Split from: DV Christians Unite! (Christian Only Thread)

[Xei]

Hello Xei! It's good to see you again. As I understand your post (and please correct me if I have misunderstood it), you are telling me that UM can, for the sake of argument, choose to talk as if God existed, so that he may thereby present to me what he considers logical contradictions in God's nature, in order to argue that God cannot logically exist. But you see, what he is actually doing is not like this at all. UM is not merely speaking in the hypothetical. He actually thinks that logic and morality DO exist, and that their very existence is contrary to God. And yet (I argue), his worldview does not permit the existence of either. But it's of no import whatever to this thread. You could start a new thread about the existence of logic or morality if you want, but it doesn't have anything to do with, or even any possible consequence upon, the current discussion. Universal Mind and others are in the rather happy position of not needing to concern themselves at all with this issue in order to produce a cogent argument. According to you (and as Araishu reiterates, it's currently just an unsupported assertion, but let's grant it for the sake of argument), God is necessary and sufficient for the existence of logic. So, if you assume that God exists, you must yourself take it as read that logic exists, and thus you are compelled to accept the conclusions of any logical argument which is given to you, even if those conclusions are the non-existence of God. And if you don't think God exists, then you've accepted such a conclusion anyway (and any further arguments will be futile as logic does not exist). So to summarise, whether or not the existence of God is equivalent to the existence of logic, you end up accepting the same conclusions either way, and so the point is totally moot. It looks as though (and this was really rather cynical and ignoble) you were trying to rob Universal Mind of the right to even use logical argument, placing that power solely in the hands of theists. Unfortunately for you, this doesn't actually logically work.

[Noogah]

Alright, so Universal Mind - I feel as if I already addressed your objections to my argument in my second post. You told me It is illogical for the conclusion of an argument to also be the initial premise to which I have already wholeheartedly agreed by stating "My argument does not BEGIN with the assumption that God does, in fact, exist. It only begins with the assumption that God is the only reasonable explanation of those things I listed." I therefore concluded the same way you began: I assume we both agree on premise two. If you disagree with premise one, then by all means, tell me how you intend to explain absolute morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature! I even presented to you a corrected form of my argument with the express purpose of showing that it is not circular, but I did not see you try to explain your conclusion that in fact: Your theological argument is circular. I don't think it is. I do, however, agree that, as valid as the form of the argument might be, it is useless if we don't agree on the second premise. That is why I am simply asking you to justify the existence of all these three things in a material worldview. And, since you have asked me to do the same - Now, for you, Xei, and Araishu: There is no difficulty to the Christian about the existence of morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature. If you ask me "Why ought I to be kind to my neighbor?" I will merely answer, "Because God is kind, and has commanded you to be kind as well." If you ask me, "Why can I trust in reason?" I will say "God created your inmost being, and knit you together in your mother’s womb. You are fearfully and wonderfully made, and God says 'Come now, let us reason together'. We are therefore assured we can comprehend logic. We furthermore know that He is logical, and His thoughts are logical. Therefore, reality is logical, and can be discerned with logic." If you ask me, "how can I be sure that gravity will work the same way tomorrow that it does today?", I will respond "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "God is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." My challenge to you is this: in a materialistic perspective, these three things are meaningless, and certainly do not exist. If I ask one of you to tell me why I should be moral, what will you say? Universal Mind and others are in the rather happy position of not needing to concern themselves at all with this issue in order to produce a cogent argument. Xei - I really don't get how you keep arriving at the conclusion that Universal Mind can demand that I follow his logic when, if I follow his logic, I can only arrive to the conclusion that logic is not. It looks as though (and this was really rather cynical and ignoble) you were trying to rob Universal Mind of the right to even use logical argument, placing that power solely in the hands of theists. I'm sorry if I came across this way! I respect the intelligence of Universal Mind, as I have already said, and I certainly respect yours. I debate with you as fellow human beings with brilliant, God given minds. I am not telling you that you CAN'T be logical, or that I am BETTER at logic than you. I am merely telling you that I can justify my logic. You, on the other hand, cannot. At least, I don't believe you can. I invite you to explain otherwise! That's the purpose of this discussion.

[TimeDragon97]

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." ~ Carl Sagan

[Universal Mind]

Noogah, what is the basis of your premise that logic, morality, and unity in nature come from God? The assertion assumes the existence of God, and the existence of God is your conclusion. The existence of God is in your initial premise, though there is more stated in the initial premise. By saying that something comes from God, you say that God exists. How does God come into this in the first place? My theories on why logic, morality, and unity in nature exist are completely irrelevant to this debate. You claim they come from God, but you have yet to make an argument to back the claim. Your argument assumes God and then uses that assumption to conclude God. That is circular reasoning.

[OneUp]

OneUpBoy71: Respectfully, I highly recommend that you stop talking about evolution, because based on what you're writing, you actually know very, very little about it, and I fear have been severely misinformed. You may be embarrassing yourself if people actually familiar with evolution read what you're writing. Some quick responses, though I hope someone else with more time and/or knowledge chimes in: One example that comes to mind is Australopithacus afarensis, or "Lucy," as she's popularly known. The name links to a site that is not Wikipedia if you'd like to read more. I am also sure that there are many, many more examples, if you'd care to look at sites that cover evolution, rather than echo-chamber sites that disparage it. Try doing some searches for phrases like "ascent of man" or "homo habilis," and you might find quite a bit of information from informed, research-based sources who may have a bit more credibility than Wikipedia. Do you have any links to those sources? I believe they were mistaken, but I suppose I could be. That's not how evolution works, and that you ask that question is very telling. Evolution is not about an entire species changing all at once into new species. It is about some members of a species making slight changes that help them thrive, so they pass those changes onto their young, and over a very long period of time those few expand into a new species (i.e., when that first early human stood up straight and and enjoyed the benefits of standing a little higher up, it took many thousands of years for there to be entire groups of these straight-standing people. We didn't all stand up straight once). That new species represents a departure from the old species, not an erasure of it. Only a few apes evolved into humans, the rest continued to thrive without a need for change. Again, someone else might be able to explain this better, but suffice it to say that evolution is done by small minorities of species, and the original majority will continue as it was (or perhaps evolve down a different path). This is not an all-inclusive process. Yes, you're wrong . Of course you haven't seen a creature evolve into another creature. The process is extremely gradual and takes millions of years; it is not instant. Even mutations (like standing erect), which in individuals is fairly sudden, take many, many generations to become widespread enough to call something a new species. And yes, over those thousands or millions of years, that squirrel will likely appear to observers at the time to look pretty much like its parents; the changes are subtle. That said, there are likely exceptions to this, especially among species like insects that reproduce much more quickly. Also, I guess that you are seeing evolution happening all the time: that squirrel you're looking at is quite different from its ancestors from millions of years ago, and its descendents millions of years from now will be quite different from, it, so you are seeing a moment of evolution every time you look at a squirrel. BTW, Piltdown-man, Nebraska-man, and Java-man were all PT Barnum-esque side-show hoaxes that had nothing at all to do with actual scientific discovery or research. That you point them out at all is very odd. Again, I hope someone more knowledge clarifies these brief responses, and I sincerely hope you give their words some attention. Also, I hope I've presented this stuff as respectfully as possible, no insults or sarcasm were intended. Haha I really do not care at all what you think about me, not the least spec. And also, I know I havent seen evolution happen in front of me. Think for a second and read slowly. I meant I havent learned of it happening or seen it happening in the history of evolution. And actually, all those hoaxes had everything to do with the evolution of apes to humans. Your trying to tell me that it has nothing to do with it? Just because you cannot make an excuse for something doesnt make it irrelevant. And, do you have any links on any of your information about the hoxes i described? Exactly, so dont tell me i need links when you dont have them either. I do not see evolution happening all the time, so please stop making bad assumptions. I know that science has proposed that evoltion takes millions of years. But I also know that many scientists, when looking at fossils, find gaps in the "gradual Change" idea and I dont mean missing fossils that they havent found. There have been fossils found and compared to eariler and/or later fossils and observations showed a huge jump and change in the fossils shape, size, etc. So The idea of gradual evolution idea is really hurt with this. And that also goes against the whole "millions of years" time that evolution takes place in. Scientists are certainly never completly sure about stuff like this. .Please just stop right there, youve already embarrased yourself. I dont care if your offended on this because unless you are a christian, you were never invited to this thread. But im not sure if your christian or not so.... "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." ~ Carl Sagan Let me go ahead and do what Xei did, which was completly stupid. Do you have any evidence on this quote? What makes it true? ^^ Agreed. What I was trying to point out, though, was that, though evolution certainly could have happened on its own, it is more reasonable to me for a Christian to argue that God initiated the evolutionary process billions of years ago than to argue that God created an "As is" world 6,000 years ago. By the same token, a scientist isn't hurting anyone by saying, "Sure, God could have gotten the ball rolling; though this can't be proven or disproven, so it isn't science, I have no problem with someone stirring the soup. Of course this is just a case of reason. A true creationist ought also to be just fine with the idea that God created the universe five minutes ago... He is God, after all. Im completly fine with that too. The fact is, no matter how much a christian could tell an atheist, he/she would still turn their head and disbelieve just because theire logic doesnt line up with it. An atheist doesnt believe in God so either way, in their minds, it wouldnt matter. I just dont see why everyone absolutely NEEDS ALL the answers to their every question. Sure it shows intelligence, but one doesnt NEED all the answers though they could argue,"i have the right to know". The thing atheists and many scientists fail to understand, is that logic exsists in this "dimension" "realm" or what ever you want to call it. God doesnt live by the rules of our dimension. So how could a person disprove God when they dont even know the rules of the other dimensions/realms, and they also in a way cant because we cant visit another dimension in reality, so the mind cannot even comprehend what to expect. It is so much easier to believe in the Bible than to argue against it. Will that change anyones mind? Probably not at all, just as much as your statement.

[Xei]

Xei - I really don't get how you keep arriving at the conclusion that Universal Mind can demand that I follow his logic when, if I follow his logic, I can only arrive to the conclusion that logic is not. Perhaps reading my post would help? Let me go ahead and do what Xei did, which was completly stupid. Do you have any evidence on this quote? What makes it true? The quote is an opinion. The evidence that Carl Sagan has this opinion is that Carl Sagan said that he has this opinion. This is very different from a quote which makes a claim about objective reality. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Seriously.

[Noogah]

Noogah, what is the basis of your premise that logic, morality, and unity in nature come from God? The assertion assumes the existence of God, and the existence of God is your conclusion. The existence of God is in your initial premise, though there is more stated in the initial premise. By saying that something comes from God, you say that God exists. How does God come into this in the first place? My theories on why logic, morality, and unity in nature exist are completely irrelevant to this debate. You claim they come from God, but you have yet to make an argument to back the claim. Your argument assumes God and then uses that assumption to conclude God. That is circular reasoning. Where does my argument ASSUME there is a God? My argument only assumes two things: 1. There is morality, etc. 2. The only way to account for morality, etc. is IF God exists I'm not entirely satisfied with the language of that second premise, so let me reword it again: 2. The only worldview which can account for morality, etc. is the one in which God exists You and I agree on the former. It is the latter we are debating, as you yourself agreed in your last post ("your premise that only God can be the source of logic, morality, and unity in nature? That is the unfounded assumption you are using as your foundation."). If you really think this is our contention, how can you say that your own view on how these things can be is irrelevant? It is as if I said "The only possible source of this water is melting ice", and you were to say, "That's an unfounded assumption". I would then say "Well, what else can it be?" I think it is clearly obvious that it would be your responsibility to suggest a different source. In my previous post, I told you how God accounts for morality, etc. They make perfect sense in a Christian worldview. I contend they make NO sense in a materialistic worldview. I can expect and depend upon all three of these things in the intellectual sense. You, on the other hand - while you are surely just as capable of using them - can't account for them, or justify your use of them. Perhaps reading my post would help? I did read your post, and considered it carefully before responding. I have to admit, it confused me a bit. You seem very bright, and it can be hard for me to follow (Am I correct in believing you are in Cambridge?) As far as I can tell, you basically said that UM doesn't have to believe in logic in order to demand that I follow it, since my worldview compels me to accept logic, even if his does not. Two problems: 1. This statement is, itself, a logical one. To believe that I am obligated to follow logic because I accept logic's existence is to, yourself, make a logic based claim. If you do not accept logic, then I am well within my rights (from your perspective) to accept that I am both Noogah and not Noogah at the same time. Which leads me to problem number 2. Both you and UM DO accept the existence of logic, which is a position I have justified rationally by appealing to the existence of God. Neither you nor he have proposed any alternate justification of logic, morality, or the uniformity of nature, which is precisely what I am asking you to do.

[Raen]

Noogah, I personally do not see where you have given a reason for why the only way to account for morality and logic is if God exists. I will put this as simply as possible without the big long verbose paragraphs. Why is the existence of God the only way to account for morality and logic? If I ask one of you to tell me why I should be moral, what will you say? I'd say "Do whatever you want, there is no reason for you to not be a shitty person if you are in fact a shitty person".

[Xei]

I did read your post, and considered it carefully before responding. I have to admit, it confused me a bit. You seem very bright, and it can be hard for me to follow (Am I correct in believing you are in Cambridge?) As far as I can tell, you basically said that UM doesn't have to believe in logic in order to demand that I follow it, since my worldview compels me to accept logic, even if his does not. Two problems: 1. This statement is, itself, a logical one. To believe that I am obligated to follow logic because I accept logic's existence is to, yourself, make a logic based claim. If you do not accept logic, then I am well within my rights (from your perspective) to accept that I am both Noogah and not Noogah at the same time. Which leads me to problem number 2. Both you and UM DO accept the existence of logic, which is a position I have justified rationally by appealing to the existence of God. Neither you nor he have proposed any alternate justification of logic, morality, or the uniformity of nature, which is precisely what I am asking you to do. I've learned from experience to take these conversations one point at a time. I have read your attempt at an argument that God is sufficient and necessary for logic, and I'll address it as soon as we've settled the issue as to whether such a discussion is actually of any consequence anyway. That's point 2. As to point 1: the purpose of an argument is to convince your interlocutor of your conclusion. UM is trying to convince you of his conclusions. The fact that you think his beliefs would imply that he is incapable of using logic is of no consequence to you whatsoever. You don't hold his beliefs; you believe that logic has a foundation, and thus you're compelled to accept any logical argument he provides - which is precisely what UM intends, and thus, to reiterate, the entire issue is of no actual consequence to any discussion between the two of you. Edit: you know, I retract my first paragraph. The argument against what you're saying is so obvious and simple that it would likely save me more time just to destroy this silliness here and now, and it'd save some pain from the others who have already obliged you in discussing the issue. Here it is. The existence of logic must be assumed by anybody engaging in a rational conversation. That is to say, no valid logical argument of any form can ever be made for the rectitude of logic (in particular, your attempt at such an argument was not valid; it was actually just a bunch of assertions of the conclusion couched in long-winded prose, but that's beside the point). Otherwise: there exists a correct logical argument for the rectitude of logic. But any such argument, by its very nature, must assume the rectitude of logic in order to be authoritative. But then the argument assumes its own conclusion, and thus presents a circular fallacy, contradicting its correctness. QED (taking this moment to answer your previous tangential question, I used to study maths at Cambridge - logic in particular - and graduated a couple of months ago). Could we please move along now?

[Noogah]

Noogah, I personally do not see where you have given a reason for why the only way to account for morality and logic is if God exists. I will put this as simply as possible without the big long verbose paragraphs. Why is the existence of God the only way to account for morality and logic? I've told you that my worldview does account for morality, and you seem to agree with this. But you are inquiring about my claims to exclusivity. You want to know why God, and God ALONE can satisfy the intellectual question of morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature. Well, firstly, I haven't seen any other suggestions. You yourself do not even believe that morality exists, so it seems that you have no justification for it. Xei and Universal Mind haven't suggested any, but I know they will get back to this debate soon. But furthermore, Atheism simply cannot account for morality. Simply put, there is no reason, in a Godless, purely material universe, to believe that there is something "wrong" with anything, or that hitting a bee is any different from hitting a human or a bat. It furthermore cannot account for reason. I think C.S Lewis put it nicely: ‎Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God. And of course, it can't account for the uniformity of nature. Christians can expect that the universe will behave in the absolute, predictable, logical manner in which God ordained it. Atheists can have no such expectation. Atheists just assume that nature is uniform, and always has been uniform, so that they may thus derive conclusions about its past and future. They cannot prove it, or expect it. As one famous atheist said: I believe (though without good grounds) in the world of physics as well as in the world of psychology ... If we are to hold that we know anything of the external world, we must accept the canons of scientific knowledge. Whether ... an individual decides to accept or reject these canons, is a purely personal affair, not susceptible to argument The existence of logic must be assumed by anybody engaging in a rational conversation. Absolutely. That is to say, no valid logical argument of any form can ever be made for the rectitude of logic Absolutely not. in particular, your attempt at such an argument was not valid; it was actually just a bunch of assertions of the conclusion couched in long-winded prose, but that's beside the point I did not try to rectify logic. I explained why, in my worldview, logic can actually exist. In the worldview of naturalism, logic cannot exist. That is my contention. If there is a God, there can logically be logic. If there is not a God, there cannot logically be logic. You seem to be content to live in a world where you use logic, but in which logic is not logical. And yet it does, as you have very excellently demonstrated, in fact, exist. So I argue that you must drop naturalism (if you are a naturalist). Logic, which we both agree to exist, is by its existence contrary to a Godless worldview.

[Xei]

I did not try to rectify logic. I explained why, in my worldview, logic can actually exist. You've lost me. I don't know what "rectify logic" means - I never used the phrase. You have attempted to give an argument for the existence of logic. In my last post I showed that this is impossible. That's where the conversation currently is.

[Noogah]

You've lost me. I don't know what "rectify logic" means - I never used the phrase. You said: no valid logical argument of any form can ever be made for the rectitude of logic (in particular, your attempt at such an argument In other words, "You attempted an argument for the rectitude of logic", which is the same thing as saying "You attempted to rectify logic". You have attempted to give an argument for the existence of logic. In my last post I showed that this is impossible. That's where the conversation currently is. No, I haven't tried to "prove" logic. Obviously, neither of us is in the insane bind where we are unsure whether logic actually exists, and we feel it necessary to try and give logic a logical proof. Both of us are sure logic exists, and my point is that its very existence renders a naturalistic worldview impossible, because logic is logically inconsistent with a naturalistic worldview. If I may quote C.S Lewis again (you will discover I quote him a lot), he said the following in a book called "Miracles" which devoted a huge section to the topic. You will notice he wholeheartedly agrees with your position on a logical argument for logic being pure nonsense. To him, as to me, this makes my case all the stronger. All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true. It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have to be reaching by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished…It would be an argument which proved that no arguments was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense. You cannot be a naturalist and believe in logic. You must either abandon naturalism, or abandon logic. If you choose to do the latter, like some Hindus, then you may happily choose to accept contradictions as truths. And if so, you will simply have no reason to ever criticize somebody who is not a naturalist.

[Raen]

Well, firstly, I haven't seen any other suggestions. You yourself do not even believe that morality exists, so it seems that you have no justification for it. I never once said that I don't believe in morality. Some people seem to lack it, but it definitely exists. I don't even kill insects (so long as they are harmless) because I think it is cruel and although I don't like the look of them, I think it is wrong to take away something as precious as life. I believe morality came about from empathy. We are social creatures and in order to live in this manner, we have to have some level of being able to relate to each other in order to coexist as a community. All of your own experiences amount to your understanding of others. The things that make you happy, the things that make you sad, the things that please you, the things that cause you pain, because you have felt all of these emotions and you understand that others are capable of feeling the same, you are able to take into account how they would feel based upon a certain action. For example: If I decided I was going to take away a child's candy, I would be able to put myself in the position of the child and I would be able to imagine what it would feel like if somebody overpowered me for my candy that I would very much like to eat. Unless you are a sociopath or a sadist, you would not want to inflict this kind of pain on somebody because you know what it would feel like. Now I can't say for sure that what makes me feel sad would also make you feel sad, but I can imagine how you would feel in the same situation. All it takes is the understanding that every single being on this planet is able to feel those same sensations of happiness and misery. Christians can expect that the universe will behave in the absolute, predictable, logical manner in which God ordained it. Atheists can have no such expectation. Atheists just assume that nature is uniform, and always has been uniform, so that they may thus derive conclusions about its past and future. They cannot prove it, or expect it. This is an interesting one seeing as the true universe is a very chaotic place. It is chaotic and yet has its own complex order.

[Xei]

In other words, "You attempted an argument for the rectitude of logic", which is the same thing as saying "You attempted to rectify logic". I don't know what definition of 'rectify' you're using, but it's not one I'm accustomed to. What I meant by what you just quoted is that you attempted to show that logical reasoning "works"; i.e. that the conclusions of logical arguments hold if their premises hold; i.e. that logic "exists". No, I haven't tried to "prove" logic. Obviously, neither of us is in the insane bind where we are unsure whether logic actually exists, and we feel it necessary to try and give logic a logical proof. I'm referring to this: If you ask me, "Why can I trust in reason?" I will say "God created your inmost being, and knit you together in your mother’s womb. You are fearfully and wonderfully made, and God says 'Come now, let us reason together'. We are therefore assured we can comprehend logic. We furthermore know that He is logical, and His thoughts are logical. Therefore, reality is logical, and can be discerned with logic." Is this not an argument for your belief that the existence of God implies that logic works and that humans can use it? If not, what was it? And do you have any such arguments?

[Noogah]

The things that make you happy, the things that make you sad, the things that please you, the things that cause you pain, because you have felt all of these emotions and you understand that others are capable of feeling the same, you are able to take into account how they would feel based upon a certain action. Yes, we call this the "golden rule". Do to others what you would have others do to you. What you have done is adopted the assumption that “It is wrong to hurt others”. From your perspective, nothing is “wrong”. Things are only out of fashion, or against your personal preferences. There is no real “right” or “wrong”. Furthermore, I don't know how you can reconcile this with your original sentiment: "Do whatever you want" This is what makes true sense in a naturalistic world (if anything could actually make sense in a naturalistic world). In this case, Nietzche was right. God, rules, morality - it's all the stuff of babies, and lower apes who have not learned the wisdom that might makes right. So you can't get on to the kid who stole his brother's candy, and you can't get on to Hitler. Now that you've evolved to the point you understand it’s all a bunch of rot, go and do what you really want, and admit that “morality” doesn’t “exist”. You exist, and your wants. But I believe morality does exist. It's real, and things really are right, and really are wrong.

[TimeDragon97]

Morality is purely subjective. Plain and simple. I may find things abhorrent or detestable, but that does not make them objectively wrong. Even if God exists, that doesn't make morality objective. Even if God said that X is right and Y is wrong, that still wouldn't make them objectively right/wrong.

[Noogah]

What I meant by what you just quoted is that you attempted to show that logical reasoning "works"; i.e. that the conclusions of logical arguments hold if their premises hold; i.e. that logic "exists". No, I assume we both know that logic "works". If you go back through my posts, you will notice that I have carefully avoided such words as "prove" when it comes to logic. I have used the words "justify" and "account for". We both KNOW logic exists, there is no question about that. Is this not an argument for your belief that the existence of God implies that logic works and that humans can use it? If not, what was it? And do you have any such arguments? No, I don't have an argument FOR the existence of logic, but I can show through logic that my worldview allows for logic. Yours does not. If YOU follow logic, then you will logically have to terminate logic, as a naturalist. Forgive me if you are NOT a naturalist, but all through this discussion, you have not denied it, so I am assuming that you are. I quoted C.S Lewis for this purpose, and I hope you read the quotation, because it really says it all, much better than I am able to. Just to reiterate, I'll repost it: All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true. It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have to be reaching by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished…It would be an argument which proved that no arguments was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense. I'm off for the night friends. I will return to this discussion tomorrow. Auf wiedersehen!

[Raen]

Yes, we call this the "golden rule". Do to others what you would have others do to you. What you have done is adopted the assumption that “It is wrong to hurt others”. From your perspective, nothing is “wrong”. Things are only out of fashion, or against your personal preferences. There is no real “right” or “wrong”. Furthermore, I don't know how you can reconcile this with your original sentiment: "Do whatever you want" This is what makes true sense in a naturalistic world (if anything could actually make sense in a naturalistic world). In this case, Nietzche was right. God, rules, morality - it's all the stuff of babies, and lower apes who have not learned the wisdom that might makes right. So you can't get on to the kid who stole his brother's candy, and you can't get on to Hitler. Now that you've evolved to the point you understand it’s all a bunch of rot, go and do what you really want, and admit that “morality” doesn’t “exist”. You exist, and your wants. But I believe morality does exist. It's real, and things really are right, and really are wrong. I don't like how you keep telling me what I believe. From my perspective, things are wrong. Rather than using the word wrong, we should be using the word "immoral", and the very definition of it is "Things that are out of fashion" or "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality". My original statement was an answer to your question. If I ask one of you to tell me why I should be moral, what will you say? I'm not going to tell you that you should be moral, you should be able to make that decision on your own. That is not to say, however, that morality does not exist and that I don't have a sense of morality. It means that if you really need a reason to act in a moral way, then you clearly don't have morals to start with so it is not my place to bother with convincing you that you should have them. If it takes a "Golden rule" in a book and a belief in God to persuade you that you should act according to a moral code with promises of eternal life versus eternal punishment, then you don't have any true morals. Many religious people I have met have asked he same questions about morality, such as "If you don't believe in God, why don't you just rape, kill and steal because you don't have any reason to be moral". My answer to that is this: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.

[JoannaB]

I believe that an atheist can follow the golden rule as much as any believer, and furthermore, if he does, I believe that God will have a preference for such an atheist over a professed Christian who neglects to follow the golden rule. First, there is the parable of the two sons: one of whom refuses to obey but does the work anyway, and the other professes obedience but does not actually do it. And then there is the judgement day scene during which the righteous might be surprised and not realize that they did the right thing and did not recognize Jesus. So this makes me think that God likely approves of atheists as long as they follow the golden rule.

[AURON]

All off topic posts have been moved here.

[Tye]

Why the fuck does it say I started this thread? lol

[Universal Mind]

Where does my argument ASSUME there is a God? My argument only assumes two things: 1. There is morality, etc. 2. The only way to account for morality, etc. is IF God exists I'm not entirely satisfied with the language of that second premise, so let me reword it again: 2. The only worldview which can account for morality, etc. is the one in which God exists You and I agree on the former. It is the latter we are debating, as you yourself agreed in your last post ("your premise that only God can be the source of logic, morality, and unity in nature? That is the unfounded assumption you are using as your foundation."). If you really think this is our contention, how can you say that your own view on how these things can be is irrelevant? It is as if I said "The only possible source of this water is melting ice", and you were to say, "That's an unfounded assumption". I would then say "Well, what else can it be?" I think it is clearly obvious that it would be your responsibility to suggest a different source. In my previous post, I told you how God accounts for morality, etc. They make perfect sense in a Christian worldview. I contend they make NO sense in a materialistic worldview. I can expect and depend upon all three of these things in the intellectual sense. You, on the other hand - while you are surely just as capable of using them - can't account for them, or justify your use of them. You said that logic, morality, and unity in nature can only come from God, and you used that claim as a basis for proving God. I am questioning your assumption. Telling you where I think things originated is irrelevant to the nature of the reasoning you are using. However, since you asked, I will veer off for a moment and tell you. Morality, which comes in many forms, is a type of social construct that evolved in nature for many species because it is an evolutionary advantage for the species while not always an advantage for individual organisms. It is rooted in conscience, which is a brain function, and group pressure. Logic is a system of rules concerning the nature of reality. Those rules are eternal. Nothing created them. Unity in nature is a matter of things existing together. There are forces, natural laws, repeated processes, and other phenomena that result in unity. Now please answer the question you keep dodging. Why do you assume those things have to come from God? Don't waste time telling me why you disagree with my explanations. Doing so will not answer my question. I know you understand my question. What is your answer to it? Why the fuck does it say I started this thread? lol We had gone off topic, so a new thread was created.

[Noogah]

From my perspective, things are wrong. Rather than using the word wrong, we should be using the word "immoral", and the very definition of it is "Things that are out of fashion" or "Not conforming to accepted standards of morality". Alright, fair point. Definitely a fair point. I must admit, in the original use of the term "moral", you are completely right. "Morals" come from a word - and I am not at all sure how to spell it, since I've only heard it in lecture - "moraes". And with this etymology in mind, morals can be used to refer to "how people do, in fact, behave". When I speak of morals, if I am to be as precise as you are being (and I ought to be), then I should be speaking of "ethics", which come from (and I'm sure of this spelling) "ethos". The idea of ethics is more "how people ought to behave". I was under the impression that we all meant by "morals" this "ought" mentality. I don't like how you keep telling me what I believe. I'm sorry if I was presuming things about you - I didn't try. I thought I was accurately representing what you originally wrote. And I still fail to see how I departed - my analysis of your morals, namely, that they are subjective and at the whim of fashion and feeling, seem to have been correct. This is still antithetical to the idea of "wrongness". How can you say there is anything "wrong" with anything? If you try to define it in terms of consensus, then what makes it "wrong" to go against the consensus? Your morality seems impossible to me. That is not to say, however, that morality does not exist and that I don't have a sense of morality. It means that if you really need a reason to act in a moral way, then you clearly don't have morals to start with so it is not my place to bother with convincing you that you should have them. But I think you would bother somebody who committed a moral offense. Atrocious ones, certainly, but probably even minor ones. I bet you’ve rebuked people for them all the time. Just like, above, you informed me that you did not “like” how I was behaving. With this observation, you made the (proper and truthful) implication that presuming upon your beliefs isn’t something I should do, and I ought to stop. I, for one, would absolutely stop somebody who was beating another human being, and I would demand that he stop, and if he asked me "why?", I would respond "Because it's wrong, and you ought not to do it!" I notice that you, and the other atheists on this thread, are masters of this commendable mentality. But it is inconsistent with your beliefs, this idea that you "ought" to be "good", as you have already pointed out. If it takes a "Golden rule" in a book and a belief in God to persuade you that you should act according to a moral code with promises of eternal life versus eternal punishment, then you don't have any true morals. Of course it takes God to do that! There is one little word in this paragraph that shows the whole problem with your ideas: "should". As such, I've highlighted it in bold. Of course I don't think that you aren't naturally inclined to follow the golden rule, and that atheists can't or don’t follow it. They can follow it, and they do follow it, and people around the world in every period in history have followed it. And, there is no greater proof that morals "exist"! Everybody knows they exist. Everybody is haunted by wrongdoing, and everybody expects that “justice” happen. That EVIL be paid for, and GOOD be rewarded. I think a quote from Vince Gilligan, the agnostic creator of the TV show "Breaking Bad" is appropriate at this point: If religion is a reaction of man, and nothing more, it seems to me that it represents a human desire for wrongdoers to be punished. I hate the idea of Idi Amin living in Saudi Arabia for the last 25 years of his life. That galls me to no end. I feel some sort of need for Biblical atonement, or justice, or something. I like to believe there is some comeuppance, that karma kicks in at some point, even if it takes years or decades to happen. My girlfriend says this great thing that’s become my philosophy as well. 'I want to believe there's a heaven. But I can't not believe there's a hell So, I still conclude that real morals don't exist in your universe. Or again, I should say, “ethics” don't exist in your universe. Desires exist in your universe. Nothing more. Morality, which comes in many forms, is a type of social construct that evolved in nature for many species because it is an evolutionary advantage for the species while not always an advantage for individual organisms. It is rooted in conscience, which is a brain function, and group pressure. Which is the same thing, as I myself explained above, as saying that morals don’t exist (or "ethics", if you prefer). The desire to behave in a certain way – instincts – exist, and nothing more. There is nothing important about your morals, and nobody is under any obligation to follow them. Logic is a system of rules concerning the nature of reality. That statement is meaningless in a materialistic universe. Those rules are eternal. Nothing created them. Are they physical? If not, they don’t exist, which is an impossible conclusion, since it was reached by logic. If they are physical, then they are things, and they are again no different than a doorknob. They cannot be used to gain valid insight to the universe anymore than a banana. Furthermore, if you try to apply the same evolutionary mechanisms to our acquisition of reason as you do to our acquisition of morality, you will, of course, fall into the trap which I listed here: namely that, mental traits evolved for the purpose of survival, and survival alone, cannot be assumed to validly indicate anything about reality, and thus render our pursuit of "reason" futile. Why do you assume those things have to come from God? Don't waste time telling me why you disagree with my explanations. Doing so will not answer my question. I haven't ignored your question. To the best of my ability, I've answered it. How can God account for morality, etc.? Why can God ALONE account for morality, etc.? Besides these two questions, which I have answered, what else do you wish to know? Whether your own alternatives to God are actually valid is absolutely relevant, and possibly the most productive and relevant time that will be used in this entire debate. It is this point on which the entire thing hinges: do morality, logic, and the uniformity of nature make sense in any worldview besides the Christian one? Finally, To all the atheists/agnostics: There seems to be a sentiment going around that what I and other Christians mean by "Only Christianity can account for morality" is the silly statement "Only Christianity can compel people to be moral". The following misconceptions are false: Christians believe you should be moral because you will be judged if you do not Sin is sin. Christians believe sin is actually, and truly wrong. The reason we shouldn't do wrong things is precisely because they ARE wrong. In Christianity, "wrongness" is the same thing as "ungodliness". It is TRUE that we believe wrongdoers WILL be punished (if they do not repent and receive God's forgiveness through faith in Jesus!), but that is not what makes wrong wrong in a Christian worldview. Christians think that, if you are not a Christian, you cannot be moral Christians know for a fact that people of other beliefs, including atheism, can be and are moral people. In fact, the Bible guarantees it: They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them My claim is that morals (as well as logic and the uniformity of nature) DO NOT MAKE SENSE in a godless worldview.

[Universal Mind]

Noogah, I don't see your answer in those links. The premise of your argument is that only God can account for the existence of morals. What is the logical basis of that claim? So far, it is nothing but an assertion. Off topic: Things don't have to be physical to exist. Do feelings exist? Does history exist? If so, where is it? Do the rules of math exist? Did physics formulas exist before they were represented on paper? Morals are real because they exist in people's minds, as do emotions. Most people have a conscience to answer to. It is an authority. Even if morals were physical, they would still guide behavior in a way that makes society more orderly and peaceful than it would be without them. How is my statement about the eternal nature of the rules of logic meaningless? Even if I am wrong about all of that, it does not help your position on why God is necessary for those things, which you haven't even explained yet beyond using God as a wild guess. Do you know what the argument from ignorance fallacy (argument ad ignorantium) is? What about tautology (circular reasoning)? Here are 20 common fallacies worth knowing about: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/reso...ical-fallacies

[Xei]

No, I don't have an argument FOR the existence of logic, but I can show through logic that my worldview allows for logic. Wait, so... what you're saying is that in an atheist world view there can't possibly be logic, compared to a theist world view, where you simply have no idea whether logic exists or not? In any case, "showing that my world view allows for logic" still suffers from exactly the same logical flaw that I mentioned. It presumes the conclusion and thus is a fallacy.