Zone1 Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust

[ding]

Sure. Where do you place God? Why not a natural reason?

It works for gravity, or any of the thousands of testable, verifiable, and predictive laws of nature that science has discovered. Any number of which people have suggested the God explanation and have been proven wrong.

What makes this different?

Because the odds against happenstance are such that I don't see how it was possible that this wasn't an intentional act. I've studied it in great detail. I don't see how it can be any other way. But more importantly, I've tested it and know it to be true.

 

[buttercup]

Well, we're probably gonna be bouncing around quantum fluctuatons and all of that happy crap if you wanna add to it. The quantum realm is always a party favorite.

I learned a new thing today!

But seriously, you look at things in a very scientific way... and although I may not disagree with all that, I just have a different focus and a different way of looking at things.

 

[ding]

I'm rather confident that the answers to my specific questions will not be found on your links, ding.

I'm not interested in chasing your other ball, ding.

Is that how this is gonna be?

Are you sure about that? Because here's one answer right here.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I learned a new thing today!

But seriously, you look at things in a very scientific way... and although I may not disagree with all that, I just have a different focus and a different way of looking at things.

I dunno. Maybe scratch that idea.

I'm not chasing ding's ball around.

I hate when people post a wall of links instead of just making their own case.

I prefer personable dialogue.

 

[ding]

Intentionally created? This is begging the question. Prove that there was anything intentional about it before you assert God. That's the point.

As I see it "God" is batting 0 in 1000000 in terms of having an explanatory value. What's your actual reasoning for assuming different in this case?

You asked for it.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are you sure about that? Because here's one answer right here.
View attachment 905199

I'm talking about inflation before the so-called Big Bang, ding.

Not time since the so-called Big Bang.

See, this is what I'm talking about.

I'm not chasing your ball, ding.

 

[ding]

Your "mind stuff" is a description of the physical world, it does not effect it in any way.

That's not how I see it. I believe God supplies reality to every part at all times. We effectively exist in the mind of God.

 

[ding]

I'm talking about inflation before the so-called Big Bang, ding.

Not time since the so-called Big Bang.

See, this is what I'm talking about.

I'm not chasing your ball, ding.

What inflation are you talking about?

 

[ding]

If they use your "mind stuff" to describe the physical world, no. If they claim your "mind stuff" can influence the physical world, then yes.

What do you think Arthur Eddington was trying to say when in 1928 he wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time."

 

[ding]

Since I don't know what existed before the Big Bang I'll have to say, I just don't know.

Couldn't you say that the potential for everything which exists today existed before space and time were created?

 

[ding]

Since you don't know of anything which is uncaused I guess you don't believe in the God of the Bible. Is that right?

I think you are more interested in arguing against the God of the Bible than you are about discovering God.

Just because I don't believe "things" can be uncaused that doesn't mean I don't believe that existence - which is God - isn't eternal and uncaused because I do.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What inflation are you talking about?

Exactly!

Questions regarding that, not surprisingly, were missing from your traditional textbook cosmology review earlier.

And that's actually quite understandable. As we advance our means to understand, then so does our framework for asking more questions naturally arise, but traditional textbook theory still really thrives and dominates discussion out in the wild.

Anyway. I'll catch you tomorrow, man. I'm hitting the sheets. I need my beauty sleep. I should have already been in bed anyway.

 

[Natural Citizen]

But seriously, you look at things in a very scientific way... and although I may not disagree with all that, I just have a different focus and a different way of looking at things.

It's my curse. What am I gonna do?

It's probably why I have a tendency to over-amplify the pride factor. Or manufacture some semblance of society's little social quirks. Nawmean?

Heck. At least I'm capable of self-reflection. lol...

 

[buttercup]

It's my curse. What am I gonna do?

View attachment 905205

It's probably why I have a tendency to over-amplify the pride factor. Or manufacture some semblance of society's little social quirks. Nawmean?

Heck. At least I'm capable of self-reflection. lol...

It's always amazing to me to see your Meyers Briggs results. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen anyone with 100% thinking. It's very interesting.

But I wouldn't say it's a curse.... and as I'm sure you know, there are many scientists or just people who are scientifically inclined who are also believers, so I don't believe that it means you're always going to be a skeptic.

Besides, belief and faith in God actually has nothing to do with one's intellect. It completely bypasses it. So the idea that someone can come to belief in God through their intellect is akin to thinking one can smell through their ears, or see through their nose.

(That may sound weird, and I probably didn't explain it well, but.....I think you get the jist)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First cause = a way to introduce magic and rig the game.

"Everything must have a cause! Except for God!"

"Everything must have a beginning! Except for God!"

Well, how convenient.

 

[forkup]

You asked for it.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

I'll be very concise.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God.

This is were you go off the deep end. You're perception of God as far as I can tell is indistinguishable from like you put it "the laws of nature" , and as such the concept is useless.

If I want to define God as, for instance gravity. What does that do for me?

You start from the conclusion. (God is real) and work backwards from there.. That's not a rational argument.



Quick about morality. It's a human artificial concept. A lion killing a Gazelle is not moral or immoral. It's simply is a natural process. The eventual outcome might be favorable to the species lion or gazelle, moral has nothing to do with it.

The same goes for humans. Wether we as a species ultimately survive will have nothing to do with wether or not we adhere to something like absolute morality, or fairness. It just won't. Neither is morality driven by a God concept. If it was religions wouldn't have to constantly reinterpret their dogma to fit humanistic morality as it exists today.

 

[buttercup]

Quick about morality. It's a human artificial concept. A lion killing a Gazelle is not moral or immoral. It's simply is a natural process. The eventual outcome might be favorable to the species lion or gazelle, moral has nothing to do with it.

The same goes for humans. Wether we as a species ultimately survive will have nothing to do with wether or not we adhere to something like absolute morality, or fairness. It just won't. Neither is morality driven by a God concept. If it was religions wouldn't have to constantly reinterpret their dogma to fit humanistic morality as it exists today.

It's truly sad to me that some people think ^ that way. Then again, many nonbelievers claim that morality is subjective, but when push comes to shove, they certainly don't act like they actually believe it. Anyone who claims that morality is subjective constantly contradicts that claim by their actions. For example, if someone were to wrong you....like if someone framed you for something and had you wrongfully put in prison for years, and then you got raped in prison, and stabbed and beaten to a pulp, I highly doubt your actions would match your professed claim that morality is subjective. You would be outraged and hurt, and rightfully so. But why, if morality is subjective? If morality is subjective, then you have zero right to say that anyone else is wrong in anything they do. And zero right to fight against it.

As I said to someone else earlier on this thread, if morality is subjective, then the "morality" of Jeffrey Dahmer is just as valid as the morality of someone like Mother Theresa. No particular morality can be better than any other, if moral subjectivism is true. So acts like torture, rape and murder are no worse that acts like kindness, selflessness, and respect for others.

And I think all sane people with a conscience know deep down that that's simply not true.

 

[forkup]

It's truly sad to me that some people think ^ that way. Then again, many nonbelievers claim that morality is subjective, but when push comes to shove, they certainly don't act like they actually believe it. Anyone who claims that morality is subjective constantly contradicts that claim by their actions. For example, if someone were to wrong you....like if someone framed you for something and had you wrongfully put in prison for years, and then you got raped in prison, and stabbed and beaten to a pulp, I highly doubt your actions would match your professed claim that morality is subjective. You would be outraged and hurt, and rightfully so. But why, if morality is subjective? If morality is subjective, then you have zero right to say that anyone else is wrong in anything they do. And zero right to fight against it.

As I said to someone else earlier on this thread, if morality is subjective, then the "morality" of Jeffrey Dahmer is just as valid as the morality of someone like Mother Theresa. No particular morality can be better than any other, if moral subjectivism is true. So acts like torture, rape and murder are no worse that acts like kindness, selflessness, and respect for others.

And I think all sane people with a conscience know deep down that that's simply not true.

Let's try this. What's your religion if I may ask?

 

[buttercup]

Let's try this. What's your religion if I may ask?

I'm a Christian, but I'm sorry, if you want to have a discussion, then you don't get to ignore everything I post while expecting me to chase your ball around. If you reply to my post, and at least try to refute it, then I'll reply to your reply. But it's getting late here and I was about to sign off soon, so.... again, you can reply to my last post and I'll try to get back to it tomorrow, if time permits.

 

[forkup]

I'm a Christian, but I'm sorry, if you want to have a discussion, then you don't get to ignore everything I post while excepting me to chase your ball around. If you reply to my post, and at least try to refute it, then I'll reply to your reply. But it's getting late here and I was about to sign off soon, so.... again, you can reply to my last post and I'll try to get back to it tomorrow, if time permits.

No I'm asking some very specific questions about morality. Specifically how the religion you adhere to, changed their view.

My premise being that the view you hold on morality doesn't come from your religious belief but rather your adherence to humanism.

I couldn't be evasive if I tried.