origins of things we can't test. You are basically claiming that it is god by default without establishing that there is a god. That is dishonest within the laws of reason. If you are going to establish a rational basis that Christianity is better then you have to establish observable evidence that the Christian god actually exists. You have to appeal to things outside reason. Quote: You see, you are applying to an absolute standard.So how do you then explain how "reason" can be absolute? Reason is not an absolute standard. It's a method. This may explain why you are having difficulty understanding how to reason. If you will take a basic course on reason, you will stop using fallacies. We use reason so far as it produces results that are repeatable and consistent. It is a method of finding truth. And the truths that reason finds are continually being modified as knowledge increases, so it doesn't form a static absolute standard. The method that Christianity uses is the authority of the Bible. Quote: Your other questions I am not going to attempt to answer for now, as until you can supply a rationale for your own worldview and the laws it inherently operates by, you have no basis to actually question those acts. LOL, now this is a lie. You know darn well that you can't answer these questions, so you are deflecting. Well, at least you understand that. Quote: Because if you are arguing that God did something "immoral", then you are actually arguing "absolute morality". No, I am demonstrating that if there is absolute morality, then I guess for god there isn't absolute morality since god doesn't even keep his own laws. In rational terms it's called a paradox. In religious terms it's hypocrisy. If the Christian god can't even demonstrate the "superior" aspect of his moral code then what hope is there for his followers? Quote: How do you explain the "laws of reason". Until you do that, your worldview does not even come to the table as a valid worldview that others could consider as viable. I'm not converting people to my specific world view since I am admitting freely that it's incomplete. You are projecting your own thinking on me. Part of my reason for dialoging is to continue to refine my world view. That is part of how a rational method works. Quote: Because if you are arguing that God did something "immoral", then you are actually arguing "absolute morality". No, because you don't need to have an absolute to point out hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is basically not following your own rules. You asked me a moral question and I answered how I would come up with an answer using reason and empathy. The same question when addressed to your god reveals that your god has no method of determining right or wrong, but simply does as he pleases. Your god is immoral by his own so called "absolute" rules of morality. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Quote: The Lord says, "Come now, and let us reason together." Isaiah 1:18. The heart in your chest, you can feel it beating, you can feel the pulse, can you not? But how does it beat? Does it beat by itself? The heart is a muscle. There are at least 500 muscles in the human body. Not one muscle in your body can contract without a command from the will. Actually all our muscles contract involuntarily all the time. If you had to think about every muscle you had to contract to walk, you would never make it even one step. When you reach out your hand, your trunk muscle compensate to keep from falling over. You calf muscles press your feet into the floor to help stabilize in addition to millions of adjustments all over your myofascial system. I admit that it's a wonderfully complex system, but it doesn't prove that the Christian god exists. Quote: We may not realize it but the simple fact of being exposed to the Word of God, (and it doesn't matter whether we believe it is the Word of God or not) it will not return to Him void! Well, this may seem true to you, but I spent over half my life trying to make that system work and it didn't. All it did was make me feel guilty and afraid all the time. I know why it didn't work, and I will never take on that world view again. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 If there are other muscles that contract independently of our will it is simply so much more evidence that "In God we live and move and have our being," that our whole being is under the supervision of God. This does not happen by itself. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 If there are other muscles that contract independently of our will it is simply so much more evidence that "In God we live and move and have our being," that our whole being is under the supervision of God. This does not happen by itself. sky No, there are complex feedback mechanisms that exist in OUR subconscious. Our brains and bodies are learning all the time. Just because you don't understand how this works doesn't mean that god is doing it. Again, this does not prove that the god of the Bible exists. There are many possible explanations. The truth is we don't know because there is no proof. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Florimon Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Is there ever any situation where it is morally acceptable to drown every person and living being on the planet, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Originally Posted By: skyblue888 If there are other muscles that contract independently of our will it is simply so much more evidence that "In God we live and move and have our being," that our whole being is under the supervision of God. This does not happen by itself. sky No, there are complex feedback mechanisms that exist in OUR subconscious. Our brains and bodies are learning all the time. Just because you don't understand how this works doesn't mean that god is doing it. Again, this does not prove that the god of the Bible exists. There are many possible explanations. The truth is we don't know because there is no proof. ______________________________________________________________ Let me give you a practical example, a day-to-day example that the God-of-the-Bible not only exists but that He is the life. Whenever you go out to the grocery store you are making a statement. Whether you realize it or not, you are making a statement that you are dependent upon a power outside of yourself in order to exist and continue to exist at all. Every time you take a breath of fresh air, every time you lay in the sunshine, every time you sit at your table to eat and drink, especially eating and drinking that which the Lord has given us to eat and drink, you are showing that you live by the life that comes from the Word of the living God who is the God of the Bible, for it is His life that you receive in the sunshine, in the pure, sweet air, and in the food which builds up your body and sustains your strength. Stop eating and drinking and soon you will find out that you have no power to think or no strength to do anything at all and eventually you will die. That is what Jesus had in mind when He said, "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53. These words are true of our physical nature. The man that does not discern the life of God for his physical nature in the provisions for his daily life is breathing and eating and drinking like the beasts that perish. "Man who is in honor, yet does not understand, is like the beasts that perish." Psalm 49:20. Without the life of God all nature would die, for "In Him all things hold together." "In Him we live and move and have our being." Col.1:17; Acts 17:28. This is the life of God through Christ who is the Word of life for our physical nature. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Quote: Whether you realize it or not, you are making a statement that you are dependent upon a power outside of yourself in order to exist and continue to exist at all. I get what you are saying. The point you are missing is, that while there are powers greater than ourselves, there is no rational basis to call the higher power the god of the bible. In fact there are quite a few reasons to not call it the god of the Bible. The best any of us can claim is "Yes there are higher powers than I, but I have no idea where those powers come from, their wishes, or how they came to be, or what nature their being is, or if they are a they." The only thing you have are claims written in an ancient book. You have absolutely no evidence for this god other than claims. And none of you can even agree on those claims. It's a logical mess. So it is simply incredible to me that anyone can make the claim that Christianity even makes sense, let alone makes the most sense. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Quote: If there is not God that created the earth and all life in it then your question is illogical because the same thing you mentioned above never took place. I don't think it took place, but you do. So this statement is irrelevant. Quote: Now if it is truthful that God created our first parents just in one day and that their descendants were going annihilate each other by using violent means, what moral ground are you using to say that God is using hypocrisy and that He is unable to keep His own laws? You believe in an all powerful god and you really believe that drowning everyone on the planet was the best he could come up with. If you are going to allow one miracle, why stop there? Why didn't god simply introduce a painless poison into their food supply and tell Noah and his family to go where the food was safe or give them the antidote? Why did god have to kill all the animals and children? This god is not all that bright because the people who wrote the story weren't all that bright. It's a myth made up to explain something they couldn't explain, much like we make up gods. Or maybe they were trying to scare their children so they would behave. Or more likely a group of priests used this to gain power through fear of an invisible god. This is obvious to you when you consider Zeus, Thor, Horus, etc.. And yet Yahweh gets a free pass when he goes nuts? Quote: If someone does not exist, he cannot be judged to be a hypocrite. Just be reasonable, you cannot have your cake and it. I can't believe I have to spell this out. You believe in this god, so I have to address your belief. You're the one making the claims about this god, so I have to address those claims within your world view. I don't see any other way of discussing this. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 "The fool said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1. CardM, you said, "You believe in an all powerful god and you really believe that drowning everyone on the planet was the best he could come up with. If you are going to allow one miracle, why stop there?" God did not drown the antediluvians. The flood did not come directly out from God upon them. They placed themselves beyond His protection. I realize that the language in the Bible gives the impression that God caused the flood to destroy them all but it is a language that one needs to understand. For example God says that He slew Saul, the first king of Israel. But God did not touch Saul not even with His little finger. Saul killed himself. And yet the language of the Bible is, "God slew Saul." 1 Chronicles 10:14. Saul killed himself with a sword. It was a case of suicide and yet God put Himself on record as though He Himself had killed him! 1 Chron.10:4,14. God did not kill Saul anymore than He sent the flood the way we humans think. God's thoughts and ways are so different than our thoughts and ways that they bear no comparison whatsoever. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8,9. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 Quote: The laws of reason we use today come from largely secular sources. Religion tends to argue from authority. The scientific method comes from secular sources, not religious ones. Read the history of the struggle of science and religion. Please identify these secular sources Cardw. What secular sources do the laws of reason ultimately derive themselves from? What makes a "law of reason" a "law"? Why is any "law of reason" a "law"? What authority do you point to, to establish a "law of reason"? Because I am challenging you to provide an ultimate source for "laws" of reason. You have to have that foundation if you are to claim your worldview is legitimate and testable, can you do that? I do not think you can... Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 The argument has been made here that "reason" and "empathy" are all that is needed for an individual to make "moral" decisions. That God is not needed. If we examine that, we have to ask the question, what is reason? What is empathy? Now without God, what is wrong with this situation: ------------- A famine in the land appears. I am big and strong. I have five children. So I go to the next farm, kill the owner (who is sick) and take over his farm. I have acted with "reason" (I am the stronger one so more likely to survive) and I have acted with empathy (the children are much more able to survive). ----------------- "Reason and empathy" are irrelevant as concepts unless they have been defined by some type of "law" first. Reason has to have "laws" within which to operate. Empathy has to have "laws" within which to operate. So I am asking Cardw, where does he get those "laws" from? What is the source? -------------- As a Christian, I can point to God. As Cardw is an "agnostic", I am asking him where he is pointing to for those "laws"... Why? Because I do not believe his worldview can supply those sources. Therefore this worldview fails at its most basic level. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 The argument has been made here that "reason" and "empathy" are all that is needed for an individual to make "moral" decisions. That God is not needed. You cannot get to goodness without God. The idea is preposterous. You can't even get to consciousness without Intelligent Design. It is mathematically impossible to get even to eukaryotic life without Intelligent Design. A minimum of 250 proteins. The probability of finding all 250 by accident in the proper arrangement is one in 250 times a trillion trillion trillion trillion. This is zero, for all intents and purposes. No life, no consciousness, no goodness. Zero without God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Originally Posted By: Twilight The argument has been made here that "reason" and "empathy" are all that is needed for an individual to make "moral" decisions. That God is not needed. You cannot get to goodness without God. The idea is preposterous. You can't even get to consciousness without Intelligent Design. It is mathematically impossible to get even to eukaryotic life without Intelligent Design. A minimum of 250 proteins. The probability of finding all 250 in the proper arrangement is one in 250 times a trillion trillion trillion trillion. This is zero, for all intents and purposes. No life, no consciousness, no goodness. Zero without God. I am empathetic to that reasoning.I wrote this, therefore I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Quote: God did not drown the antediluvians. The flood did not come directly out from God upon them. They placed themselves beyond His protection. And how could you possibly know this? It's not in the Bible. Quote: I realize that the language in the Bible gives the impression that God caused the flood to destroy them all but it is a language that one needs to understand. For example God says that He slew Saul, the first king of Israel. But God did not touch Saul not even with His little finger. Saul killed himself. And yet the language of the Bible is, "God slew Saul." 1 Chronicles 10:14. You know it would seem like god would have made the text a lot more clear since he knows the future. We know that the Jews didn't have a concept of a devil in the way that Christianity looks at it today. The bible clearly states that they believed that god brought both good and evil. So within the context of their beliefs at the time, God did bring the flood. And this whole idea that god is somehow not accountable because he stands by and lets things happen is being hypocritical as well. God is all powerful in your world view. If anything happens, your god is responsible either by commission or omission. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Quote: The laws of reason we use today come from largely secular sources. Religion tends to argue from authority. The scientific method comes from secular sources, not religious ones. Read the history of the struggle of science and religion. Please identify these secular sources Cardw. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 The argument has been made here that "reason" and "empathy" are all that is needed for an individual to make "moral" decisions. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Originally Posted By: Twilight The argument has been made here that "reason" and "empathy" are all that is needed for an individual to make "moral" decisions. That God is not needed. You cannot get to goodness without God. The idea is preposterous. You can't even get to consciousness without Intelligent Design. It is mathematically impossible to get even to eukaryotic life without Intelligent Design. A minimum of 250 proteins. The probability of finding all 250 by accident in the proper arrangement is one in 250 times a trillion trillion trillion trillion. This is zero, for all intents and purposes. No life, no consciousness, no goodness. Zero without God. Two points. One, you are arguing from complexity to god and many of you are arguing directly to the biblical god. From a rational perspective you don't have enough evidence. Actually you have no evidence at all. And second I'm not claiming to be good. The basis for my ethics is to reduce suffering because I don't like to suffer and I don't like to see other people suffer. Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant to me. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardw Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 I am empathetic to that reasoning.I wrote this, therefore I am. Again Doug, you never fail to come through. Apparently all you have is ridicule. Quote Rich http://tiny.cc/CM2j8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karl Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Originally Posted By: karl This is zero, for all intents and purposes. No life, no consciousness, no goodness. Zero without God. Two points. One, you are arguing from complexity to god and many of you are arguing directly to the biblical god. From a rational perspective you don't have enough evidence. Actually you have no evidence at all. And second I'm not claiming to be good. The basis for my ethics is to reduce suffering because I don't like to suffer and I don't like to see other people suffer. Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant to me. Sorry, Rich, I was speaking to the title of the thread. You cannot make sense without consciousness and you can't get to consciousness without Intelligent Design. If you choose to call your Designer something other than God, so be it. One time in an AA meeting, I met a guy whose higher power was a pink stuffed rabbit on a shelf in his living room. Seemed kinda silly to me, but it was working for him at the time being. That's what he prayed to. I don't know how it turned out long term, but he was sober when he shared that with the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 Quote: You are asking me to give you a history lesson on the age of reason. Thomas Paine, Jean-Paul Sartre, Victor Hugo (writer of Les Miserables considered the greatest novel of all time), Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, and John Locke. There are many others, but these are some of the sources on reason. Where are your sources? No Cardw, I am asking you to provide the "source" for the "laws of reason". Are you saying these men "invented" reason and the "laws of reason"? Quote: Ultimately reason is based on Boolean logic a system Who "invented" Boolean logic Cardw? Quote: The whole point of reason is that it is NOT based on authority. So you are saying reason has no basis in any "authority". If it has no "basis", then it has nothing with which to base itself on. Therefore, by your reasoning, "reason" having no base of authority, does not "exist"? Quote: You are basically saying that if I am wrong then you are right, without establishing that you have proof for your rather fantastic claim. No, I am saying I have a basis for "reason" "logic" and "morality", which you do not. You have already admitted that you have no "basis" for "reason". :-) So as you do not have any basis for your worldview, and I do, you have to borrow from mine to make yours work. You first of all tried to deny morality by implying you could replace it with "reason and empathy". Then you tried to explain "reason" by stating it is based on "logic". So tell me Cardw, where do you get "logic" from? To have "logic", you have to have "absolute laws" of logic... Where do you get those "absolute laws" from? There is only one place you can get it from, you have just not realised or admitted it yet... God is the only logical source for logic... If you have another source, please let me know. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 Quote: Ignoring the idea that there are laws, I will continue to answer the same thing. I don't know. How can you ignore "laws"? If you do not have "laws", then you cannot perform science. If you do not have "laws", you cannot perform logic. If you do not have "laws", you cannot establish empathy. If you do not have "laws" you cannot even breathe. So for your worldview to work, you have to "ignore" "laws"? I have to "deny" "laws" if I am to use your worldview? Tell me my friend, what part of the above should a rational being accept? And you think your worldview is something to parade as superior to Christianity? Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 Quote: The basis for my ethics is to reduce suffering because I don't like to suffer and I don't like to see other people suffer. Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant to me. To have a "basis for ethics" means to have a set of "laws". So you do believe in "moral laws" after all Cardw... You do subscribe to an "absolute morality", you have just expressed it here. You are stating that suffering is "wrong", this is an "absolute moral" position. Why is it wrong? It is wrong because you believe it to be an "absolute moral" position. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted March 2, 2010 Moderators Share Posted March 2, 2010 Quote: cardw: ... Victor Hugo (writer of Les Miserables considered the greatest novel of all time),... Just interested in who considers Les Miserables the greatest novel of all time. Do you mean among the literary critics and writers? Any particular names? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsailor29 Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Yes, I believe Christianity is the only religion that makes sense, because we have God, infinite and personal, who came to save us from eternal destruction. If a religion does not have this, then it does not have a high enough purpose. God? Yes, I believe in God, among other reasons, because of the miracles I have seen. Quote Prs God, frm whm blssngs flw http://www.zoelifestyle.com/jmccall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 For me Oldsailor, I look at it like this. The worldview that can explain the existance of the following (amongst others), has to be the correct one: 1. Laws of Logic. 2. Laws of Science. 3. Laws of Morality. 4. Sin. 5. Righteousness. 6. Existance of the Universe. 7. Eternity. 8. Nature. 9. Life. 10. Love. Agnosticism and Atheism, does not get past point 1. Most religions cannot get past point 5. Many worldviews might have a go at covering maybe 8. But Christianity is the only one I know that offers an explanation, that is logicallly cohesive, for all 10. Mark :-) Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.