Religion (God)

Quote:
As well, is it really the case that God, by harming himself, really fulfilled the commandments of justice? For instance, if my friend wrongs me in some way, can I flog myself to remove them of their responsibility?
It seems odd that God would not judge us individually.

I still don't see why Christ was required at all.

I don't understand the top paragraph. Can you re-explain?
Christ was the required sacrifice (payment) for sin. God is just and cannot/will not deny his justice. Sin demands (by law) death. Clearer or no?

Quote:
I mean whatever you mean by "God" If you hold God to be omnipotent, then I am as well. If you hold god to be merciful, then I am as well. Whatever you say is God, apply to me.

God had one Son. That Son was Christ, who lived 2,000 years ago, was killed, and raised again. He is alive today and will re-appear on the last day. Because you have a physical form, and you claim to be God, you must be Christ, but you cannot be Christ because the end of the world has not happened yet. (Nor has it since you were born, or any of the days subsequently). Therefore, you are not God.

NOW--for the morality post response.

Quote:1. Does God endorse a moral proposition X because it is good, or
2. is X good because God endorses it?
Can't it be both? If not, it's the latter.

Quote:Is it wrong to murder just because God says it is wrong to murder, or does God tell me murdering is wrong because it is actually objectively wrong?
What do you mean by "objectively"? Isn't anything objective because it has a purpose. Isn't that purpose God? Doesn't God define objectivity?

Quote:This question seems to negate God as relevant to morality, or morality as relevant in general. Indeed, in order to justify moral absolutism, in my mind (and I'm still in high school, so I admit that everything I know about philosophy is not formal) they both need to be true, but they can't both be true, in order for divine moral absolutism to work.

You lost me. Re-explain?

AHHH I just lost all the crap I wrote by pressing the back button. Oh well, God is in control, neh? Guess I need to shorten my story.

Response to your morality issue:
Thank you for proving my point. Evolution is in fact a worldview. One that leads hopelessly down a hole of nothingness, purposeless emptiness, as evidenced by your plethora of questions towards the end. "Why...why...why?" Evolutionary worldview presents no explanation. Yet another reason to place your faith not in science, but in God.

Quote:It seems to me that moral propositions reflect, at their core, chemical reactions. When I say "Murder is wrong", the information conveyed is "Murder provokes a strong chemical reaction that I interpret to be negative in me".

Consistently, you are now denying emotions. Keep going, and you'll be in so deep you won't know which way is up. Emotions are not from the heart, they are from my glands. You are consistent to deny the existence of anything like a mind, heart, soul, or conscience. Unfortunately, this leads to more questions than answers.
Remove one truth, and you've got to keep chipping away at it until you're left with nothing.

Quote:I was also taught homosexuality is wrong, but I don't want to have that as part of my moral system, so I don't.
I was taught that murder was wrong...
But then you say "Freedom is what matters! As long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process, believe whatever you want!" But can you consistently believe this?

Quote:The difference comes in what gives us the most pleasure to follow.
I suppose hedonism is consistent with Evolutionary theory. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. (Isaiah 22:13) Surely you recognize the folly of such a belief though?

Quote:Now, none of this is to say that we ought not believe in morality, because that too is a moral statement, and thus is not true, and thus can be ignored. What this does say, however, is that our moral system doesn't exist on the same level as "Gravity exists", but rather on the same level as "Chocolate is the best!". But if this is the case...conservative Christianity is essentially wiped out, since it claims its morality to be objective.

"wiped out" in what sense? OUGHT we to believe in what is most believable? OUGHT we to favor science over religion? Hmmm...

Quote:Whether God exists or does not exist is irrelevant to my morality and how I ought to behave.

I believe you. Unfortunately, it is relevent, the most terrible way. In fact, so relevent, that your very life depends on it. The police will arrest me if I commit a murder. If I claim to believe that my moral standards ignore the existence of police, and that therefore I will not be arrested, will I get off scott-free? There is objective truth and morality. Whether or not you choose to live like it is up to you.

Quote:Why is it that the scriptures of the world seem to vary so much? The beliefs of Islam and Christianity, for instance, appear to be inconsistent in many ways...not to mention the beliefs of Hinduism versus Christianity or whatnot. How to explain this?

Not all religions are the same? ;-)
Actually, most religions are the same essentially. Most state "Be good and you'll be rewarded."
There are two exceptions to this rule.
1. Atheism
2. Christianity
=D

Quote:The problem of evil - why does God create within us a bias toward evil? Also, the problem of natural evil - why does God allow "evil" events to happen that are outside of our control?

First, you cannot argue this, because there is no "evil," and God doesn't exist. Assuming there are, however, God doesn't inject us with some "Evil Nature Syrum." We are born with it because of the choice our forefather made. I think your questioning "Why is God setting us up for failure?" What would be the alternative? Setting us up for success? That would be coersion--impossible. Middle ground? this is known as free will. Even now you have a choice to place faith in God, but you continually reject the opportunity. You've got free will.

Quote:In other words: God doesn't help the old lady on the street be saved from the mugger. He apparently doesn't consider it wrong enough to interfere with it, so why should I?
How do you know what God does and doesn't do? Whom he saves and does not save? Further, He commands us to love our neighbors, not stand idly by and watch them suffer.

Quote:f God really wants me to believe in him, why doesn't he give me any evidence that HE is the correct God to believe in?
HE HAS! I don't know how many times to say it, in how many different ways, but I will get this through. You simply will not accept His evidence. Miricles are now "phenomenons", purpose is now "random chance", morality is now "Whatever seems right to you." You take everything He offers and twist it. How is it possible not to do this? Faith alone.
Your faith is in a belief that Evolution is true and that colors your worldview. You will neither listen to anything or anyone offering contrary "evidence". And the same is true for me. I "know" that God exists, that Christianity is right, and I know that anyone telling me otherwise is deceived or lying. How did we get here? A decision of faith. Perhaps I may have to post my previous philosophy paper.

Quote:If God created everything, it seems he did a really poor job of it. Why did he create things like disease? Why didn't he create humans to have wings? Why did he create in humans this bias toward evil? Why can't my eyes see in the dark? Why will our sun explode?
Yes, keep on judging. Because you could have done a lot better. You, in your infinite wisdom can see how truly mistaken God was to make you like He did. You know what will happen 10, 20, a billion years down the road, you've got everything planned out, and God's plan just isn't cutting it. Give up. You are not God.

Quote:Why is it that God interferes with world events, but only sometimes, and he doesn't interfere in other times because that would violate our free will?

I'll ask Him when I see Him. Who knows? Quit trying to judge the way He does things. He's been around a lot longer, seen a lot more, knows a lot more, and is much more interested in the salvation of humanity than you are. Yes, it may have SEEMED right to you for God to do something one way. Have you heard of the butterfly effect? Have you seen the movie? You cannot know what the outcome of an event 100 years from now. Why not leave those things to Someone more qualified?

Quote:Why does our free will even matter? And even if it does matter, why can't God act while still preserving our free will? He could make the weather all over Earth wonderful all the time without taking away from our free will at all.
1. Without free will there can be no love. God took (and takes) a huge risk in that he allowed us the option to choose between obeying Him and not obeying Him.
2. What do you think He's doing right now? Sitting up in heaven watching us under a microscope? God is active every day. Ask a missionary just come back from mexico or Rwanda. Heard any crazy stories that were just too miraculous to be true, but people still swear by, lately? God is very much active in the world today, but because you cannot accept His existence, you must explain away His every miracle.

Quote:How applicable is free will to this debate? Environment seems to matter a great deal to how a person will develop. I would be entirely different today if I were born in Saudi Arabia or in Burma. Hence, if I would act a different way based on where I was born, who is to say I am acting in a way that is consistent with the "free will" of my spirit right now?
?

Quote:Why doesn't God simply give us an equal playing ground? After all, if he wants to see us act with our free will, the best way to do this (scientifically) is to nullify all the other variables. As it is, the other variables all seem to taint this experiment.

Yep, we're starting down a notch. We've got a bent towards self, and even though God offers us redemption, we don't want to forsake ourselves and follow him. So who can be saved? Only those upon which God has grace. Does He have grace for you? I don't know, but you can find out?

Quote:Why is it that Christianity has so many similarities to pagan religions before it?

Been reading the Da Vinci Code lately? Which pagan similarities did you have in mind? I assume that religions are bound to have something in common with one another, being religions.

Quote:How can we claim Christianity is true when it seems like Christian doctorine was agreed upon by consensus at the Council of Nicea?

Haha yep. If you're not reading it, your buying someones bullcrap that has been ;-)

Quote: Why does God do anything? After all, if he is perfect, then he has no reason to do anything - he knows and experiences the outcome of all possible actions before they even occur, so it seems like he has no need to do such a thing.

His nature. He's a creator. He creates. He's a savior. He saves. He's a judge. He judges.

Quote:Why should I believe in a God when it seems like science is able to adequately explain things? Why should I believe in a God in the absence of evidence?

Are you kidding me? After all the questions you just asked? The only thing "science" does for you is give you a hope that maybe you'll cease to exist after you die. Indeed, that would be favorable, wouldn't it?

I'm actually tiring of answering these, it seems like I'm stating the same things over and over again in different ways. Maybe I'll hit this up tomorrow.

I think the practice of shorter responses is a good thing ;) So I'll read your paper later ( I have about twenty minutes before I need to get ready to go to some social function) and I'll try to respond to your posts reallyq uickly - this will mean I will make alot of typos

Quote:See my paper--you're confusing macro and micro.

See my other post.

Quote:Exactly. No responsibility.

No! Evolution doesn't talk about moral responsibility at all. The fact that it doesn't talk about it doesn't mean it is saying "No responsibility! Go out and party!" - it means it isn't talking about it :p

Quote:hey obviously had a choice between obedience and disobedience.

No, they didn't have a choice: If they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil, then they had no weighing mechanism for any of their decisions. They couldn't say to themselves "Well, it would be bad for me to be disobedient", because they don't know what "bad" is. They are essentially amoral creatures acting on instinct alone. Thus, because they were acting on instinct and not because of some higher moral system, they couldn't have *chosen* anything.

They became hgher beings the instant they knew about good and evil. Until then, they were robots.

Quote:Just wanted to let you know that every time you mention the word "proof" you are being inconsistent,

I use proof in a colloquial sense to mean "That argument that is consistent and increases the probability of an affirmative truth value for X"

Quote:Because of our sin nature, and the nature of God, being completely Holy,

Then God can send an avatar down (say, Jesus) to bridge the gap between us

Quote:Partially correct. But God has an unchanging, immutable nature. One which He never, has never, and will never deny. He IS a judge. He IS a king. He IS love. He IS merciful, patient, compassionate, vengeful (vengance is mine, says the Lord. Hebews 10:30), risk-taking. That should prompt a few questions =)

Indeed. It seems that he is just, but he gets to define justice, but he doesnt' get to define justice because he is just....Which seems to be a circular argument. Either:
1. God can define justice
2. God cannot define justice

Which is it?

Quote:I don't understand the top paragraph. Can you re-explain?

If someone does something wrong, can I punish myself to absolve them of guilt?

Quote:Clearer or no?

No, since while the "law" may demand it, God gets to define the law anyway, so the law doesn't *need* to demand it.

Quote:Can't it be both? If not, it's the latter.

Alright. Then....

Quote:What do you mean by "objectively"? Isn't anything objective because it has a purpose. Isn't that purpose God? Doesn't God define objectivity?

No, a thing is objective because it exists in the universe. The sun is objective because it exists in the universe outside of human perception, for instance.
Whereas morality flows from God: A thing is good because God says it is good. But because God has to endorse it first in order for it to be a good thing (that is, it wasn't good until God endorsed it), that means that it had no essence to it at all: It wasn't *essentially* good. It wasn't good by it's very nature, but instead good because God proclaimed it so.
That means that morality rests basically on god's whim
---
(and God's whim is random, because he has no morality that he follows: By definition anything he does is good, and thus all actions become equal in his mind. The difference between murder and not murder is like this:

MURDER: -10
PLEASURE FROM MURDER: 5
NOT MURDER: 5
PLEASURE FROM NOT MURDER: 4

So man looks at it can usually goes "Hey, murder is -5 overall, whereas notmurder is 9 overall, so I'll not murder."
But since God, by definition, can do no wrong, both murder and notmurder become equal, and thus for him it comes down to pleasure.)
---
Thus there is nothing inherently bad about murder anymore - morality becomes entirely without substance.

Quote:You lost me. Re-explain?

Conservative Christianity says:
1. Morality has essence (it is objective, you *ought* follow it)
2. Morality flows from God (Whatever God says goes)

But they can't both be true: Morality cannot have essence if it merely flows from God, and morality cannot flow from God if it has essence (since that essence would mean God himself is limited in his actions due to morality). Thus, conservative Christianity cannot be true.

Quote:Evolution is in fact a worldview.

No, this has nothing to do with evolution. It does have to do with:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_problem

Quote:Evolutionary worldview presents no explanation.

Indeed not: it doesn't talk about this *at all*. It is completely irrelevant here. Attack the field of ethics, not the field of biology.

Quote:Yet another reason to place your faith not in science, but in God.

So essentially your answer to all of my why questions is "god" - but we run into the is-ought problem. It is true that God may say X. But why *ought* I do X? Why is it the case that what God says is moral? Why OUGHT I do anything God says? Answer me please.

And as I demonstrated above, if he does in fact dictate what is moral, then morality doesn't exist anyway. The only way for morality to exist absolutely is for God to follow it, too: Otherwise, it isn't a part of our universe but instead simply a part of our minds, and it then loses its ability to be true.

Quote:Consistently, you are now denying emotions.

Um, no. Why would you think this?

Quote:Emotions are not from the heart, they are from my glands.

Yes, it is extremely well documented that emotions come from the brain, not the heart. The heart has nothing to do with emotions at all: The ancient Egyptian belief that the heart contained the core of a person and that the brain was worthless has long been abandoned.

Quote:You are consistent to deny the existence of anything like a mind, heart, soul, or conscience.

Oh, you are using heart in a metaphorical sense. In that sense, the heart exists in the brain, as does the soul, and conscience. I think most people also believe the mind exists in the brain

Quote:Remove one truth, and you've got to keep chipping away at it until you're left with nothing.

This isn't a very good argument:

1. ASSUMPTION: Divine moral absolutism is true.
2. Therefore, divine moral absolutism is true.

Nor is this:

1. Divine moral absolutism being false means that I don't have a metaphorical heart.
2. Therefore, divine moral absolutism is true.

Defend your position without restorting to appeals to emotion.

Also, I should clarify: Moral absolutism being false does not in any way mean we don't have emotions (indeed, emotions are the whole reason why we have morality). The fact that emotions take place in the brain doesn't do anything to negate their existence - I'm not really sure why you think it does.

Quote:I was taught that murder was wrong...
But then you say "Freedom is what matters! As long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process, believe whatever you want!" But can you consistently believe this?

See, now your attempting to move on to the "Well, if moral statements aren't true at all, then why should you believe anything? Why shouldnt we all just believe nothing?"
And that is the beauty of it: There is no reason to believe anything! There is no reason to believe nothing! It's like asking me why I ought to believe that peanut butter is good, or why I ought to think no food tastes good - it is really an absurd thing to ask. We should have morality because if we didn't, we would be unable to act. We should have morality because it makes us happy to have morality. (Note: I'm using "should" really loosely - in such a way that would make most philosophers have a heart attack. Sorry :(). Just because morality doesn't reflect some independent truth in the universe doesn't mean it has no place in our lives: It doesn't mean that it is then rational or logical to just "give it up", because rationality and (to a lesser extent) logic depend on the existence of morality. We can't sya a person is acting rational or not if they have no goal. We can't say a person is acting consistently or not if we have no basis for comparison.

What it does mean is that you can't raise the Bible in the air and say "Follow this or die!!", because the Bible isn't true in the technical sense: It is merely a book with lots of moral assumptions, moral assumptions that happen to be not-truth-apt (or not true, if you prefer). If you like those moral assumptions, then go ahead and follow them...if you don't like them, find some that you do like. Perhaps you like the morality explained by liberalism? Perhaps you like the morality exlpained by socialism? By Islam? By Buddhism?

So indeed, the statements "Murder is wrong", "Homosexuals ought to be murdered", "Freedom is what matters", etc...all have the exact same moral weight, since none of them can be proven or disproven - they aren't truth apt, so to require "proof" for any of them is absurd, since they dont' talk about the physical properties of the universe but instead about the preferences of the speaker in question.

You really ought to study ethics. It is a fascinating field.

Quote:I suppose hedonism is consistent with Evolutionary theory

If you bring up evolution one more time, instead of ethics, in this discussion...I'm going to go mad.

Quote:Surely you recognize the folly of such a belief though?

No offence, but simply quoting the Bible with a verse that just says "lol urwrong" doesn't serve as proof against my position. Start arguing against it.

Quote:"wiped out" in what sense? OUGHT we to believe in what is most believable? OUGHT we to favor science over religion? Hmmm...

Because if morality isn't independently true, if morality isn't a physical part of the universe...Then conservative Christianity isn't true. Christianity can still be salvaged by the most liberal sects (God is very powerful and believes X), but otherwise....

Ought we believe what is most believable? No.
Ought we favor science over religion? Only if we favour truth over emotion. Ought we favour truth over emotion? No! Ought we favour emotion over truth? No! There are no objective oughts! That's the whole point: You *ought* do something only if you think you ought do it.

Thus, you can be perfectly consistent and say "I have this moral system because I want it". As a matter of fact, you can't really defend God, but you *can* say "I don't value the truth, and thus I don't care if God truly exists or not.".

Quote:The police will arrest me if I commit a murder. If I claim to believe that my moral standards ignore the existence of police, and that therefore I will not be arrested, will I get off scott-free? There

Of course not, because society imposes its morality by force.

Quote:There is objective truth and morality.

Then PROVE it. PROVE why I ought value something - ANYTHING. If you are able to prove why I ought value peace or whatever, then all of my arguments will be negated.
Or: Respond to my arguments, instead of ujst saying "lol urwrong". You'll hav eto respond to them all, of course. How can we derive an ought from an is? How do we resolve the divine command dilemma? What is morality, exactly? How can morality be a physical part of the universe on par with gravity?

Ought I value it because society will punish me otherwise? Is that really a basis for morality: What society believes?
Ought I value it because God says so? Why should I value what God says?

Also, I recommend you read the above links (or the wikipedia version of them, though Wikipedia is kind of bad at this).

Basically your arguments against mine have come down to:
1. "lol ur denying the existence of teh metaphorical heart!!!1 therefore you are wrong."
2. "you are wrong. therefore, you are wrong."

Neither of these work, since
A) They don't address what I've said
B) They don't provide an alternative logical framework
C) On their own, they play into logical fallacies.

You may view this as all "godless secularism", but you need to demonstrate how morality has an objective basis. Until you do so, this "godless secular darwinism communism evil" view wins out.

Quote:Actually, most religions are the same essentially. Most state "Be good and you'll be rewarded."
There are two exceptions to this rule.
1. Atheism
2. Christianity

Most say "follow my teachings and you will be rewarded". This often includes being "not good". There is one major exception:
1. Atheism ;)

Quote:I think your questioning "Why is God setting us up for failure?" What would be the alternative? Setting us up for success?

How about not setting us up for anything? Just let our spirits do whatever they would naturally do - don't give us this bias for evil.

Quote:Even now you have a choice to place faith in God, but you continually reject the opportunity. You've got free will.

Yes. again, you have already admitted that this is a bad argument: I also have the choice to place faith in all the other gods of religion. There is no reason to choose yours over any of the others.
As well, you've already essentially admitted this is false (or at least irrelevant): God creates people to go to heaven, and god creates people to go to hell.

Quote:How do you know what God does and doesn't do? Whom he saves and does not save?

If he doesn't do it in all cases, then it shows his morality isn't categorical, but if it isn't categorical, then is it truely a moral imperative?

Quote:Further, He commands us to love our neighbors, not stand idly by and watch them suffer.

Oh, I can love her without helping her. God loves me without helping me, right? :)

Quote:How is it possible not to do this? Faith alone.

So basically the proof he has shown me, the evidence he has shown me of his existence, is "faith"? The EVIDENCE for his existence is me assuming his existence without evidence for his existence? YOu realise how absurd this sounds?

Quote:Your faith is in a belief that Evolution is true

My faith is in truth. Evolution, by independent tools of logic and reason, has shown to have a high probability of being true.

Quote:and that colors your worldview.

No, it doesn't. The study of ethics (applied, normative, meta) "colors" my worldview in this case.

Quote:You will neither listen to anything or anyone offering contrary "evidence".

Because all your evidence has been:

1. Assume I am right.
2. Therefore I am right.

Sorry, I don't have that kind of faith to put in you.

Quote:I "know" that God exists, that Christianity is right, and I know that anyone telling me otherwise is deceived or lying.

And that is the difference between us: I evaluate all arguments that I come across and check them using logic, reason, and empirical data to see if it conforms to truth. In this case, you have failed to conform to truth. You may say that truth is simply faith and I should shift it, but in doing so you have to at least admit that your position does not yet conform to truth.

I "know" that evolution has a high chance of being true because we have observed it time and time again, both macro and micro. As well, the logical underpinning of evolution has been demonstrated to correspond highly with the world around us (that is, it's predictions have been correct), and no one has been able to attack it sufficently.

You "know" that God is true because you want to know such.

Do you see the difference?

Quote:You, in your infinite wisdom can see how truly mistaken God was to make you like He did.

Argument from ignorance: You are simply tacking on ad-hoc arguments to salvage your theory. No matter what inconsistency I display, no matter how much I show that God didn't seem to do things like you say he should, you can always say "Well, you are just an arrogant, small man. How can you seek to judge what God says?"
Yet another unfalsifiable position.

Quote:Who knows?

You need to answer it or admit it as an inconsistency and move on.

Quote:You cannot know what the outcome of an event 100 years from now. Why not leave those things to Someone more qualified?

This isn't a matter of predicting the future: It is a matter of seeing why God acts the way he does. He seems to act in an inconsitsent manner, and you haven't resolved it yet.

Quote:2. What do you think He's doing right now? Sitting up in heaven watching us under a microscope? God is active every day. Ask a missionary just come back from mexico or Rwanda. Heard any crazy stories that were just too miraculous to be true, but people still swear by, lately? God is very much active in the world today, but because you cannot accept His existence, you must explain away His every miracle.

So why doesn't God give miracles except on a larger scale and all the time? If it isn't a violation of free will when it's small, what makes it a violation of free will when it encompasses the whole world at all times?

Quote:?

My spirit may act like X. But I may be born in an environment that acts like Y, and therefore I act like Y. Which sort of free will is this? It clearly isn't the free will of my spirit, because things are loaded against me because of my environment.

Quote:Only those upon which God has grace. Does He have grace for you? I don't know, but you can find out?

No, he doesn't: He is going to send me to hell because I don't believe in him :\ Or he might have created me with the specific purpose of sending me to hell.

Quote:Haha yep. If you're not reading it, your buying someones bullcrap that has been ;-)

So is *everything* that was proposed at the Council part of gods word, even the rejected stuff?

Quote:His nature. He's a creator. He creates. He's a savior. He saves. He's a judge. He judges.

Okay.

Quote:Are you kidding me? After all the questions you just asked?

The questions that you have seemingly failed to answer.
No offence, but earlier you were having a small parade because atheists were unable to answer you. Now the position is reversed. Here is an out, though:

1. Admit that you are unable to answer, that my arguments may be correct, but that they are irrelevant because you have faith.

That will satisfy me entirely. I don't really care if you are religious except in TWO circumstances:
1. You start trying to force it on me (gay marriage, stem cell research, etc)
2. You say that your beliefs are *true*.

If you don't do either of those things, then I'm happy.

got to go now ugh i spent 30 minutes on this :(

Also, just to remind you: you have yet to disprove me as God :)

Oh well. Perhaps someone else wants to talk about this?