Discussions

Your reply to Committed2Brandon stated my position better than I could have. Thank you.  
 
Marpet

Holy moly there is a lot discussed in this thread a lot to read. Please forgive me as I only read the first page and the last few so if I repeat something that has been said please make me aware and help me find it.  
 
So it would appear a fair bit of the last few posts revolved around justice as if it is needed to prove the existence of God. The only conclusion I can come to for justice to be perfect is we would need a perfect supreme being, otherwise we wind up with imperfect man made justice that is the best we can do.  
While the "desire for justice"(not justice itself) may be support of Gods existence its not sufficient.  
 
Science cant prove Gods existence either. not will it be able to prove where the universe came from. The problem with science is that it uses matter to look at matter. matter cannot look into the immaterial. its like looking at something invisible. its like looking at wind. So science will never prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science and faith are not at odds unless one wishes deception upon themselves  
Fun fact the first person to first theorize the big bang was a Catholic priest by the name George Lemaitre  
 
You get people at both sides of the theist/atheist debate being irrational. "the universe was created and is 10,000 years old!" or "Science says the universe is trillions years old and we evolved from natural selection and random mutation"  
truth be told no one alive is 10,000 years old. And no one alive has seen evolution happen, that's to say from the beginning.  
 
How might we investigate the question of God existence? I must be reason, looking at what we know, both philosophically and scientifically. We can use our minds and the knowledge it collects to answer questions. so how might we find God.  
 
one proof, or supporting evidence, offered is the first mover principle. In nature we see that for one thing to have moved it requires something to have moved it. much like Isaac Newton laws of motion. so for if everything that moved or acted required something to move it, where did this cycle start? is it an infinite cycle motion? Or does the moving universe have a beginning? someone to have moved it first? following on this thought what cause the big bang? as we currently hold as the beginning of the known universe. what moved the "primeval atom" as George Lemaitre call it? One could easily point to the first mover, God.  
 
Often the question asked is what caused God or what moved God? The answer is God is uncaused he is unmoved by anything or anyone else. this is where many would start to put there faith. its not an act against reason as faith and reason should never contradict. Even though its not completely verifiable it does not go against science and reason.  
 
Another proof would be miracles, and I don't mean Jesus appear on my toast miracles. I mean that person should have been dead by all counts. type of miracles. things that would go beyond physical nature, as if something metaphysical had something to do with it.  
 
the question of who Is God, is there more than one, which religion is Right, and where on is he in regards to this mess of a world is and answer for later. right now its time for bed  
 
 
Edited by FNPLG, 2015-06-16 22:23:51

So if God is responsible for miracles, how come he picks and chooses who to help? If God can perform miracles and save those who are dying, why does he only save the odd person? Why does he let little kids die of cancer? Why does he allow so much suffering in the world if he has the ability to stop it?

To all of the horrible stories of sexual abuse and rape by members of the clergy in the Catholic Church. I bet every one of those children prayed to God for help, for a miracle. Where was God then? He has the ability to perform miracles, yet he can't stop a bunch of perverts who work for him from raping kids? Why would you want to worship something like that?

Read an article last night that sort of tries to get around the idea missing links as far as evolution goes, especially relating to humans, we are the result of a sudden change in genes. So we are a GMO species. The scientists that have discovered the change I our genes many years ago are pretty confident that this happened, but are unsure why. Not having a why leaves this open to more debate.

"The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing"  
Socrates  
 
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance"  
George Bernard Shaw  
 
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."  
Albert Einstein

Opinionated said "To all of the horrible stories of sexual abuse and rape by members of the clergy in the Catholic Church. I bet every one of those children prayed to God for help, for a miracle. Where was God then? He has the ability to perform miracles, yet he can't stop a bunch of perverts who work for him from raping kids? Why would you want to worship something like that? "

There's a reason for that: not ONE of the ten commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Rape"... I wonder why god would miss a biggie like that?

Marvin said, [i]"Let's imagine you knew there was a bomb in this building. You also know that a person you greatly love will be going into this building shortly. Would you not want to warn this person? Would you not want to grab a hold of their hand and stop them from entering?"[/i]  
 
The problem with that scenario is that you only believe, not know, that there is a bomb in the building. There is no proof that it is there. No threats have been made. Nobody has seen anyone with suspicious packages in or around the premises.  
 
I have no issue with you asking me to stay out because of what you believe, but you have no right to tell me that I can't enter if I wish to do so. Should you be right and the bomb was there, congratulations... you are still alive and I am not. Odds are, though, that it's all in your imagination...

Nordberg, if you plan on making claims that I either “misunderstand the arguments of others or take wild liberty with their arguments” please at least be able to back it up. As you will note from my previous posts on these subjects, all of my arguments discussing what Marpet had to say was preceded by quotes from his arguments, and although I can’t speak for him, I think that you have quite likely done him a great disservice in attempting to clarify his claims, for as it turns out you haven’t really addressed any of the issues at all. But rather most of what you have left behind is still a series of questions. You have said a lot of interesting things about evolution and the universe but you haven’t actually answered many of my questions. Because I can only therefore assume that you didn’t have an opportunity to take the time to read our earlier posts, I will explain parts of our discussion to you in reference to the arguments you have made.  
 
In your point of clarification to my most recent comments you have said “The Universe owes us nothing” and further “that the Universe does not owe him justice” – ok, so therefore as Marpet and I discussed there is no ultimate justice in atheism, right? There is what humans can do on this earth in retaliation for the harm one has done to another, but ultimately no justice when one does harm to another. Therefore, as I had already said in one of my previous posts there is also no justice or ultimate equality when life becomes unfair if there is no God, right? There is the comfort that we as humans may decide to provide to the rest of society who may be suffering, but ultimately life is pretty unfair, right? Similarly in atheism, there is no consequence to the harm one does on this earth save and except for what society can do in retaliation? Am I right in saying that?  
 
Yet, despite that, you have also suggested “All any of us can do, is live an ethical life and hope to experience as little pain and suffering as possible. As somewhat intelligent beings it should occur to us that if that is the way that we feel, then perhaps other people may feel that way and should be given the same opportunity to lead an ethical life and to experience as little pain and suffering as possible.”  
The problem for you (and I suppose many atheists in general) however is that this suggestion of yours is based on a subjective opinion that you yourself hold. It’s based on nothing objective. You hold the opinion that it makes sense not to harm others, and yet as you yourself would no doubt argue many intelligent individuals in our society and many intelligent individuals throughout history never held the same opinion as you do. You yourself may believe that it is a good idea not to harm others, but if one disagrees with you and decides to harm others, without God there is no consequence to their actions, again, save and except for what society can do in retaliation. This then begs the question, as I have already mentioned in previous posts, what should be the basis behind our rights and freedoms? What should be the basis behind our laws? What should be the basis behind our government? In your world it seems that it doesn’t really matter, because it is all subjective anyway, just as you yourself have said “Justice is subjective”.  
 
Ok, so let’s consider your next statement that ethics is a very simple concept that boils down to the golden rule, namely “Treat someone with the same care and respect that you would want to be treated with: don't cheat them for your own benefit.” At first glance this seems like a good idea, and I agree it’s a very good start, the problem is that it just doesn’t go far enough. As an example you have not in any way defined someone – so does it extend to the unborn? People will obviously disagree with you on whether or not they should be included. How about our children, who should be able to educate them, and what should they be able to educate them? Or let me take it a step further and say well what if I wanted to die if I was born a paraplegic, and what if therefore I thought it was in the best interest of everyone born as a paraplegic to die? What if somehow I figured out a way to go about making my plan happen? What if most of the rest of the people around me agreed with me? It passes the test of treating others with the same care and respect that I hypothetically would want to be treated with, and it’s also not cheating anyone for my own benefit, I mean, it’s for their own benefit, right? I hope you see the problems with that as the basis behind all ethics.  
 
You know the golden rule that you mentioned at least for Christians is not really the golden rule, at least not on its own. When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment, his response was ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ The second commandment is as you say do unto others as you would want to have done to you, but it is predicated upon us following the first and most important commandment.  
 
From there Nordberg you go on to evolution, and say that “human life is not sacred”. In this you have the same problem. If human life is not sacred, then why follow the golden rule? Should we follow it because you have said so? I mean by your argument human life is not sacred right? It’s a nice thought to preserve and save it, but ultimately if human life is not sacred, we really don’t need to.  
 
You have also said  
“The more chance that another's genes are closer in relation to ours (family, tribe, nationality) the more likely historically we have been to take that person into consideration as important.” This doesn’t historically often happen does it? I mean it doesn’t fully take into account why neighbouring peoples and races closely related to each other are more often going to war and practicing genocides than they are otherwise with people of races and nations from far off locations. An example is the Rwandan Genocide where one group of people attempting to exterminate another group of people that were closely genetically related to them. Other examples are the Bosnian genocide, the historical atrocities that have been committed by the Japanese against the Koreans, fights between the Irish and English, and the Holodomor by the Russian Soviet Government starving Ukrainians near the beginning of the last century.  
 
You also said that “Marpet's connection to future generations comes from evolution, as does yours, you just fail to see the connection.” A bold statement to make indeed. In order to make that statement I think you’re going to need to do more to prove that in fact the ‘selfish gene’ exists. Further I also think you should properly define how it operated. Because if it does exist then you have a lot of explaining to do. For example, in light of the ‘selfish gene’ why do so many people forego having children? Why aren’t you attempting to have as many children as you possibly can (assuming you aren’t already – perhaps not a safe assumption)? What is the evolutionary significance of being a homosexual? Are you a hypocrite if you don’t attempt to impregnate as many women as you possibly can? What’s the evolutionary significance for an individual to decide to have an abortion?  
 
So you want to boil everything down to evolution? Well this also begs the question of why then should I make any attempt to stand against evolution, in particular if it might benefit future generations. The Nazi’s are a prime example of a group that historically felt that because they had superior genes it was in the interest of all of society to do away with people of less inferior genes. A similar view was also shared by the eugenics movement, and Charles Darwin himself said in his book The Descent of Man “There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.”  
 
Nordberg, I note that you have failed to put any consideration into what I suggested about near death experiences where people have experienced phenomena through their senses in a way that science cannot make our senses otherwise experience – such as the ability to see through walls or hear people in far off locations. You have just reiterated what Marpet had to say, without actually commenting on these issues. I agree with you that many near death experiences could potentially be explained by science and reason, but obviously science has a much greater problem on their hands if people can see through walls in a near death experience.  
 
Next, we go on to matter, and I will quote your entire paragraph for my response:  
 
“Matter exists, and at the moment we do not know why. However, science is still pursuing that. Most religious people will scoff at the idea of "something from nothing", but as it turns out, that may be exactly what happens, and is explored in A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, by physicist Lawrence Krauss. Just because the idea is irrational to religious folks, doesn't mean that it doesn't have merit, and all that really matters is the math. Same thing for the Big Bang, so far the math seems to support it.”  
 
I think it’s nice of you to have provided me and the reader with the title of a book by Lawrence Kraus that purports to explain how matter can come from nothing. But instead of providing us with the name of the book, can you explain to us in summary how that works? I mean, assuming that you have in fact read the book. If however the book does not actually provide an explanation as to how matter comes from nothing, and if you can’t explain it, than what you have done is put a blind faith in an explanation that has no basis in reality. That may be worth noting again, and so I will put it another way. If you can’t explain how matter comes from nothing, and you know of no one who could, than you have put blind faith in nothing as the reason for everything. Or rather, that there is no reason for anything, it just simply is, and although science can’t explain it, if you also can’t explain it than you have accepted it because that is what you believe, despite all evidence to the contrary. By evidence to the contrary, I mean that everything in this universe has an explanation, and that this is the basis behind science – a form of reasoning. If you accept that matter has no reason than you are putting blind faith in an unscientific concept. In a way you have went far beyond what many Christians have done by you yourself putting blind faith in the idea of nothing being the ultimate and final reason for everything. Because God is ultimately at least to the Christian the reason for everything, in a way you can say that you have made your blind belief in nothing, your god.  
 
Finally Nordberg, you have said that there is “no need for a god in the universe”. Yet, you have failed to adequately address the issue of morality. You have provided the world with no comfort for justice or equality save and except for that of what the world standing on its own can currently provide – which to any casual observer would be seen as grossly inadequate. You have also said that there is “really no evidence....for a god in the universe.” Yet, seemingly (though you have the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise) matter exists for no reason that science can otherwise explain and therefore there is still the implication of a creator. You believe otherwise, but it would seem (and again you have the opportunity to demonstrate evidence to the contrary) that your belief that matter came from nothing is based on a blind faith in your assumption.  
 
I will reiterate, you have said Nordberg, that there is “no need for a god in the universe”, and I suppose at least from the standpoint of morality this would be the case if despite what some peoples evolutionary drives may lead them to otherwise do, everyone decided to listen to you Nordberg and make you the head of all of our governments because you believe you have the answer to all of the ethical problems of the universe. At least then the world would have some peace, and I suppose if you codified your ethical system and it turned out to be flawless and everyone for future generations agreed to follow it then we would also have peace – we would likely still have the problems of inequality and injustice, but at least we would have peace. Unfortunately Nordberg this is not practical, and unfortunately without God there is no objective sense of morality, and without God there is no justice and no equality. Without God and an afterlife there is no reason for people to follow a certain standard of morality save and except for what evolution has left for them. Darwin himself would suggest that this could only result in the end of life as we know it, so I will quote him from the Descent of Man  
 
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races of man......the break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state....than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”  
 
For you Nordberg, without God all that is left is you, your selfish desires (or selfish gene) and your blind faith in something science does not even suggest.  
 
Science and philosophy suggests strongly that there must be a reason for matter, and the big bang theory suggests strongly that there is a beginning of time, this implies a creator. Christianity I would argue (as I have already done in my first two posts) provides the most comprehensive explanation for that creator.  
 
My God Nordberg is real and His religion provides the most satisfying reason for our existence that you will ever find.  

Nordberg, I was wondering if you checked out the link I provided earlier on the ideas on multiverse as well as the Higgs theory, also was wondering your thoughts on the results of what did or didn't happen from the collision of particles. Some of these ideas are getting far beyond my understanding of things, but it seems the results were somewhat disappointing.

I guess my concern has to do with a theory,that has been on existence for around fifty years, and the math related to it has allowed many other questions to be answered by applying the theory. Just my opinion but I feel that the major push for the accelerator was to prove the Higgs theory, and I wonder if proof cannot be found does it mean that maybe the theory was wrong, and at what point would they say we might be wrong.  
 
This is just my opinion as well, but one pf the reasons that people accept religion is that our time living is very short, and waitng on science to provide answers just doesn't fit into people's time frame, this really doesn't apply to the creation side of things but more to the death and heaven part.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charleston-black-church-shooting-suspect-still-at-large-after-9-killed-1.3118131  
 
if God exists and can and does perform miracles, why would he allow a lone gunman to enter a place where his servants are worshiping him, and kill 8 people? Where was their miracle? I'm pretty confident they were praying for God's help while their loved ones were being shot around them. I guess they weren't worthy to be saved, in God's eyes?  
 
Someone please explain why A God who can perform miracles would allow this to happen?

Great replies from Nordberg and Marpet. I’d like to wade in here in response to “commited2brandon” .  
 
 
>:>:“Similarly in atheism, there is no consequence to the harm one does on this earth save and except for what society can do in retaliation? Am I right in saying that? “  
 
Absolutely wrong, there is harm. Society has recognized this and this is WHY we have the laws in place that we do. Humans are a social species, this is how we’ve survived through our early stages. We made use of our social contacts with the understanding that it hamstrings us as a whole when we harm or weaken the individual. That is not to say, however, that there are anomalies to this. Of course we have deviant behaviour in society, almost all social species do.  
 
We also understand that, if we do not protect other individuals within our group from murderers and rapists, that tommorow it may be us who are victims.  
 
Here’s a simple analogy: Take for example a caveman/woman trying to survive in early stages of human evolution. What are his/her strengths? Not very strong, most animals in that period were much stronger/faster. No particular natural defences such as tough skin or scales. Not particularly good at escape as mentioned, most predators were faster. No claws or teeth to aid in defence. So you put a caveman in a 1v1 situation against virtually any predatorial animal, and it doesn’t look good for the caveman. But you add another caveman, maybe several others and some tools, now you have something. And even at this early stage they understood this. They knew that disadvantaging each other not only did not help the group survive, but ensured that it did not. This is still engrained in our biology. Our intelligence, ability to exchange ideas, work together and shared experiences is the source of our morality.  
 
>:>:“The problem for you (and I suppose many atheists in general) however is that this suggestion of yours is based on a subjective opinion that you yourself hold. It’s based on nothing objective.”  
 
Wrong. When we discuss morality, we are talking about well-being. It is objectively true that well-being is preferable to suffering. As pointed out by Sam Harris, we do not need to agree that you feel pain when tortured for you to actually feel pain. Just as we don’t need to come to a consensus that someone is dying for them to be actually dying. Everyone understands that we share similar experiences.  
 
You’re claiming that in our world view there are no moral truths, only moral opinions, but that’s not the case. As long as we’re talking about well-being there have to be objective moral truths that aren’t divine. Just like there are objective truths about our physical well-being. Generally speaking, eating rat poison isn’t good for you, and we can make similar claims about other actions. As our understanding of ourselves and reality changes, so do these precepts, as Nordberg pointed out, it is a fluid process.  
 
Conversely, we have the Christian version of objective morality, namely that whatever god deems moral is the moral standard. How is this better? You’re claiming this as a solution when in fact it's a problem. What if tomorrow god decides murdering children is moral. Would you murder children? The irony here is that it’s actually the CHRISTIAN version of objective morality in which anything is permitted because its solely based on what god deems moral and that could be anything, that's as arbitrary as it gets, it’s literally based on whatever god feels like at the time, whereas the secular version is based off of actual human experience.  
If you take god in half of his moods depicted in the bible, killing all bald people and babies could be good moral practice tomorrow.  
 
>:>:“Or let me take it a step further and say well what if I wanted to die if I was born a paraplegic, and what if therefore I thought it was in the best interest of everyone born as a paraplegic to die? What if somehow I figured out a way to go about making my plan happen? What if most of the rest of the people around me agreed with me? It passes the test of treating others with the same care and respect that I hypothetically would want to be treated with, and it’s also not cheating anyone for my own benefit, I mean, it’s for their own benefit, right? I hope you see the problems with that as the basis behind all ethics.”  
 
I hope YOU see how that utterly fails as an appropriate analogy. It barely makes sense. How exactly would you have come to the conclusion that “it was in the best interest of everyone born as a paraplegic to die”? That right there would be an IMMORAL judgement because it does not minimize harm. Everyone in society understands that if you wish to end your own life because it’s so painful that you can’t bear it, so be it, how did you manage to equate ending your own life, to ending another individual’s life as being the same decision?  
The logic properly applied here would be: people suffering pain should be able to end their own lives, therefore, all paraplegics (bad analogy) should be able to end their own lives. I, as a paraplegic would not want to be murdered, therefore, I should not murder other paraplegics.  
Again, there are other factors that may or may not influence moral actions, the process is not black and white, nor is it set in stone.  
 
>:>:“ You know the golden rule that you mentioned at least for Christians is not really the golden rule, at least not on its own. When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment, his response was ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ The second commandment is as you say do unto others as you would want to have done to you, but it is predicated upon us following the first and most important commandment”.  
 
First of all, the first commandment you mentioned has nothing to do with morality. It’s just a testament to God’s vanity, that the first thing his infinite mind could come up with for a list of most important rules to live by was essentially orders to love him, as if simply instructing someone to love you made it so.  
 
In addition, the first three commandments have nothing to do with morality. Depending on what flavour of Christianity you subscribe to, they’re basically:  
1) Love me and only me  
2) Don’t make fun of me/use my name to curse  
3) Make sure you worship me every week on a set day  
 
Gee, sure does seems like god puts less stock in morality than he does in wanting to have his butt kissed forever.  
 
Also please explain how the one is predicated upon the other? Do you think that nobody had any concept of “do unto others as you would want to have done to you” before Moses came down from the mountain? Everyone just ran around killing and raping one another, right? I submit that we, as a species, would not have made it to the stone age with that mindset.  
 
>:>:“From there Nordberg you go on to evolution, and say that “human life is not sacred”. In this you have the same problem. If human life is not sacred, then why follow the golden rule? Should we follow it because you have said so? I mean by your argument human life is not sacred right? It’s a nice thought to preserve and save it, but ultimately if human life is not sacred, we really don’t need to.”  
 
What exactly do you mean by “sacred”? Just because Nordberg doesn’t agree that humanity holds some lofty purpose dictated by god, doesn’t mean he thinks human life isn’t valuable. You’re conflating terms.  
 
>:>:“ I think it’s nice of you to have provided me and the reader with the title of a book by Lawrence Kraus that purports to explain how matter can come from nothing. But instead of providing us with the name of the book, can you explain to us in summary how that works? I mean, assuming that you have in fact read the book. If however the book does not actually provide an explanation as to how matter comes from nothing, and if you can’t explain it, than what you have done is put a blind faith in an explanation that has no basis in reality”  
 
It’s not blind faith because nobody claims it’s the absolute truth. We’ve said it a hundred times that nobody knows for sure, that it’s just a hypothesis. You can either accept it based on the explanation or reject it. Christians are the ones claiming certainty based on no evidence. Basically, scientists are saying “we don’t know and may never know how it happened, but this is how we think it may have”. Meanwhile you have Christians saying “we know how it happened for certain, God, this is what he wants, this is how he did it, this is what he likes, this is what he dislikes” etc, etc, all the while not offering up a shred of verifiable evidence. See the difference? Who do you think is more amendable to evidence, should it arise? Which is the more intellectually honest position?  
 
 
>:>:“Unfortunately Nordberg this is not practical, and unfortunately without God there is no objective sense of morality, and without God there is no justice and no equality. Without God and an afterlife there is no reason for people to follow a certain standard of morality save and except for what evolution has left for them. Darwin himself would suggest that this could only result in the end of life as we know it, so I will quote him from the Descent of Man”  
 
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races of man......the break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state....than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”  
 
What the hell are you babbling about? Darwin was trying to explain why seemingly large and sudden changes that can be observed in an evolutionary chain. He was saying that as earlier “versions” of us become extinct, we will have to look further back in our evolutionary lineage to find a living ancestor, widening the gap between us and our ancestry. How you interpreted that to mean that all life will end without god is a testament to how utterly broken your reasoning faculties are. Ugh, it hurts my brain.  
 
I’m going to end here only to add:  
 
Almost everyone reading would agree that you’ve been given sound explanations, it’s not that myself and others haven’t answered your questions, it’s that you don’t like the answers we gave because it messes with your ideology.  
 
That’s the stark truth.  
 
 
Your entire argument thus far has been a giant argument from ignorance. You can’t fathom a “reason for matter” therefore GOD, you don’t understand how morality can arise naturally, therefore GOD. Evolution seems counterintuitive therefore GOD. As if feebly poking holes in established science somehow strengthens your weak position that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being that you can’t even adequately define poofed everything into existence. It’s quite clear why religion is losing ground every day. Nobody wants to be spoon-fed this BS anymore, especially when the people doing the spoon-feeding can’t even give coherent reason why. You’ve given us no positive evidence for your position, STILL. Again, the percieved implausibility of one claim does not by default lend legitimacy to another.  
 
As I’ve said in every other ebrandon god debate, if you want to believe god exists based on faith I have zero quarrel with you, but as soon as you start making scientific claims about god, you better bring something better than your disbelief of scientific principles.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2015-06-18 10:12:25

That is all.

How are you going to prove Disprove God's existence with Science?  
 
Proper understanding a "Holy Book" is necessary. can just read it and say I under stand it. can you imaging if parliament and the courts handed each civilian the laws and said, you have the laws "go figure it out". that's exactly why we have the courts to interpret the laws. Much like the misunderstanding I hope to have cleared up regarding the first mover principle. I am the sole interpreter of my works and writings as you are with your works and writings.  
 
And just because logic appears to leap or there is a paradox doesn't make it false. in fact the meaning of paradox is "a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true"  
Ok I stand somewhat corrected on the matter part. When using matter we can see still only see what is physical, things pertaining to Physics, the Knowledge of Nature. I'm admittingly not to well studied in physics. I am willing to bet however that things on a quantum level still have a logical order to them.  
You really nitpicked a simple analogy?  
Scholarly work was a major part of the church for a long time. University of oxford, university of Paris both founded in the early 2nd millennia. And Monks in monasteries were copying pagan writings to preserve them for future generations.  
 
"If God can exist without cause, then you already have made an exception to your argument that everything needs a cause"  
Actually I did not contradict myself. As you see I said. "In NATURE we see..." Something supernatural or does not need to have been moved by something else. Something supernatural is above nature much like someone may be above the Law. Where the law does not apply one who is above the law, nature does not apply to the supernatural.  
 
Of course there is no Scientific proof of a miracle. That would mean the miracle would have been answered by Science, and therefore would not be a Miracle. A Miracle would have to remain a Scientific mystery.  
 
Why doesn't God to perform a miracle to stop rapist and such will be answered later, right now its time for bed

In response to FNPLG  
 
 
 
>:>:>:“Proper understanding a "Holy Book" is necessary. can just read it and say I under stand it. can you imaging if parliament and the courts handed each civilian the laws and said, you have the laws "go figure it out". that's exactly why we have the courts to interpret the laws. Much like the misunderstanding I hope to have cleared up regarding the first mover principle. I am the sole interpreter of my works and writings as you are with your works and writings.”  
 
The courts don’t interpret the laws. They decide which laws need to be applied and how they should be applied. That’s a terrible analogy. When you have a murder charge levelled against someone the courts, by virtue of EVIDENCE attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt someone’s guilt.  
 
How is that “interpreting” the law? Not to mention we have Judges and lawyers that you can physically interview to see if the laws are properly applied. You can’t talk to god to make sure you have it right.  
 
And we’re talking about a supreme being here. A being that, according to Christians, knows everything, is everywhere, can do anything. This supreme being wanted us to know the ultimate truth about his existence. And you’re saying that needs to be interpreted? What kind of idiot that has an ultimately important message to pass, gives it to a group of desert-dwelling illiterate nomads. Hand it down piecemeal from generation to generation of illiterate people like a big game of telephone, and then requires you to interpret it correctly. And if you get it wrong, like the other 3-some-thousand Christian denominations that you’re not a part of, you’re going to hell.  
 
That sounds like a good plan to you? Our courts may not be perfect but people aren’t perfect. You’re talking about a perfect being who can’t even pass a message to his creation? Come on.  
 
>:>:>:“And just because logic appears to leap or there is a paradox doesn't make it false. in fact the meaning of paradox is "a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true"  
 
Yeah, but the possibility of something being true does not make it plausible. It may be possible that leprichauns exist, but I’m going to assume you’re not running out looking for pots of gold every time there’s a rainbow.  
It may be possible that a god exists, there’s no way I can say that a god can’t exist. But given the evidence, or lack there of, it is fair to say that he does not. The god of the bible you can be a little more certain doesn’t exist because he is not only paradoxical in nature, but outright illogical.  
 
>:>:>:"If God can exist without cause, then you already have made an exception to your argument that everything needs a cause"  
Actually I did not contradict myself. As you see I said. "In NATURE we see..." Something supernatural or does not need to have been moved by something else. Something supernatural is above nature much like someone may be above the Law. Where the law does not apply one who is above the law, nature does not apply to the supernatural.  
 
Actually, you did contradict yourself because in order to even comment on the supernatural as being, or being outside this or that, we have to be able to detect it. You say the supernatural exists above the laws of nature, but can you think of one thing we’ve seen that’s “outside” our reality?  
Name one thing that exists outside our natural laws.  
Do you see how it makes no sense to even ascertain that the supernatural exists? If nature is the only thing we can detect and observe, how are you even able to comment on anything “outside” of it? You cannot, and nobody has outside of their “personal experiences” that can’t be proven to any degree. So far, supernatural is just a concept, we have no examples of it.  
 
Assuming the supernatural, and then assuming god is outside of it is simply begging the question, you’re still left holding the bag in terms of burden of proof.  
 
 
>:>:>:Of course there is no Scientific proof of a miracle. That would mean the miracle would have been answered by Science, and therefore would not be a Miracle. A Miracle would have to remain a Scientific mystery.  
 
That’s pretty much on par with everything else Christianity claims as fact.  
 
The problem with all of this lies in the fact that if you want to claim that god intervenes in our reality, in our physical world, then he should be detectable by us.  
If you want to claim god re-grew an amputee’s severed leg, then we should be able to detect that, because we have no other mechanism by which that is possible. Yet we don’t see it, and never have seen it.  
Strange how miracles are usually something that we would normally or occasionally see in nature anyways, or something that we don’t normally see but can’t be verified by anyone. People just naturally assign the miracle label to anything they can't seem to explain at the time.  
 
Here’s a Hitchens quote:  
 
“Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?”  
 
Have a great weekend all!  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2015-06-19 11:32:24

Nordberg, actually, despite not having previously addressed many of the issues raised in my previous posts, I must admit you have addressed a number of those issues in this response, and for this I want to show my sincere appreciation.  
 
Ok, so as you say, and the reader needs to hear this  
“There is no justice in atheism. There is no moral code in atheism. There is no belief system in atheism”  
 
Therefore, in atheism, if there is no moral code, we cannot definitively say that anything is certainly wrong or that anything is absolutely good. All that we can really say then is that in atheism there may be a collective sense that something is wrong or good, but nothing that is absolutely wrong or good. Do you see the difference here, with Christianity there are are absolute standards of morality, but in Atheism, there are none. I guess based on your comments, you probably do see that though, so perhaps there isn't much need to go over it again.  
 
I want to then point out what you say next, and so I quote:  
 
“Just because you feel that the existence of a code of justice points to a creator does not make it true.”  
 
Actually, I don't recall having ever suggested that “the existence of a code of justice points to a creator”. I'm not sure why you believe I ever suggested that. If I'm mistaken in that regard, then by all means point out in quotations where I actually suggested that in any of my previous posts. I'm concerned because again, it's as if you never actually read most of the material I posted, but rather it appears you jumped to conclusions based on perhaps what you wished I had posted. I did however argue points that you yourself have now agreed to when you said:  
 
“There is no justice in atheism. There is no moral code in atheism.”  
 
So, therefore, I would agree with you Norbert that as you say  
 
“And yes, the universe does not have a built in code of justice.”  
 
Which brings the reader to the obvious problem in your atheist belief system, it is not a problem that points to the existence of a creator as you thought I was suggesting, but rather it is a problem for us as human beings. For if there are no moral absolutes, and as you say “ Justice, morals, and ethics are completely human constructs, and are actually quite fluid” then one cannot say with certainty that the autrocities of days gone by, and the ever continuing harm that is done by individuals towards others in this world is wrong. I suppose you can say that culturally for the time and place we are in right now certain forms of harm done by one group to another is considered by most to be wrong, but as you say morals are fluid, so therefore you can't say that anything is wrong or evil in an objective sense. It seems Nordberg that you are making my arguments for me.  
 
You next say that “As for no consequences if we do not have God around, that is total and complete bunk.”  
 
Again, it's as if you never finished reading what I have had to say, and so I will post what I have actually said a few times in my posts:  
 
“Similarly in atheism, there is no consequence to the harm one does on this earth save and except for what society can do in retaliation?”  
 
or  
 
“There is what humans can do on this earth in retaliation for the harm one has done to another, but ultimately no justice when one does harm to another.”  
 
So you then suggest that if I murder my neighbour there is a form of justice, and you know I agree with you there, you have actually proven my point yet again, that there can be a form of justice for the harm we do to others in that the person who did the harm could be punished for it. But in the example you've provided where “If you go next door and kill your neighbour tonight” there ultimately is no justice for the one who has been murdered, is there? I mean, most atheists would argue that there is no soul, and so if someone were to take anothers life, the person who is dead doesn't receive any justice, am I right there? I think the answer is obvious, and perhaps that's why you wanted to avoid the issue, and instead attempted to focus the readers attention on the benefits of our justice system.  
 
You then say “It has taken centuries to get to this point also, so if we go with your conjecture that justice comes from God, then where in the hell was he for the millennia that humans lived in anarchy?”  
 
You know, it's funny because yet again you have implied something that I never did. For you have suggested not only that justice comes from God (of which I agree that ultimate justice comes from God) but you have also I think implied that if a God did exist His Justice would only take place on this earth. I have never suggested that. In fact, if anything I have suggested that ultimately there is no justice without a soul. For in that example that you gave, the person who is murdered will receive none unless there is a soul, and that justice will not come until their life on this earth comes to an end.  
 
It may be worth quoting what I had previously said  
 
“I'm not saying that the comfort that comes from an afterlife is a reason for God's existence, but rather it is a symptom of it. I am however saying that in atheism there is no comfort for the trajedies of life, for the unfairness of it.”  
 
I have spoken about the problem of suffering in previous posts, and why it is necessary for love. If you want to debate me on that issue, I don't mind, and perhaps if you so desire we could go out for coffee sometime and discuss it in person, but please read all of my previous posts before you attempt it.  
 
In your next paragraph you go on to say that “Your argument about being a paraplegic is fatally flawed.” What's almost ironic about your response to my analogy is that quite likely you are actually agreeing with me, but you don't even seem to realize it. I used the analogy precisely because it showed the limitations of following your rule namely “Treat someone with the same care and respect that you would want to be treated with: don't cheat them for your own benefit.” You did after all boil ethics down to that rule. I therefore used an analogy to show the limitations of the rule if that is all we have. In your defence you say that “In your example, what would be treating people the same way would be respecting their choice to self determination.” Well I agree in this hypothetical analogy if the parapalegic believed that each individuals choice should trump the ultimate decision to end their life than obviously the only way they could follow the golden rule would be to let each individual paraplegic decide on whether or not they should end their life. But what if the parapalegic believes that the pain associated with having to endure that ordeal is so great that any one individuals decision to preserve their life is based on a poorly considered decision? What if this individual believed that if he was not able to properly communicate his wishes to the world, or if he was not sufficiently intelligent enough that he could make a sufficiently well informed decision on whether or not to terminate his life he would want the world to do the right thing and decide for him and end his life, despite his feeble minded objections to the contrary. The analogy still serves to point out the problem with boiling all ethics down to the golden rule. In any event Nordberg it is just an analogy, I would never suggest that anyone act in such a fashion. It just goes to show the problems with your argument, namely that treating someone with the same care and respect that you would want to be treated and don't cheat them for your own benefit does not go nearly far enough in answering the questions of morality.  
 
Your next paragraph concerns itself with the 10 Commandments, which again seems rather odd, precisely because I never actually mentioned the 10 Commandments, but perhaps you simply wanted to bring them to my attention. So you say  
 
“Ten Commandments? Since God doesn't exist, a number of them are moot. And why ten? If you get to the end of ten, and you haven't yet come up with, "Though shalt not rape", then maybe you should consider adding another commandment.”  
 
I first want to note that although there were only 10 commandments in the strict sense, from the Torah (or the first 5 Books of the Bible) the Jewish people actually had 613 laws to follow, in addittion to the 10 commandments, as well as the 7 laws of Noah. I have also previously suggested to the reader in one of my previous posts that the Bible needs to be read in context, and in particular the context of an individual who has a good knowledge of the entire Bible. The 10 commandments were meant to be taken literally, but also they were intended to extend even further than the literal words that they conveyed. So for example, you cited rape, properly the sixth commandment is about respect for life and the integrity of others, the seventh commandment is about purety in relationships. Both of those commandments preclude a Christian or Jewish person from being able to rape another.  
 
You know it's kind of ironic that you seem to probably understand that the 10 commandments actually goes further than the literal words strictly speaking. I say that because you talk about the 10 commandments, when I never mentioned them, but rather I mentioned the two commandments that Jesus gave when asked which was the most important commandment. You seem to understand by your mention of the 10 commandments that what Jesus was saying when answering those questions referred to the wider meaning behind the 10 commandments. Namely that if you follow the 2 most important commandments, you are also going to follow the 10 commandments given by Noah.  
 
I note that you also told me that I seem to misunderstand the definition of genocide – perhaps. I guess you can explain to all of those Rwandans and former members of Yugoslavia who believe they or their families were the subject of a genocide why it doesn't meet the definition. I was far from the first person to call those events a genocide. But I suppose that perhaps you have a better idea of what the majority of people believe the definition of the word actually means. In a way it's almost funny that you strictly hold to the opinion that for something like the word 'genocide' there is an absolute definition that obviously in your opinion does not incorporate the Rwandan or Yugoslavian autrocities, yet for so many others who hold an alternative position, they must be wrong because it does not meet what you perceive to be as the objective standard of the word. You seem to want an objective standard to at least the word 'genocide' but when it comes to ethics, as you have pointed out there can be no objective standard. I further note that you didn't even comment on the problems I pointed out with your argument that “The more chance that another's genes are closer in relation to ours (family, tribe, nationality) the more likely historically we have been to take that person into consideration as important.”  
 
You next go on to say:  
 
“The concept of the "selfish gene" actually goes right over your head.” I'm surprised that for someone so intelligent as yourself Norbert that you need to resort to insults to my intelligence for the likes of a rather unintelligent person like me. I would suggest however that your paragraph at least from the evidence that we presently have has so many problems with it:  
 
“Historically, if I am a part of a tribe or of a village then there is a high likelihood that I share many of the same genes as others in my group. If my siblings' or cousins' children survive to another generation, and I help in that endeavour, then the gene line continues. The "selfish genes" inside of me have managed to perpetuate themselves without me having ever had children. As it stands, I do have children. I have two boys. You seem to think that from an evolutionary standpoint I should have more. However, since that would put undue financial stress on me and actually lessen the chances of my boys successfully reaching adulthood, it actually makes sense from the point of the "selfish gene" for me to stop because it increases the chance that my gene line will continue.”  
 
If only it was that simple Nordberg. So the gene wants to propogate right? All I can do in order to explain the problems with your line of reasoning is give examples of areas where it doesn't quite make sense. First, how about a person who commits suicide before they have children? Do you boil that down to the individuals genes influencing a person to end their life because it is better for the rest of the selifsh gene pool to survive without that person? What about the other questions I posed? How about the evolutionary significance of abortion? I would then ask the same question about the homosexuals?  
 
 
You know perhaps I should apologize for bringing the Nazi's into the whole debate. I suppose by your logic the fact that so many people today had parents, grandparents or great grandparents who were soldiers killed in World War 2 probably doesn't justify doing it. Perhaps as well by your logic the fact that such a terrible event affected millions of people around the globe and that ended only 70 years ago doesn't justify it's mention in a topic like the existence of God. Perhaps too I should have avoided how the Nazi's personally affected my family. Perhaps I should have left all of that out when considering whether or not to bring this extremely terrible time into the equation. I will also no doubt forgive you when you boil down the survivors of the holocaust to “the "selfish gene", it was those genes in their victims that fought for survival and eventually won to reproduce another day.”  
 
Oh Nordberg, really? Really? Is this what your atheism has led you to? That you would suggest that the only reason some Jewish people (and members of other groups as well) survived the Holocaust was because they had a “selfish gene”. Is this really the way you see humanity? That it all comes down to our selfish genes?  
 
You know Dr. Kraus's book certainly sounds intriguing, but from the reviews I've seen the title of the book strikes me at least in part misleading. For the author does not appear to be actually suggesting that something could ever come out of nothing, at least not the nothing that you and I are thinking of. What Dr. Kraus appears to be talking about when he says nothing is actually something, in that he talks about energy fields and happenings at the quantum level (or the extremely small, subatomic in size) which it appears he admits seems to be the start of bigger events. So, this begs the question again, does the suggestion that something can come from nothing even make a shred of sense to you? That before anything there was nothing, and somehow nothing made something? Nothing Nordberg is exactly that, nothing! Nothing can't make something. I suppose you could argue that science could potentially come up with that conclusion, but if you do that, well then what can we conclude? See the following quote from my last post.  
 
“If you can’t explain how matter comes from nothing, and you know of no one who could, than you have put blind faith in nothing as the reason for everything. Or rather, that there is no reason for anything, it just simply is, and although science can’t explain it, if you also can’t explain it than you have accepted it because that is what you believe, despite all evidence to the contrary. By evidence to the contrary, I mean that everything in this universe has an explanation, and that this is the basis behind science – a form of reasoning. If you accept that matter has no reason than you are putting blind faith in an unscientific concept. In a way you have went far beyond what many Christians have done by you yourself putting blind faith in the idea of nothing being the ultimate and final reason for everything.”  
 
Your philosophy is that there is no God, and as you have said “The Universe does not have to follow the rules of philosophy, and on many occasions it has not.” Well Nordberg, I agree with you that the universe does not have to follow your philosophy, and I suppose that ultimately it doesn't have to follow any rules of philosophy, but what you have said is a big statement, and one that implies that anything is possible, and therefore we cannot know anything for certain. That is it seems your religion. As for me, well I will stick with what at least provides an answer for the question of the reason for the existence of matter, and therefore the reason everything in this universes exists.  
 
Finally you have said “Your god still has made no evidence of his existence. The most likely reason for that is because he cannot due to not existing.” First I would comment that with my religion there are miracles (many many miracles) and there is the testimony of those who have went through near death experiences and had the ability to experience things that science cannot otherwise duplicate. We could probably spend weeks debating the likely validity of hundreds of miracles and the likely truthfulness of the people who have went through near death experiences, but suffice it to say that for me the evidence is there.  
 
Nordberg unfortunately I don't have as much time as I should to be able to properly respond to your future questions, so if you so desire, you or Torque or Marpet can very much have the last say in responding to the comments that I have made. I feel as if by this time the reader has a decent amount of material by which they can use to determine whether or not the arguments I have made are sound or if yours or Torques or Marpets makes more sense. If you or Torque, or Marpet ever feel like it, I would invite you to send me a private message, and I would be happy to take any of you out for coffee sometime and discuss this further.  
 
Finally Nordberg, I would note that you have not provided any evidence for your related claim that “God does not exist”. As for me, well I have the universe, that is evidence of at least the universe and the universe all comes down to matter, and before matter there was nothing. You seem incapable of answering how that can happen, and have put your faith in the unscientific conclusion that this does not involve a creator. At least for me, my religion long before science could reach that level of understanding or thought had the answer. The evidence is strongly stacked against the notion that there was no creator, and you an atheist cannot atone for that.  

Torque, I noticed that you liked to compliment Nordberg and Marpet, and liked to insult me. Actually you insulted me a few times, in particular my intelligence. Which makes me wonder why someone who is so far superior to me at least as far as intelligence goes would feel the need to insult me in such a fashion. Could it be that in fact that you don't actually feel that way, and maybe, just maybe you feel somewhat insecure about your own beliefs? Just a thought.  
 
Ok, so you start off your comments by attempting to disprove my suggestion that  
 
“Similarly in atheism, there is no consequence to the harm one does on this earth save and except for what society can do in retaliation? Am I right in saying that?”  
 
Then you go on to say that  
 
“Absolutely wrong, there is harm. Society has recognized this and this is WHY we have the laws in place that we do. Humans are a social species, this is how we’ve survived through our early stages. We made use of our social contacts with the understanding that it hamstrings us as a whole when we harm or weaken the individual. That is not to say, however, that there are anomalies to this. Of course we have deviant behaviour in society, almost all social species do.”  
 
So to a degree I have to agree with you, that if one does harm to another there may be consequences for that action that society can impose upon the individual – and what is that consequence? Well as I said it comes down to the second part of what you yourself quoted from my posts, namely:  
 
“save and except for what society can do in retaliation?”  
 
The rest of what you have had to say really is retalitaiton. The laws that we have in place for the most part do not provide much more than retribution for the harm that another has done. There can be compensation in the form of money or perhaps and individual may have to undo some of the wrong they have done when the damage is of a material or financial nature. But ultimately there is usually no way for our legal system to right the wrong and undo the harm that was caused to another. This is particularly the case when an individual has murdered another or committed a serious sexual or physical assault to another. As a further example in war there is usually no consequences to the country that has won a war in the harm that they had done to the losing side. It is just an example, but it serves to prove my point, that again, as I've said ““Similarly in atheism, there is no consequence to the harm one does on this earth save and except for what society can do in retaliation.”  
 
Ok, so next you end up talking about morality, and you specifically have a problem with what I said about there being no objective sense of morality in atheism, and you say,  
 
“Wrong. When we discuss morality, we are talking about well-being. It is objectively true that well-being is preferable to suffering. As pointed out by Sam Harris, we do not need to agree that you feel pain when tortured for you to actually feel pain. Just as we don’t need to come to a consensus that someone is dying for them to be actually dying. Everyone understands that we share similar experiences.”  
 
You know I must admit that the statement you've provided has a strong element of truth to it. I agree that at first glance it would seem to be objectively true that well being is preferable to suffering. However it doesn't seem to me as if this statement goes far enough to solve the moral problems of humanity. For example what happens when peoples sense of well being conflicts with that of others? Is it sometimes better for the good of society that the well being of a large group should be prefferred to that of a smaller group when the well being of the two conflict? What about helping the less fortunate, who is responsible to assist them? Do we have rights to private property that should trump the well being of others?  
 
Further despite your suggestion that it is objectively true that well being is preferable to suffering, it really isn't necessary for society to implement that rule is it? It may be a good idea for humanity to live by that rule, but if there is no afterlife there is far less consequence to us if we don't. If you disagree with me then you have to look back at history and how society has treated each other. Throughout history much of the world's population has been killed in wars and conflicts where your rule of supporting the well being of people was never followed. You as an atheist can say that in your opinion what they did was wrong, but many of the people who committed that harm would disagree with you, and I would wager to guess that many of them would argue that they did it for the greater good. Two prime examples for you that you may be able to relate to because they were atheists were Mao and Stalin. Both were arguably responsible for the deaths or more people than any one else in history. Both were also arguably leaders of the first truly atheistic states in history.  
 
You know, I will admit that Sam Harris has some interesting arguments. However, just like Dawkins his arguments I would strongly suggest do not hold up to scrutiny and can be altogether too easily shown to be flawed. A much stronger atheist was Friedriche Nietzsche. Nietzsche as you may very well know was also a philsopher and he struck me as being rather honest, as opposed to that of Harris. Nietzsche of course was prepared to admit that there are no objective truths in atheism, and I will quote him when he says “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” For you see Torque, you may want the well being of others, and you may believe that your definition of well being is the best one and should be applied objectively, but of course as Nordberg had previously suggested “Justice, morals, and ethics are completely human constructs, and are actually quite fluid”. If they are fluid and can change, than what may be a good example of what you perceive to be well being now, is not necessarily what other societies in other times have considered to be well being for their circumstances. I would further note that Neitzsche of course (the honest atheist) was a big inspiration for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's.  
 
Your next argument Torque is  
 
“What if tomorrow god decides murdering children is moral. Would you murder children? The irony here is that it’s actually the CHRISTIAN version of objective morality in which anything is permitted because its solely based on what god deems moral and that could be anything, that's as arbitrary as it gets, it’s literally based on whatever god feels like at the time, whereas the secular version is based off of actual human experience. If you take god in half of his moods depicted in the bible, killing all bald people and babies could be good moral practice tomorrow.”  
 
This is admittedly an interesting argument and I must admit it poses a number of unique religious questions. First of all I would state that in order for tomorrow God to decide that murdering children is moral it would have to mean that you were accepting there was in fact in this hypothetical example a God, and so that question may pose a problem for you, because you would be suggesting that in order for me to answer that question there would have to be a God, hypothetically speaking of course. In this example, you would then have to accept that God in fact is the God of the Christians, and that what the Bible has said about God is in fact true. You would have to accept that God ultimately created you, me and every other thing, in addittion to the universe. You would have to accept that ultimately God is the reason each of us exists and has life. You would also have to accept that if God wanted to take anyone or everyones life He could in but an instant because He is all powerful. You would also have to accept that God gave us life out of love for us. Further, by accepting what the Bible has said about God as being true, you would have to accept that God is absolutely just and perfectly loving. Finally you would have to add in the condition that I could know that if God decided something tomorrow I could know with absolute, total and complete certainty that it was in fact what God decided. The example you have suggested is in part actually provided to us in the Bible when Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, and as Abraham was about to do it, he was then commanded not to as God was testing Abraham's faith. Further I would note that what God deems to be moral is absolute Torque and unchanging, you might suggest otherwise based on a failure to adequately understand the Bible, but your understanding is I would suggest unfortunately lacking.  
 
Torque you then go on to try and suggest that the example I gave to show the problem with Nordberg's suggestion that all morality boils down to the golden rule as not going far enough. You state  
 
“I hope YOU see how that utterly fails as an appropriate analogy. It barely makes sense. How exactly would you have come to the conclusion that “it was in the best interest of everyone born as a paraplegic to die”? That right there would be an IMMORAL judgement because it does not minimize harm. Everyone in society understands that if you wish to end your own life because it’s so painful that you can’t bear it, so be it, how did you manage to equate ending your own life, to ending another individual’s life as being the same decision?”  
 
Just like Nordberg in his response, you have actually assisted me in my argument, because you have added a caveat to Nordbergs rule, namely as you suggest  
 
“That right there would be an IMMORAL judgement because it does not minimize harm.”  
 
Therefore you have demonstrated, just as I did by my analogy that the golden rule on it's own does not go far enough in solving the problem of immorality. I think that you might have missed that this is in fact what you've done, but thank you none the less. Your assistance as always is greatly appreciated in helping me to prove my arguments.  
 
You next go on to argue that  
 
 
“First of all, the first commandment you mentioned has nothing to do with morality. It’s just a testament to God’s vanity, that the first thing his infinite mind could come up with for a list of most important rules to live by was essentially orders to love him, as if simply instructing someone to love you made it so.”  
 
Well, I think there again you have failed to understand the Bible properly in context. If one is to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind, body and soul it means that one is also going to attempt to do that which pleases the Lord. What pleases the Lord the most you might ask? The simple answer is living for love, perfect love, love that wills the good of the other as other. If you want a good example of how this love can be put into practice, then I would suggest that you read Jesus' sermon on the mount, and in particular the Beattitudes. You've made some comments about how that commandment seems supremely seflish, but that too is based on a false misunderstanding of the reasons for it. If one fails to appreciate God, then our objective sense of morality fails, and this leads to the obvious problems with subjective morality. If one's morality is not grounded in God, than almost anything is possible – morally speaking of course.. If one fails to show reverence and respect for God, one is more likely to stop treating His word as sacred. If His word is not sacred, than one becomes more and more likely to apply their own sense of morality. You see Torque, following God's laws are tied so closely with love for humanity that they are almost inseperable. If one stops following God's word, or if one stops showing reverence for God, then the objective sense of morality that's from God will also dwindle away. I'm not saying that God doesn't also appreciate our love for Him, far from it, but His greatest wish for you and me is for us to be eternally happy. God knows that this will only happen if we find communion with Him. There is genius in Christianity.  
 
You also asked me to explain how the two greatest commandments Jesus spoke about were predicated upon each other. Well the answer if simple, as I've already been explaining, if one loves thy neighbour as one loves thy self, there is a good start to morality, but as I've now explained many times that commandment does not go far enough to answer the problems of morality. However, if one also loves the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind, body and soul then we have the answer to perfect morality.  
 
Your next question is:  
 
“What exactly do you mean by “sacred”? Just because Nordberg doesn’t agree that humanity holds some lofty purpose dictated by god, doesn’t mean he thinks human life isn’t valuable. You’re conflating terms.”  
 
I'm not conflating terms Torque. In fact I also agree with you that “just because Nordberg doesn’t agree that humanity holds some lofty purpose dictated by god, doesn’t mean he thinks human life isn’t valuable.” I think Nordberg would also agree that life is valuable. But as I said “I mean by your argument human life is not sacred right? It’s a nice thought to preserve and save it, but ultimately if human life is not sacred, we really don’t need to.” Therefore if human life is not sacred (though in Nordberg's opinion is still valuable) no one has to listen to Nordberg, could disagree with him greatly on whether a particular person's life was valuable and therefore could take another human's life. I would also then suggest that there would be no justice for it, save and except for what society could to the person who committed the murder if they so decided to do so.  
 
I'm going to quote your next paragraph for my reference:  
 
“It’s not blind faith because nobody claims it’s the absolute truth. We’ve said it a hundred times that nobody knows for sure, that it’s just a hypothesis. You can either accept it based on the explanation or reject it. Christians are the ones claiming certainty based on no evidence. Basically, scientists are saying “we don’t know and may never know how it happened, but this is how we think it may have”. Meanwhile you have Christians saying “we know how it happened for certain, God, this is what he wants, this is how he did it, this is what he likes, this is what he dislikes” etc, etc, all the while not offering up a shred of verifiable evidence. See the difference? Who do you think is more amendable to evidence, should it arise? Which is the more intellectually honest position?”  
 
I suppose I have to apologize Torque in that I had not know that you said it “a hundred times that nobody knows for sure, that it’s just a hypothesis.” I suppose I had not known because I had not before been having a discussion with you on this message board. I'm not even certain what you are referring to that you said a hundred times is just a hypothesis. Is it that matter came from ultimately nothing? Is that the hypothesis? What scientists are suggesting that? Based on the reviews I've read on Dr. Krau's book, he doesn't appear to be suggesting that in his book, but perhaps you know more about than I do, and I welcome the information or arguments he or any other scientist can provide that suggests this may be the case. I'd also like to turn to an interesting point you've made in this last paragraph, namely “Christians are the ones claiming certainty based on no evidence” Well I'm pretty sure Torque that in order for you or Nordberg to be a true atheist, than you would also have to say that there is no God. Are you saying that, or are you saying 'I don't know with certainty if there is in fact a God.'? If that's what you're saying then I'm not sure that you're a real atheist. Maybe you're not claiming to be. However, if you are claiming to be a true atheist, and if you can't explain how matter can come from nothing than you also can't say with certainty that there might not be a creator. In fact, if the just mentioned premise is true, you can't say with certainty why ultimately everything exists, can you? If you can't prove that everything which exists wasn't created by God, then you are saying 'I don't know'. However, if you have rejected God as the reason for our existence, then you have testified against yourself, for you yourself it seems have said 'a hundred times' that it is just a hypothesis' that matter came from nothing and you cannot say that with certainty that in fact matter comes from nothing and does not come from a creator.  
 
 
Here now are the next three paragraphs from your post, the first two are quotes coming from my last posting in response to Nordberg,  
 
“>:>:“Unfortunately Nordberg this is not practical, and unfortunately without God there is no objective sense of morality, and without God there is no justice and no equality. Without God and an afterlife there is no reason for people to follow a certain standard of morality save and except for what evolution has left for them. Darwin himself would suggest that this could only result in the end of life as we know it, so I will quote him from the Descent of Man”    
   
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races of man......the break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state....than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”    
   
What the hell are you babbling about? Darwin was trying to explain why seemingly large and sudden changes that can be observed in an evolutionary chain. He was saying that as earlier “versions” of us become extinct, we will have to look further back in our evolutionary lineage to find a living ancestor, widening the gap between us and our ancestry. How you interpreted that to mean that all life will end without god is a testament to how utterly broken your reasoning faculties are. Ugh, it hurts my brain.”  
 
Well Nordberg, I would suggest that it would be obvious to the casual reader that your interpretation of what Darwin had to say is actually far from the truth. If you've read the book you will obviously come to realize that what Darwin was referring to as the civilised races of man meant the European and the savage races of man meant members of certain other racial groups. Darwin is referring to what he had seen on his voyages, namely people of other races being wiped out and Europeans taking their place. He is suggesting that at some point the European races will exterminate the lesser races, and what will be left will be the Europeans and the apes. It's an absolutely evil suggestion. You have tried to uphold the dignity of Darwin, no doubt inadvertenly by misinterpreting what he had to say, but he did in fact write those words. Seriously, before you're going to go and suggest that I don't understand what I have quoted, please look into it more thoroughly first. The last thing ebrandon needs is people claiming to be experts on a subject who don't actually understand what they have said. Perhaps you knew that you were wrong in your interpretation, and perhaps that is why you attempted to convince the reader that my interpretation was a form of babbling.  
 
I also note as an aside, that you said in response to a comment from FNPLG that  
 
 
“The courts don’t interpret the laws. They decide which laws need to be applied and how they should be applied. That’s a terrible analogy. When you have a murder charge levelled against someone the courts, by virtue of EVIDENCE attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt someone’s guilt.”  
 
Here again you mistaken. As an example in Canada, it is the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts to interpret our charter of rights and freedoms. That is only one example. Seriously go and ask a lawyer and they will tell you the same thing. Please Torque, don't claim to be an expert when you're not and say something that has absolutely no basis in reality.  
 
Near the end of your post Torque you have said  
 
“Your entire argument thus far has been a giant argument from ignorance. You can’t fathom a “reason for matter” therefore GOD, you don’t understand how morality can arise naturally, therefore GOD. Evolution seems counterintuitive therefore GOD.”  
 
Again, I would reiterate, I never suggested that morality couldn't arise naturally and that this was a reason for God, you have obviously misunderstood what I had to say. Similarly, I never suggested that evolution seems counterintuitive, so again you are absolutely misinterpreting what I had to say. Yet, comically enough, you have the gaul to say that it is my argument which has “thus far has been a giant argument from ignorance.” You obviously haven't even fully read through my posts Torque and have suggested that I argued for God in ways that I never did. That sounds pretty ignorant to me.  
 
Read my first post again, it is in page 2 of this thread. Part of what I had to say was this:  
 
“So if matter exists, and if we suggest there is a reason for that, then what is that reason? Religion suggests an answer, but even if you were to look into and choose one of those religions which one might you choose?”  
 
I then go on to suggest why the reader should consider Chrisianity as having that answer.  
 
Torque unfortunately I don't have as much time as I should to be able to properly respond to your future questions, so if you so desire, you or Nordberg or Marpet can very much have the last say in responding to the comments that I have made. I feel as if by this time the reader has a decent amount of material by which they can use to determine whether or not the arguments I have made are sound or if yours or Nordbergs or Marpets makes more sense. If you or Nordberg, or Marpet ever feel like it, I would invite you to send me a private message, and I would be happy to take any of you out for coffee sometime and discuss this further.  
 
I will end with the quote I just used for Nordberg, for it also seems to apply to your arguments, unless in fact your not actually an atheist.  
 
“As for me, well I have the universe, that is evidence of at least the universe and the universe all comes down to matter, and before matter there was nothing. You seem incapable of answering how that can happen, and have put your faith in the unscientific conclusion that this does not involve a creator. At least for me, my religion long before science could reach that level of understanding or thought had the answer. The evidence is strongly stacked against the notion that there was no creator, and you an atheist cannot atone for that.”  

Nordberg, I note I made a mistake when writing to you. I referred to the 10 commandments coming through Noah, when in fact they came through Moses.  
Please forgive me for the mistake.

“Torque, I noticed that you liked to compliment Nordberg and Marpet, and liked to insult me. Actually you insulted me a few times, in particular my intelligence. Which makes me wonder why someone who is so far superior to me at least as far as intelligence goes would feel the need to insult me in such a fashion. Could it be that in fact that you don't actually feel that way, and maybe, just maybe you feel somewhat insecure about your own beliefs? Just a thought.”  
 
Calling you intellectually dishonest is an observation that not only I but others have observed. I’m sorry it damaged your delicate sensibilities. It was not a personal attack, it is a way of saying that you're being hypocritical in the way you apply logic. I didn’t say anything to make anyone think that I was superior to you, you’re projecting again. In fact, telling us atheists that we couldn’t possibly understand the bible and that we’re not capable of actual love, and that we have no meaning to our lives sounds pretty much like you’re the one who needs to get off their high horse. I’m perfectly secure in my beliefs, you seem somewhat defensive, however.  
 
The rest of what you have had to say really is retalitaiton. The laws that we have in place for the most part do not provide much more than retribution for the harm that another has done. There can be compensation in the form of money or perhaps and individual may have to undo some of the wrong they have done when the damage is of a material or financial nature. But ultimately there is usually no way for our legal system to right the wrong and undo the harm that was caused to another. This is particularly the case when an individual has murdered another or committed a serious sexual or physical assault to another. As a further example in war there is usually no consequences to the country that has won a war in the harm that they had done to the losing side. It is just an example, but it serves to prove my point, that again, as I've said ““Similarly in atheism, there is no consequence to the harm one does on this earth save and except for what society can do in retaliation.”  
 
You’re incredible… There is no harm except what society can do in retaliation? What else is there?!?!?! That’s your big argument? There is no “ultimate” justice (whatever that means), therefore there has to be a God? Your logic is so broken that I don’t think there’s a converstion to be had with you. Honestly I can’t understand how a rational thinking human can think like you do. Since you’re complaining I’m calling you unintelligent, your argument above here was another example of ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Nobody’s calling you stupid, calm down. This is a logical fallacy that means that your mind can’t fathom how a murderer might get away with murder, and not be punished, therefore there has to be a God. Do you see how that doesn’t work??? Sometimes there isn’t ANY justice, sometimes rapists and murderers get away with raping and murdering. The point is you have no basis for claiming an afterlife because of this.  
 
You know I must admit that the statement you've provided has a strong element of truth to it. I agree that at first glance it would seem to be objectively true that well being is preferable to suffering. However it doesn't seem to me as if this statement goes far enough to solve the moral problems of humanity. For example what happens when peoples sense of well being conflicts with that of others? Is it sometimes better for the good of society that the well being of a large group should be prefferred to that of a smaller group when the well being of the two conflict? What about helping the less fortunate, who is responsible to assist them? Do we have rights to private property that should trump the well being of others?”  
 
I’m not here to solve the moral problems of humanity, it’s doubtful anyone can. (Oh wait God, right?), I’m here to offer up an explanation of how morality arose, and that there is no need for an all powerful deity to explain them. You’re still rambling about how not all humans act morally. No kidding.  
 
Further despite your suggestion that it is objectively true that well being is preferable to suffering, it really isn't necessary for society to implement that rule is it? It may be a good idea for humanity to live by that rule, but if there is no afterlife there is far less consequence to us if we don't. If you disagree with me then you have to look back at history and how society has treated each other. Throughout history much of the world's population has been killed in wars and conflicts where your rule of supporting the well being of people was never followed. You as an atheist can say that in your opinion what they did was wrong, but many of the people who committed that harm would disagree with you, and I would wager to guess that many of them would argue that they did it for the greater good. Two prime examples for you that you may be able to relate to because they were atheists were Mao and Stalin. Both were arguably responsible for the deaths or more people than any one else in history. Both were also arguably leaders of the first truly atheistic states in history.  
 
“if there is no afterlife there is far less consequence to us if we don’t”  
 
You’re just presupposing that it’s impossible that there is no consequence. What makes you think that there HAS to be a final consequence outside of ourselves and society? I know it might be an ugly thought that a murderer might go to his grave and never see punishment, but you’ve not presented any evidence to show this is not a possible scenario. We’re all still waiting for positive proof of your assertions that an afterlife exists.  
Are apologists still using the Mao and Stalin argument? Well at least they’ve come off Hitler, I suppose that’s progress of a kind. Stalin and Mao may have been atheistic, but it’s a mistake to think that they killed directly because of their atheism. That’s another fallacy you’ve commited. There were many socio-political causes for him to commit the horrible acts he did. As a matter of argument, it doesn’t seem Christianity or any other religion serves as a deterrent for heinous acts either. Are you suggesting that only atheism can account for mass murder? I think anyone that has a television in their house can see that glaring problems with that logic.  
 
So far all you’ve managed to convey with your “arguments” is that people are capable of acting immorally. Thank you, captain obvious.  
 
 
You know, I will admit that Sam Harris has some interesting arguments. However, just like Dawkins his arguments I would strongly suggest do not hold up to scrutiny and can be altogether too easily shown to be flawed. A much stronger atheist was Friedriche Nietzsche. Nietzsche as you may very well know was also a philsopher and he struck me as being rather honest, as opposed to that of Harris. Nietzsche of course was prepared to admit that there are no objective truths in atheism, and I will quote him when he says “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” For you see Torque, you may want the well being of others, and you may believe that your definition of well being is the best one and should be applied objectively, but of course as Nordberg had previously suggested “Justice, morals, and ethics are completely human constructs, and are actually quite fluid”. If they are fluid and can change, than what may be a good example of what you perceive to be well being now, is not necessarily what other societies in other times have considered to be well being for their circumstances. I would further note that Neitzsche of course (the honest atheist) was a big inspiration for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's.  
 
Oh, wait, I spoke too soon ladies and gentlemen, there it is. Nazis were atheists. Doesn’t matter that they had Christian insignias on their gear, doesn’t matter that Hitler himself spoke of god being behind him in his struggle. Nope, not even Hitler’s own words prove he was at least a deist if not Christian. Forget about any progress.  
Sam Harris’s arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny? Well please show us where he’s wrong. Oh you’re not going to? Ok.  
 
Sorry, commited2brandon, you’ve lost all credibility with me as being anyone worth while having a discussion with anymore. All you do is throw out baseless assertions like candy on Halloween.  
-Hitler was an atheist! – Not going to show why against the mountain of evidence that he wasn’t.  
-Mao and Stalin killed directly because of their atheism! – Not going to provide evidence for that either, just a correlation and then assume causation, yet another fallacy you’ve commited.  
-Sam Harris arguments are wrong! – Not going to show which ones, how they’re wrong.  
 
Well, I think there again you have failed to understand the Bible properly in context. If one is to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind, body and soul it means that one is also going to attempt to do that which pleases the Lord. What pleases the Lord the most you might ask? The simple answer is living for love, perfect love, love that wills the good of the other as other. If you want a good example of how this love can be put into practice, then I would suggest that you read Jesus' sermon on the mount, and in particular the Beattitudes. You've made some comments about how that commandment seems supremely seflish, but that too is based on a false misunderstanding of the reasons for it. If one fails to appreciate God, then our objective sense of morality fails, and this leads to the obvious problems with subjective morality. If one's morality is not grounded in God, than almost anything is possible – morally speaking of course.. If one fails to show reverence and respect for God, one is more likely to stop treating His word as sacred. If His word is not sacred, than one becomes more and more likely to apply their own sense of morality. You see Torque, following God's laws are tied so closely with love for humanity that they are almost inseperable. If one stops following God's word, or if one stops showing reverence for God, then the objective sense of morality that's from God will also dwindle away. I'm not saying that God doesn't also appreciate our love for Him, far from it, but His greatest wish for you and me is for us to be eternally happy. God knows that this will only happen if we find communion with Him. There is genius in Christianity.  
 
Well, I think there again you’ve completely missed my point. I’ve addressed this entire paragraph from you.  
-I’ve already said that contextual reading of the bible is a problem in itself because there is no context in which owning slaves is ok. There is no context in which killing babies is ok. How do you not understand this? The fact that you have to put on your “god glasses” to make sense of the bible IS THE PROBLEM. The fact that you can interpret the bible a multitude of different ways IS THE PROBLEM. There are thousands of denominations of Christianity in existence today, that would mean that the ones you’re not a part of, are interpreting the bible differently than you. This is the issue. Since god isn’t making any appearances, anyone can decide what they want the bible to mean and claim theirs is the true context.  
The rest of that, pathetic excuse for rational argument of a paragraph is just you preaching about what love is to the Lord, blah blah blah. I’m sorry but I don’t care about any of that because you haven’t demonstrated any of it. What do I care about what the bible has to say about love, if I don’t think the bible is accurate? What do I care what you think god wants if I don’t believe he exists, let alone the fact that YOU think you know what he wants.  
 
I'm not conflating terms Torque. In fact I also agree with you that “just because Nordberg doesn’t agree that humanity holds some lofty purpose dictated by god, doesn’t mean he thinks human life isn’t valuable.” I think Nordberg would also agree that life is valuable. But as I said “I mean by your argument human life is not sacred right? It’s a nice thought to preserve and save it, but ultimately if human life is not sacred, we really don’t need to.” Therefore if human life is not sacred (though in Nordberg's opinion is still valuable) no one has to listen to Nordberg, could disagree with him greatly on whether a particular person's life was valuable and therefore could take another human's life. I would also then suggest that there would be no justice for it, save and except for what society could to the person who committed the murder if they so decided to do so.  
 
What… WHAT? You’ve really gone off the rails now. That was one of the most incoherent things I’ve read.  
 
I’m paraphrasing here  
 
If life isn’t sacred but still valuable than noone has to listen to Nordberg… What the hell are you talking about? Why WOULDN’T we listen? The great value of life isn’t a good enough reason to save it? OH okay, we have to be told by god that we’re super duper special and THEN people would care about each other. You’re incredible. And incredibly immoral. You need god to scare the crap out of you and tell you that another person is “sacred” and not just valuable. And round we go with the “ultimate justice” BS. Wow…  
I suppose I have to apologize Torque in that I had not know that you said it “a hundred times that nobody knows for sure, that it’s just a hypothesis.” I suppose I had not known because I had not before been having a discussion with you on this message board. I'm not even certain what you are referring to that you said a hundred times is just a hypothesis. Is it that matter came from ultimately nothing? Is that the hypothesis? What scientists are suggesting that? Based on the reviews I've read on Dr. Krau's book, he doesn't appear to be suggesting that in his book, but perhaps you know more about than I do, and I welcome the information or arguments he or any other scientist can provide that suggests this may be the case. I'd also like to turn to an interesting point you've made in this last paragraph, namely “Christians are the ones claiming certainty based on no evidence” Well I'm pretty sure Torque that in order for you or Nordberg to be a true atheist, than you would also have to say that there is no God. Are you saying that, or are you saying 'I don't know with certainty if there is in fact a God.'? If that's what you're saying then I'm not sure that you're a real atheist. Maybe you're not claiming to be. However, if you are claiming to be a true atheist, and if you can't explain how matter can come from nothing than you also can't say with certainty that there might not be a creator. In fact, if the just mentioned premise is true, you can't say with certainty why ultimately everything exists, can you? If you can't prove that everything which exists wasn't created by God, then you are saying 'I don't know'. However, if you have rejected God as the reason for our existence, then you have testified against yourself, for you yourself it seems have said 'a hundred times' that it is just a hypothesis' that matter came from nothing and you cannot say that with certainty that in fact matter comes from nothing and does not come from a creator.  
 
Do you have an understanding of what exaggeration to make a point is? No, you’re right, I did not say it a hundred times. /facepalm.  
 
Are you a joke? Is e-brandon “punking” me? You can’t be a real person.  
 
Let me clear up your misunderstanding of atheism:  
 
Atheism an answer to one question, and one question only, do you BELIEVE there is a god? That’s it. No dogmas, no precepts, no rules. Its one answer to one question. It deals with belief. I am an atheist because I reject your claim that a god exists based on no evidence and therefore I don’t believe god does.  
 
Agnosticism is a KNOWLEDGE statement. It is an answer to one question and one question only, do you KNOW that there’s a god. That’s it.  
 
Based on that, I, and I’m assuming Nordberg, are agnostic atheists, meaning, we don’t have KNOWLEDGE of god existing or not existing, and we don’t claim to, but because of lack of evidence and other factors, we don’t believe god exists.  
 
So I once again have to point out to you that atheism is a rejection of your claim that a god exists. It does not say there is no god.  
 
Even if I did say that no god exists as fact, how does that preclude any other methods of the universe arising? You’re setting up yet another fallacy in which you think there some kind of dichotomy. That either I have to say for certain it was the big bang, or some other hypothesis, else I have to say that God did it. NO!  
 
Let me put it plainly. Not accepting your god as existing, and your claim that he created everything does not preclude me from saying I don’t know how it happened, but I don’t think god exists and I don’t think he did it. That is a reasonable position to hold, no matter what the science has to say on the subject, I do not have to accept YOUR BS. I don’t know how I can break that down for you any more.  
 
Again, I would reiterate, I never suggested that morality couldn't arise naturally and that this was a reason for God, you have obviously misunderstood what I had to say. Similarly, I never suggested that evolution seems counterintuitive, so again you are absolutely misinterpreting what I had to say. Yet, comically enough, you have the gaul to say that it is my argument which has “thus far has been a giant argument from ignorance.” You obviously haven't even fully read through my posts Torque and have suggested that I argued for God in ways that I never did. That sounds pretty ignorant to me.  
 
Read my first post again, it is in page 2 of this thread. Part of what I had to say was this:  
 
“So if matter exists, and if we suggest there is a reason for that, then what is that reason? Religion suggests an answer, but even if you were to look into and choose one of those religions which one might you choose?”  
 
Nothing says there is a reason. That’s a presupposition on your part. Just like there may not be this ultimate justice you speak of. That’s all just your presuppositions. I’m not ever going to concede that point, so if I don’t grant your initial premise then there is no point in arguing the rest.  
 
Torque unfortunately I don't have as much time as I should to be able to properly respond to your future questions, so if you so desire, you or Nordberg or Marpet can very much have the last say in responding to the comments that I have made. I feel as if by this time the reader has a decent amount of material by which they can use to determine whether or not the arguments I have made are sound or if yours or Nordbergs or Marpets makes more sense. If you or Nordberg, or Marpet ever feel like it, I would invite you to send me a private message, and I would be happy to take any of you out for coffee sometime and discuss this further.  
 
I will end with the quote I just used for Nordberg, for it also seems to apply to your arguments, unless in fact your not actually an atheist.  
 
“As for me, well I have the universe, that is evidence of at least the universe and the universe all comes down to matter, and before matter there was nothing. You seem incapable of answering how that can happen, and have put your faith in the unscientific conclusion that this does not involve a creator. At least for me, my religion long before science could reach that level of understanding or thought had the answer. The evidence is strongly stacked against the notion that there was no creator, and you an atheist cannot atone for that.”  
 
For as much lamenting as you did about us misinterpreting what you have said, you’ve gone and done the same with your end quote. Here’s a list of how it fails.  
 
-Using the universe as evidence for the universe does not explain it’s beginnings. What an inane observation. Seeing a cup on my desk doesn’t explain how it got there, only that it’s there. Big deal.  
-Again, we don’t know what nothing actually is. We have no examples of nothing. Another misrepresentation of the science.  
-Not being able to answer a how something came about is okay, and no scientist anywhere has faith about any scientific principle, they have evidence and reasonable expectations based on that evidence. Do you have “faith” gravity exists?  
-People thought they understood a lot of things before they actually understood them, and almost all of it turned out to be wrong, is that supposed to be some kind of endorsement of religion?  
-The evidence is NOT “strongly stacked” against the notion there was no creator, because, generally speaking, no scientist ever says as fact there was no creator and neither does any atheist. (although there are probably Gnostic atheists with whom id disagree as well) What they say is that their belief is there isn’t any god because there isn’t any evidence of any.  
 
Not only was that quote complete and utter fail, but none of us actually hold the positions it claims we do.  
 
And as a whole, you have STILL not provided positive evidence for god existing, you have gone round and round ad nauseum continually pointing to things (as evidenced by your last quote) that don’t make sense to you, so there has to be a god, and lamenting how the big bad atheists are calling you stupid. We’re not, the majority of your arguments are literally called “argumentum ad ignorantiam”, this is the proposal that something is true because it hasn’t been proven otherwise, meanwhile tucking tail and running when someone asks you to show them evidence for your claims.  
 
 
Having said that, I would welcome an opportunity to have coffee with any of the people involved in this discussion, and have a friendly discussion. Just PM me the time and place.  
 
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2015-06-22 10:34:03

Exactly because science doesn't deal with absolutes. Every scientific principle has a certain degree of uncertainty. Some theories are better supported than others. Scientists know this, and this is why if given enough evidence any scientifically minded person would change their view.  
 
Gravity for example, while quite thorougly established, still holds some slight degree of uncertainty. We can measure it, we know how it behaves but maybe there's some hidden forces we havent discovered yet that are a part of it.  
 
There's no faith involved. Theres a tentative acceptance based on current information. If that changes, so does our understanding. This has been the basis for EVERY advancement we have today, since the time the first neanderthal figured out that he could carry fire on flamable objects back to his cave.

Only when those on both sides of this topic realize that their definitions of proof are vastly different, will they learn that it is all but impossible to change the beliefs of the other side.

If the courts must be able to interpret the laws. If they don't who will if there is a question to the meaning of a law? Of course the courts decide which laws need to be applied and how they should be applied, but before they can do that they must be able to interpret the law correctly so they can hand down a correct judgment according to the case.  
 
"You can’t talk to god to make sure you have it right."  
That's why God established the Church. Not because we cant speak to him, but because we have trouble listening. The church came before the Bible and canonized it. It was the Church, through various authors that wrote the New testament. So since it was the Church, which inspired by God, wrote and canonized the Bible. The church gets to be the sole interpreter.  
 
 
"Yeah, but the possibility of something being true does not make it plausible."  
I didn't say it made it plausible. I said "And just because logic appears to leap or there is a paradox doesn't make it false. in fact the meaning of paradox is "a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true""  
 
"The god of the bible you can be a little more certain doesn’t exist because he is not only paradoxical in nature, but outright illogical"  
Please Explain and give reasons.  
 
"Actually, you did contradict yourself because in order to even comment on the supernatural as being, or being outside this or that, we have to be able to detect it. You say the supernatural exists above the laws of nature, but can you think of one thing we’ve seen that’s “outside” our reality?"  
No I cannot give a reason to something we've seen that's outside out reality because Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Something outside of reality is something that is non existent.  
"Name one thing that exists outside our natural laws."  
God  
 
"If nature is the only thing we can detect and observe, how are you even able to comment on anything “outside” of it?"  
Because we don't only use our power of observation but our power of reason also. Aside from the first mover argument, we know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So why something over nothing.  
One of the biggest proofs I find for Gods existence is the presence of Life. We can detect life we can detect nonlife. But How did life come to exist? If the primevil atom at the big bang released an unfathomable amount of energy which formed stars and planets, how did life start from objects that had no life. Rocks have no life. Dirt, not alive. Water none. Salt? nope not alive. Just an arrangement of atoms, none of these things are animated. Therefore all plants, animals and people would just be a composition of chemicals. Acting and reacting like chemicals do. And because science is logical, matter is predictable. 2 chemicals, under that same conditions, will react the same way every time. An acid with a base under the proper conditions will react with each other every time. And if that's the Scientific case, how can we have Free Will if we are chemicals reacting to our environment? Free will would just be an illusion, a lie. We would complete slaves to Science. Not able to make our own independent choices. If we Are not able to make our own independent choices, it would follow that we could not be praised for our accomplishments nor blames for our errors. An act of charity would just be no greater then an act of crime as both are a result of chemicals reacting to their environment. The feeling of love on par with nausea since they are both chemical reactions.  
I think we can agree that accomplishments, charity and Love are greater because we perceive them as Good. These acts help up further life not only ones self but the community to make us stronger, similar to what was argued before in an earlier comment. But the drive for self preservation would just again be a chemical reaction. So what value would self preservation hold?  
But because we have life, something must have given us life in this material universe. Our bodies are obviously composed of matter and chemical reactions take place, but what distinguishes living objects from dead objects? Something living must have something that something dead does not have. Something must animate the body. Could this be a soul? If someone had given us this soul this something would be our Creator. A soul would allow us a freedom from the confines of a purely material existence allowing us free will. Someone could be accountable for their actions. Accomplishments, charity and Love would be good, as they would aid our fellow humans because we love them. not a meaningless chemical love but a real selfless love. And errors, crimes and nausea would be seen as negative things. But why would God Grant us free will? Why not make us not do bad things so only God things could be done? Would that be a mark of a Loving creator? We can arrive to the conclusion that God does not hate us because anyone that hates something they created would just get rid of it. Since he did make us he must love us. If he loves us would he not want to be with us? If he wants to be with us, where is he? This is where we must do our part and search for God. But why would we have to search for God? Perhaps he doesn't want to force himself on us. Maybe he wants to be loved back, and forcing himself on us would slave us and that would not be true love as we would have no freedom in our choice to love him. That would be why bad things such as rape murders and theft happen. Because God wanting to be freely loved back would have to also allow us the option to reject him. If God made his presence too known to us, we would be compelled to love him, we wouldn't be able to choose to love him freely. If only Good things happened to Good people who love him and Bad things happened to bad people who reject him, wouldn't that force everyone to love him?  
"If you want to claim god re-grew an amputee’s severed leg, then we should be able to detect that, because we have no other mechanism by which that is possible. Yet we don’t see it, and never have seen it.  
Strange how miracles are usually something that we would normally or occasionally see in nature anyways, or something that we don’t normally see but can’t be verified by anyone. People just naturally assign the miracle label to anything they can't seem to explain at the time."  
If an amputee's severed leg grew back, it would appear you would just say we can't explain it. and not assign it miracle status. it would seem your closed to the idea of miracles.  
here are 2 miracles anyways  
https://olrl.org/stories/lourdes.shtml  
 
I don't know if I'm missing anything but I am exhausted its been a busy couple of weeks take care and I hope to respond again when I am able to  

What a waste of a thread

I don't think that I'm any different than any one else, and by that I mean that I have questions. Every person should challenge their ideas and beliefs, and threads like this provide one many ideas to think about.

"You can’t talk to god to make sure you have it right."  
That's why God established the Church. Not because we cant speak to him, but because we have trouble listening. The church came before the Bible and canonized it. It was the Church, through various authors that wrote the New testament. So since it was the Church, which inspired by God, wrote and canonized the Bible. The church gets to be the sole interpreter.  
 
The church clearly isn’t a solution to this. This is why we have so many denominations of Christianity that we do. Every different denomination has a different take on what god wants.  
“inspired by god” is such a meaningless statement. The 9/11 hijackers were inspired by god as well, does that mean their beliefs were accurate? My entire point, which seems to have gone right over your head, is that God as the LAW GIVER cannot be scrutinized, what do I care that some church full of people claiming to have a direct line to god can “interpret” it?  
 
"Yeah, but the possibility of something being true does not make it plausible."  
I didn't say it made it plausible. I said "And just because logic appears to leap or there is a paradox doesn't make it false. in fact the meaning of paradox is "a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true""  
 
So why even offer that up then? It’s a moot point. In the context, I think you were trying to infer some plausibility. As Nordberg pointed out before, this is often a common theme when debating someone, and not necessarily apologists. You make a statement to make a point of something, then when you get questioned on it it’s “Oh well I didn’t say that!!” yes but you IMPLIED IT.  
 
"The god of the bible you can be a little more certain doesn’t exist because he is not only paradoxical in nature, but outright illogical"  
Please Explain and give reasons.  
 
I’ve already given you several, I’m not going to repeat myself yet a third time.  
One is the Euthyphro Dilemma.  
Another is the Adam and Eve story and the tree of knowledge of good and evil  
Another is the inaccuracy of the bible in terms of what it says about our world. If the people who wrote it had such advanced knowledge then it would not contain the inaccuracies that it does.  
Another is the mode by which god passes his ever-important message. If he was advanced as you claim, knowing everything, he’d know not only what it would take to convince us but how to pass that message to us accurately.  
All of these are but a few of the illogical elements I attribute to god.  
 
"Actually, you did contradict yourself because in order to even comment on the supernatural as being, or being outside this or that, we have to be able to detect it. You say the supernatural exists above the laws of nature, but can you think of one thing we’ve seen that’s “outside” our reality?"  
No I cannot give a reason to something we've seen that's outside out reality because Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Something outside of reality is something that is non existent.  
"Name one thing that exists outside our natural laws."  
God  
 
I… I don’t know weather to laugh or be annoyed. You admit you can’t define something that’s outside of our reality, and then in the next breath you’re telling me that God’s outside it. Is that right? Not only that God’s outside of it, but that you know his nature.  
That’s ridiculous.  
 
"If nature is the only thing we can detect and observe, how are you even able to comment on anything “outside” of it?"  
Because we don't only use our power of observation but our power of reason also. Aside from the first mover argument, we know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So why something over nothing.  
 
Yeah, and you’re using neither. You’ve neither observed god (as far as being able to prove it to any degree), and your reasoning seems to be somewhat lacking as well.  
 
In any case, you can’t reason god into existence. Many people have tried, and are still trying.  
 
I’ve already addressed your thermodynamics argument as well. It’s like you’ve read nothing I wrote. Im seriously debating taking some of the commenter’s advice and stopping replying because its one thing to have a reasoned debate on a topic that has been argued forever, but its another thing to have to constantly repeat yourself because the opposing side doesn’t even acknowledge your arguments, nevermind accept them.  
 
So, once again, one current hypothesis is that the universe is constantly moving from an expanded to contracted state, big bang from a singularity, expansion outward, then contraction. No thermodynamic laws are broken in this model. I repeat, no thermodynamic laws are broken in this model. Energy is only transferred to mass and vice versa.  
 
And once again, even if this hypothesis is wrong, it does not by default legitimize your god existing.  
 
 
 
 
I’m sorry, and please don’t take this the wrong way. I read the rest of your reply and I’m not going to waste my time picking it apart. These replies have become absurdly long to the point where I think even interested people are having a hard time coping. Perhaps later when I have more time. It’s honestly a big mass of your incredulousness peppered with inane questions and unfounded assertions just like C2B.  
 
This is the problem with debating apologists. It’s not a matter of sitting down and explaining things. You literally have to condense about a decade’s worth of science, everything from chemistry to physics, and I’m just not willing to do that because although I’ve studied as much of the current science as I could by sitting through endless lectures, I’m by no means an expert. I know this sounds arrogant but it’s the truth.  
 
Through your reply it’s obvious that:  
 
You don’t understand chemistry, you don’t understand the thermodynamic laws, you don’t understand big bang cosmology, you don’t understand evolutionary principles, psychology, physics etc, etc, etc,  
 
I’ve seen this a hundred times, and this is the reason why scientists won’t debate apologists. Instead of two people having a chess match of competing ideas, what you normally have with apologists is akin to a scientist having a chess match with a pigeon. It lands on the board knocks over all the pieces, craps all over the table and flies away.  
 
Never mind the fact we’re talking about an absurd amount of knowledge here, from a multitude of different scientific principles, learned over decades. You would have to be well acquainted with all of them to even have this discussion. I admit that I don’t know them all to the extent that a scientist who’s spent years in the lab would, but even THAT scientist is probably only knowledgeable in that particular scientific field. You would literally have to have the apologist sit down with a panel of experts from every pertinent field of study and who in their right mind would do that for a person who can’t be bothered to understand the science beyond an 8th grade level? Not to mention one who’s already donned the cape of incredulousness to anything that doesn’t support his world view.  
 
I’ve very sorry if this sounded mean, I’m not trying to offend you, but you have to understand that just because nobody understands how something works, doesn’t mean it’s proof for god. That’s called the “god of the gaps” fallacy, and you commit it repeatedly, and so did C2B.  
 
Please, I beg you, show me some positive evidence of your god. Stop trying to insert your god into every area of scientific doubt and every misunderstanding of well established principles because that's not going to convince anyone whos not already in agreement with you.  
 
You say you’ve won? Show me your cards, don’t knock over my cards and tell me your hand beats mine, when nobody's even seen yours. I hope you understand.  
 
Take care.  
 
 
 
 
Edited by Torque, 2015-06-24 08:45:57

Rue said "or whatever you beloeve in I have a real hard time believing in anything when all kinds of crazy things go on war ,murder ,rape molesting I could go on on if there is a so called higher power to make things great where is it ? On vaction "

I found the problem of evil to fit what you're saying, you should look it up. This sums it up nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pRzyioUKp0

Hman said "    Rue said "or whatever you beloeve in I have a real hard time believing in anything when all kinds of crazy things go on war ,murder ,rape molesting I could go on on if there is a so called higher power to make things great where is it ? On vaction " I found the problem of evil to fit what you're saying, you should look it up. This sums it up nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pRzyioUKp0 "

irrational theism explained perfectly!  
 
marpet

The problem with this video is that Sally is leading you to believe that the 3 characteristics of God means He is All Controlling, which if God was All Controlling that would mean Sally would be forced to believe that God exists. Sally has the option to believe that God exists or doesn't exist, and has evidently chosen that he does not. When left with a choice, whether good or bad, there will be a good or bad repercussion. I find it ironic that people cannot take responsibility for actions and have to blame God for the way things are. I am not not saying that people choose to have bad things happen to them but when living in a world of 7 billion plus people, choices will naturally overlap into other people's lives. Sally's philosophy is flawed.

The unknown said "The problem with this video is that Sally is leading you to believe that the 3 characteristics of God means He is All Controlling, which if God was All Controlling that would mean Sally would be forced to believe that God exists. Sally has the option to believe that God exists or doesn't exist, and has evidently chosen that he does not. When left with a choice, whether good or bad, there will be a good or bad repercussion. I find it ironic that people cannot take responsibility for actions and have to blame God for the way things are. I am not not saying that people choose to have bad things happen to them but when living in a world of 7 billion plus people, choices will naturally overlap into other people's lives. Sally's philosophy is flawed. "

Sally is not talking about the choice of believing or not, but simply the irrationality of theism.  
 
Yes you have the choice but the issue that we have had from theists is that atheists are flawed and missing the proof of god.  
 
Sally explains clearly and concisely that one cannot believe in statements that are contradicted by the existence of evil.  
 
Marpet