Who created God?

[Raithere]

You presume to know the scriptures. I know you said you have read it five times cover to cover, but obviously, you didn't get it. If you got it, you would be a theist.

This argument is unbelievably problematic. Using this argument I can just as well state that you obviously didn't get Evolution, because if you got it you would believe in Evolution. I could also say the same thing about Taoism, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Scientology.

Let me try to explain the inconsistencies you see in the Bible. Give some examples.

Okay, let's use an obvious one: God commands us not to kill. Then time and time again in the Bible he changes his mind and tells some one to kill someone else... or a whole bunch of people... or go back and kill the women and children because you forgot to the first time... unless they're virgins, then you can take them home and rape them.

In other words, I am simply choosing to ignore those doubts in favor of what I see as an ethically preferable position. Correct.

And how do you determine what is ethically preferable?

You missed the point. I agree science doesn't believe anything, but scientists believe what evidence that science produces, and they should!

I couldn't disagree more. We should believe things based upon reason and evidence, not because of who tells us. Science produces a body of argument and evidence. Only after considering this should anyone believe a conclusion.

Yes. With the help of Case for a Creator and you all, I now understand your purely scientific point of view and I respect it. I also understand a Christian's dilema of irrational thought concerning the existence of God.

As do I. I'm not some inhuman machination. I understand the appeal of a belief in a personal God. But I cannot accept it as truth simply because I want it to be. I find that path horribly dangerous.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

Man is limited. Reputedly, God is not. Man is fallible and prone to error. God is not. Man is limited in intelligence, imagination, and capacity for understanding. God is not. Man has limited time and resource. God does not. It would be an infinitesimally small effort on God's part to "fix" everything. It is an unbelievably large effort for man, perhaps even beyond his capacity. To borrow from Spider Man, "With great power comes great responsibility."We can only be held responsible for that which we have the ability to change. Therefore the onus is on God. He has the understanding and ability to fix things. Apparently all he lacks is the will. [] Yeah, okay. As a conscious, free-willed being I prefer my current state to that of non-awareness. If I lacked consciousness, I'd be incapable of an opinion on the matter. So what? Where's the relevant point?

Here you assume God must be able to do it. Why? We exist in a universe governed by "expressions of energy" and certain physical principles limit possibility within it. How can God allow man his free will while at the same time completely elliminating it? That is what it would take for it to be "fixed" - because man's will to defy God is the basic problem - the government of God's will and the ellimination of ours. You yourself state you prefer this state of awareness.

If God is unable to do it does it limit His Omnipotence? No. Omnipotence must be regarded as the ability to do all which is possible - naturally, if you can do all that is possible you are omnipotent. Doing the impossible really (temporally) doesn't make sense does it?

But God grants man free will through grace such that he can choose his own way. You said it yourself - either be free (which you prefer) and not be a star or just not be. Does a star know it exists? Thus my conclusion that the onus is upon man through his free will - if he values it. God has done what He Will.

No, all assumptions are not equivalent. But they do remain assumptions. It also brings us back to Occam's Razor. One should try to minimize the number of assumptions, or at least not needlessly multiply them.

The assumptions, depending on how they correlate with reality may not be equivalent, but the applicability of Occam's Razor also arises from assumptions, such that you assume God is an "unnecessary complexity" while I contend God is a "necessary complexity" which inexorably leads to simplification.

All you keep doing here is adding more and more assumptions but you have yet to give any argument for them.

As do you such that you would state above that all assumptions are not equivalent wihtout justifying the statement - be fair will you?

I don't recognize that any of these suppositions are true and you're not going to convince me by adding more. Either argue for them or admit that your entire basis for concluding that God exists is groundless.

Your entire base of assumptions are then equally groundless Raithere. Do you not realise this? The point being that you start at your base assumptions and come back... "full circle". Once your system is consistent then "all is well". In any event...

Simply put, as I stated with my analogy, absolute meaning and purpose and thus truth are like a real mathematical function. If there is no absolute ground, you will not have a function. In other words if y="root(x)" then when you see x you cannot determine what the y value is because there are two (2) [+1/-1]. Same with meaning without absolutes such that one man's truth will be "kill all" while the other's will be "sit, watch all die and die last" or "save all". Which is truth? Which purpose is the true purpose?

We all require and utilise God given faith albeit in not necessarily contrasting but different ways with ultimately different results I'm assuming. What you stated is that assumptions are assumed truths - nowhere have you elaborated on the veracity of "assuming" in the first place. If you assume one thing then everything is built on the assumption. But then how do you conclude that assumptions aren't equivalent? Evidence? How do you know that your view of the evidence actually correlates to reality? Assume it? Simply put, you must have some mechanism driving your "trust in assumptions" such that you'd assume everything without "evidence" or "proof".

The First Cause is The Initiator. It's purpose was to start things - now It's purpose is to prevent humanity from falling into a convolved pit of philosophical anarchy. God's purpose (one of) is to provide me piece of mind.

And I contest that everything we see in the Universe is simple a consequence of the Fundamental Forces and energy. There is nothing 'special' about life, intelligence, or consciousness they are just patterns of energy.

Sure, but I regard this as a "flat earth" mentality. A few natural philosophers cited evidene for a curved earth but others just couldn't wrap their heads around it for some reason - the evidence wasn't convincing enough - yet it was valid. It just didn't have to be that way. I cannot state your position is unjustifiable, but I can state that the evidences cited for the "fine tuned" nature of the universe may be interpreted as "fine tuning" as many a religious scientist do. Of course the argument exists that if it were in any other state then we'd see it the same way (or not - nothing special) - but that is a baseless assumption in itself. The "fine tunees" have lots more evidence to go on really.

Some people believe that they have been abducted by aliens, others believe they have the ability to predict the future, yet others believe they have telekinetic powers. People believe all kinds of things so how do we determine which claims are true? Or are just yours true and everyone else is wrong?

I believe I feel a pain in some part of my body at the moment. Well, let's stick to God here. I have put my faith in God and I believe. That's the world Raithere - that's man for you - that's free will. Trust God and then you may discover truth. Been there but not done that? Amen...

And where did the complexity for God come from? These are non-arguments. All you are stating is that complexity always existed. And????

Please do not isolate and reduce my views to a simple phrase. We start from First Cause and we get to Complex First Cause upon examining the nature of the creation and attempting illucidate the nature of The Creator. What I've stated is that God has always existed (which is the answer to the thread).

 

[jayleew]

This argument is unbelievably problematic. Using this argument I can just as well state that you obviously didn't get Evolution, because if you got it you would believe in Evolution. I could also say the same thing about Taoism, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Scientology.

I've already cleared this up when SkinWalker noticed my non-sequitor. I slipped, I saw it, I assumed you would all understand my point. Sorry.

Okay, let's use an obvious one: God commands us not to kill. Then time and time again in the Bible he changes his mind and tells some one to kill someone else... or a whole bunch of people... or go back and kill the women and children because you forgot to the first time... unless they're virgins, then you can take them home and rape them.

You need to provide references, those paraphrases look similar to some stories I know, but they look very interpreted.

And how do you determine what is ethically preferable?

It is ethically preferable to have the same set of morals rather than to change morals for the worse.

I couldn't disagree more. We should believe things based upon reason and evidence, not because of who tells us. Science produces a body of argument and evidence. Only after considering this should anyone believe a conclusion.

What are you talking about? I was only agreeing with you and regurgitating your statement. I agree with your statement.

Originally Posted by Raithere:
Science doesn't "believe" anything. Science is a methodology for gaining knowledge. But this methodology is empirical in nature. If it cannot be evinced empirically it is not part of science. The unknown is an intrinsic part of science, but it must be left "unknown" until we find some way of measuring it. Speculating, rationally or otherwise, upon the unknown falls to philosophy, not science.

As do I. I'm not some inhuman machination. I understand the appeal of a belief in a personal God. But I cannot accept it as truth simply because I want it to be. I find that path horribly dangerous.

What danger is there? A danger to change for the good and actually not think of yourself? Wouldn't ethics be perfected by thinking of others for the right reasons?

 

[jayleew]

Simply attaching "ism" to the end of a noun or proper name doesn't imply a religion.Darwinism is not a religion, but the idea that evolution is the result of forces which include fitness to the environment which are naturally selected to survive.

I never said that Evolutionary theory was a religion. I used Darwinism for the lack of a better term. What would you prefer to be labeled as being a scientist of?

To quote Sagan, "evolution is a fact. It really happened. What is theoretical are the mechanisms that are involved."

Again, Raithere was kind enough to explain the odds of macroevolution. Let's wait and call it fact when you better those odds. Now, I will concede that from a scientific point of view, macroevolution has a lot of clues/evidence of its truth that makes it the logical theory for the creation of all species of life. I also concede that, from a scientific point of view, Christianity has a zero percent chance of being true. But, let's not go jumping the gun until science has uncovered all the mysteries of the universe or until, at least, your odds of macroevolution being the explaination increase.

It seems to me that the "great evolution-creation" debate is the result of organized Christianity attempting to maintain their status quo, which is understandably threatened by a scientific and naturalistic perspective of the world (its history, its present, and its future). Should science successfully falsify creation in the eyes of the followers of religion, then the game is up.

It seems to you. Yes, it is your opinion and others, but not a fact that the "evolution-creation" debate is the result of organized Christianity attempting to maintain their status quo.

The irony is, that science has, indeed, falsified creation and many of the myths associated with the bible. Only through its propaganda mill (fundamentalism) has Christianity been able to dilute the information produced by science to a degree that has introduced doubt to those that want to believe in fundamental christian beliefs.

Science always leaves the door open to new possibilities, including the idea of creationism; however, chances are there isn't going to be any evidence.
I fail to see the logic that learned, respected, rational men, would turn from evolution as the explaination on a whim. It doesn't make sense to me. Why? Why would they put all of their life accomplishments on the line for the sake of something that science says is probably not the solution? (Christianity) Mere chance? Their numbers are growing according to Science Digest. Mental disorder rampant through some genetic defect in scientists? Explain to me why so many scientists would abandon what they have grown up to believe as fact?? This doesn't prove anything, but it makes you think about what is going on here and what are they seeing that we're not??

The creationist position and their new pseudoscience, "intelligent design," may very well contribute to the downfall of Christianity. Advances in genetics are occurring at a significant rate and it won't be long before we have anthropological understandings of the origins of cultures and populations on a global scale that will show spatially and temporally the history of humanity. The evolutionary splits of entire species will be understood to a degree that we might even know the very year that mice and men shared a common ancestor.

Yes, those of the ID movement need to get their heads on straight and stop making futile claims. They need to start being scientists like they have been.

And these advances will be punctuated and reinforced by the ability to cure and prevent diseases and afflictions.

Once all this comes to pass, Christianity will be judged on its intrinsic value as an organization: does it reflect superstitions and ignorance or is it concerned with the teachings of Christ (peace, love, human kindness)?

If the latter, it will undoubtedly succeed. If the former...

Speculation, but very prophetic?!?

 

[SkinWalker]

I never said that Evolutionary theory was a religion. I used Darwinism for the lack of a better term. What would you prefer to be labeled as being a scientist of?

You said, "For the same reason that you believe in Darwinism, because it is the only religion..."

Again, Raithere was kind enough to explain the odds of macroevolution.

Macroevolution... meh. That's a term only used by creationists. Scientists who deal with evolutionary forces simply say "evolution." Micro/macro... it makes no difference and the delineation is merely an attempt to drive a wedge.

It seems to you. Yes, it is your opinion and others, but not a fact that the "evolution-creation" debate is the result of organized Christianity attempting to maintain their status quo.

Really? What is it then? What would be the point? As I said, from the perspective of the fundamentalist, once science overrules creation, the game is up and this threatens christianity.

Science always leaves the door open to new possibilities, including the idea of creationism;

Of course it does. The opposition to creation as a possibility is that it lacks all any evidence and makes a mockery of academia. Suggesting that a position is tenable simply because it is religious doctrine not only violates the concept of separation of church and state, it disenfranchises any other religion and worldview that has its own creation mythology by creating a situation in which the state recognizes one religion as valid but not others.

Yes, those of the ID movement need to get their heads on straight and stop making futile claims. They need to start being scientists like they have been.

The "scientists" of the so-called "ID" movement are but educated people with an agenda. Their educations (many of which are questionable as to their relevance) only give them better falculties to argue. Their arguements do not stand up to scrutiny nor do they represent actual science. They are pseudoscientific: good at presenting a science-like vernacular, thus duping the lay-person, but not good enough to actually withstand testing by the scientific community. These "scientists" of "ID" are not representative of the scientific community.

Speculation, but very prophetic?!?

We shall see.

 

[Raithere]

How can God allow man his free will while at the same time completely elliminating it? That is what it would take for it to be "fixed" - because man's will to defy

Okay let's examine this one. Why do you assert that making man in such a way that he desires to do only good (we'll leave the term general for now) is incompatible with free will? Man, as he is, has tendencies and desires that conflict with being good. Wouldn't it be possible to make all humans wise, intelligent, honorable, and compassionate? How would that prohibit free will?

you assume God is an "unnecessary complexity" while I contend God is a "necessary complexity"

Here's another one I'd like to examine. Can you give me a logical argument that demonstrates that God is necessary?

We all require and utilise God given faith albeit in not necessarily contrasting but different ways with ultimately different results I'm assuming. What you stated is that assumptions are assumed truths - nowhere have you elaborated on the veracity of "assuming" in the first place.

There's nothing to verify. As far as I'm aware, one cannot make an absolute reduction to basic principles. The only irrefutable I've seen is, "I exist." (leaving "I" somewhat ill defined). Everything else on out is based upon assumptions. The only questions are which ones and how many of them.

If you assume one thing then everything is built on the assumption. But then how do you conclude that assumptions aren't equivalent? Evidence? How do you know that your view of the evidence actually correlates to reality? Assume it? Simply put, you must have some mechanism driving your "trust in assumptions" such that you'd assume everything without "evidence" or "proof".

Given that we might assume anything at all it seems to me that one should parsimonious with one's assumptions. Assuming only that which is necessary to create a foundation from which one can then deduce other things. Given that basis all other assumptions are superfluous. This is why I find God unnecessary, I do not need God to explain life, ethics, intelligence, or anything else.

I can state that the evidences cited for the "fine tuned" nature of the universe may be interpreted as "fine tuning" as many a religious scientist do. Of course the argument exists that if it were in any other state then we'd see it the same way (or not - nothing special) - but that is a baseless assumption in itself. The "fine tunees" have lots more evidence to go on really.

The error in the fine tuning argument is that it has turned the problem around backwards. It begins with the result and attempt to deduce the probability of the initial state. It's like being surprised that the cake pan is the same shape as the cake. But the shape of the cake is a result of the shape of the pan, not the other way around. Thus order, life, intelligence are a result of the forces and laws of the Universe; the Universe wasn't formed to the requirements of what it has produced.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

I've already cleared this up when SkinWalker noticed my non-sequitor. I slipped, I saw it, I assumed you would all understand my point. Sorry.

Nope, my fault. I was trying to catch up from being away most of the weekend and only skimmed through that which wasn't directed at me.

You need to provide references, those paraphrases look similar to some stories I know, but they look very interpreted.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

It is ethically preferable to have the same set of morals rather than to change morals for the worse.

What about changing them for the better?

What are you talking about? I was only agreeing with you and regurgitating your statement. I agree with your statement.

My bad.

What danger is there? A danger to change for the good and actually not think of yourself? Wouldn't ethics be perfected by thinking of others for the right reasons?

The danger is that there is no control. It easily becomes nothing but self-justification. We do indeed need to look outside ourselves, to consider things not from our perspective but from another.

~Raithere

 

[jayleew]

You said, "For the same reason that you believe in Darwinism, because it is the only religion..."

I was asekd why I believe in Christianity and not another religion which science says has an equal chance of being true (which is zero). I believe in Christianity for the same reason that you believe in Darwinism. I believe because it is the only religion...

Macroevolution... meh. That's a term only used by creationists. Scientists who deal with evolutionary forces simply say "evolution." Micro/macro... it makes no difference and the delineation is merely an attempt to drive a wedge.

Is it? How else are creationist scientists supposed to differentiate between the two? Evolution is a theory that encompases more than just the origins of life. There are two different phenomenons of nature and creationists concede to microevolution, so they frequently use the term macroevolution. Secular science has evidence of both, so there is no need to differentiate as you said.

Really? What is it then? What would be the point? As I said, from the perspective of the fundamentalist, once science overrules creation, the game is up and this threatens christianity.

You are right that the motivation is there, but your conclusion is circumstantial.

Of course it does. The opposition to creation as a possibility is that it lacks all any evidence and makes a mockery of academia. Suggesting that a position is tenable simply because it is religious doctrine not only violates the concept of separation of church and state, it disenfranchises any other religion and worldview that has its own creation mythology by creating a situation in which the state recognizes one religion as valid but not others.

Separation of church and state? That is a myth, pure and simple:
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_index.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35420
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts

It says that the state shall not establish religion.

 

[jayleew]

Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

God sent that commandment in mercy. In the previous verses, the people had made a golden calf and did all manner of idol worship and audultery. Then Moses "drew a line in the sand" by telling everyone who was with God to come to him. Those that were not for God were slew out of mercy.
God knew that it was futile to win those people to him. Their story was ended before it got worse. It is unethical to allow someone to continue to do themselves harm or harm those around them.

Many times did the Israelites doubt God. They had such relative morality that God wanted to destroy them all and rebuild from Moses. Moses stayed his judgement. Many times God sent plagues and Earthquakes to protect his people. We see this today as well. But, it is speculation, just as it was when God sent Earthquakes to swallow up the rebellious.

Saying God does not give orders of when to go to arms makes wars unethical. God looks at the heart, Jesus came to clear that up.

Israel was established again in 1948. God said that the generation that sees this happen shall not pass away before he comes again. So, if you were born in 1948, God is coming back in 2048 at the latest. Now, if science has not completely destroy Christianity by then, they have one more chance in 2049 to use God's word against him to disprove Christianity for all time. I would be 72, so I may see the end times. We shall see. I have hope that God lives. If he doesn't, I will know I have led a good life, but wasted some of my time. So, maybe it would be better for me to die before then.

What about changing them for the better?

With everyone wanting his own way? Good luck, I doubt if you can change ethics for the better, because of natural human instinct. The persuit of happiness is and will be our downfall of ethics. It takes concaine for some people to be happy. It takes murder for some people to be happy. It takes getting their own way to make some people happy. Without objective morality, we are on a roller coaster ride.

 

[Sarkus]

With everyone wanting his own way? Good luck, I doubt if you can change ethics for the better, because of natural human instinct. The persuit of happiness is and will be our downfall of ethics. It takes concaine for some people to be happy. It takes murder for some people to be happy. It takes getting their own way to make some people happy. Without objective morality, we are on a roller coaster ride.

This is a load of twaddle - and I use that with all its scientific connotations (not that any exist).
Removing the supposed objective authority of the church/religion etc would not mean that everyone CAN or WOULD do everything they wanted.
The concepts of Democracy and of Law do not vanish as well.
Take away religion and Common Sense will prevail at last.

Just because Christianity or any of the other religions says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not mean that without religion in the background we would all go out on a murder spree. The rules of religion are predominantly based on the same Common Sense that a non-religious society would most likely adopt. Thus to get rid of religion as the "objective moral authority" would change little if anything at all.

 

[jayleew]

This is a load of twaddle - and I use that with all its scientific connotations (not that any exist).
Removing the supposed objective authority of the church/religion etc would not mean that everyone CAN or WOULD do everything they wanted.

Listen to what you are saying and think about if you really want that of your country. What plagues the hearts of men? Many unethical behaviors and thoughts. It is in my heart to sin that I have to fight. Without God's ethics, I fought a losing battle.

Just because Christianity or any of the other religions says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not mean that without religion in the background we would all go out on a murder spree. The rules of religion are predominantly based on the same Common Sense that a non-religious society would most likely adopt. Thus to get rid of religion as the "objective moral authority" would change little if anything at all.

Really? What observations can we make of non-Christian nations? Do they last? Are they a great place to live? Do they thrive? Do they, for the most part, prosper? What are the ethical systems they use? Christianity birthed the nation we have today, that cannot be denied because it is in our history books. Removing Christianity is the same thing as aborting the America we have today (the shadow of its former self). We are becoming the early Roman empire which lived without Christianity. Where unethical behavior was practiced and the government was corrupt.

 

[Sushupti]

I also dont get that....why did god have to be created???

I also don't get that....why did the universe have to be created???

There are lines of thought that would say the entirety of the universe is waht god is. Makes more sense than your thing.

 

[SkinWalker]

I was asekd why I believe in Christianity and not another religion which science says has an equal chance of being true (which is zero). I believe in Christianity for the same reason that you believe in Darwinism. I believe because it is the only religion...

Except that Darwinism isn't a religion. It is a paradigm of science.

Is it? How else are creationist scientists supposed to differentiate between the two?

There's also no such thing as a "creationist scientist."

Evolution is a theory that encompases more than just the origins of life. There are two different phenomenons of nature and creationists concede to microevolution, so they frequently use the term macroevolution.

I understand the differences, yet the only people that really use the terms are pseudoscientists of creationist thought. The first person to coin the terms (Iurii Filipchenko) was also the first to state that they were equal as did Theodosius Dobzhansky 10 years later (1937). The mechanisms which cause change in both are the same. Period. No one has demonstrated otherwise.

Secular science has evidence of both, so there is no need to differentiate as you said.

There is no such thing as "secular" science. There is no such thing as "creation" science. There is only science. Science is not an entity, but rather a method. Those that don't follow the scientific method are bad scientists. Those that seek to distort or corrupt the scientific method to make it fit their agenda are pseudoscientists.

Indeed, I propose that this entire thread be moved to the Pseudoscience Forum, due to the defacto topic.

Separation of church and state? That is a myth, pure and simple:
[...]
It says that the state shall not establish religion.

I've seen all the arguements of the "mythology" of the separation of church and state. But what I'm speaking of is the Jeffersonian idea and policy that was set in 1802 when he responded to the Danbury Baptist Association.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

It was Jefferson's intention that the rights of minorities should not be infringed upon by the majority, particularly when it came to matters of religion. A religious majority has no right to impose it's belief upon those that are in the minority and hold differing views. To allow such a thing is unAmerican, anti-patriotic, and it violates the principles of the Founding Fathers.

 

[SkinWalker]

Listen to what you are saying and think about if you really want that of your country. What plagues the hearts of men? Many unethical behaviors and thoughts.

Then why is it that the vast, VAST majority of those that engage in unethical behavior in this nation Christian? Why is it that the agnostic/atheist/non-religious population under-represented in prisons? It would seem that "christian morality" fails and secular humanism prevails.

Really? What observations can we make of non-Christian nations? Do they last?

Why wouldn't they? India has lasted. Hinuism is far, far older than Christianity. It's a great place to live for most. There are some who struggle. But then there are those that struggle in our own nation. Indeed, India is fast becoming a first-world nation.

Are they a great place to live? Do they thrive? Do they, for the most part, prosper?

I wouldn't consider Scandanavian countries to be "christian." Nor would I consider Germany to be "christian." True, the rulers of these nations in history were theocratically based or influenced, but in modernity, they and other European nations have largely abandoned religious cults. Indeed, if a cadidate for public office were to mention "god" in his/her campaign speeches, he/she would be unlikely to win an election. These old countries have progressed.

Christianity birthed the nation we have today, that cannot be denied because it is in our history books.

Poppycock. That's the same pseudohistory that keeps telling American school kids that the Indian was the bad guy.

"...Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." -John Adams, 2nd President, 1797. The Treaty of Tripoli.

If anything, it can be argued that this nation was built on the principle of widescale Genocide. Over 500 nations of residents, numbering higher than 12 million, populated the United States prior to the European invasion. They were slaughtered in the name of the Christian god.

Removing Christianity is the same thing as aborting the America we have today (the shadow of its former self). We are becoming the early Roman empire which lived without Christianity. Where unethical behavior was practiced and the government was corrupt.

Ethics and morals are human qualities. Not religious. Humanity created religion and gods. We create morality and ethics as well. Christian followers are probably the most unethical and untrustworthy because in the backs of their minds they believe that all they need to do is repent before their deaths and they get to have "everlasting life."

Humanists, on the other hand, realize that this world is it. This is all we get. Once you die - you are gone and the only way to "live forever" is to leave behind a legacy worthy of speaking about. We live our lives as if this is the only one, realizing that there are no second chances. How we treat ourselves and each other matters here and now.

If christianity should die, morality and ethics shall finally have a chance.

 

[jayleew]

Then why is it that the vast, VAST majority of those that engage in unethical behavior in this nation Christian? Why is it that the agnostic/atheist/non-religious population represented in prisons? It would seem that "christian morality" fails and secular humanism prevails.

Vast majority? Let's see the statistic you have and the source, then we can know the vast majority, besides all you are saying is that Christians are no different than everyone else. Every person is unethical according to God. Why is it that the agnostic/atheist/non-religious population represetned in prisons?

I am telling you! They lack ethical behavior which is enforced by our laws which put them there.

Why wouldn't they? India has lasted. Hinuism is far, far older than Christianity. It's a great place to live for most. There are some who struggle. But then there are those that struggle in our own nation. Indeed, India is fast becoming a first-world nation.
I wouldn't consider Scandanavian countries to be "christian." Nor would I consider Germany to be "christian." True, the rulers of these nations in history were theocratically based or influenced, but in modernity, they and other European nations have largely abandoned religious cults. Indeed, if a cadidate for public office were to mention "god" in his/her campaign speeches, he/she would be unlikely to win an election. These old countries have progressed.

Apples and oranges. Compare India and the small old countries to America.

Poppycock. That's the same pseudohistory that keeps telling American school kids that the Indian was the bad guy.

I never heard Native Americans were the bad guy in public school. We were taught objective history. I drew the conclusion that it was us who encroached and raped their land.
Most of the signers were Christians with Christian principals which were created through a Christian goggles. So how could the Constitution or the DoI be anything but biased to Christian morals and ethics i.e. birthed from Christian morals and ethics?
http://watkins.gospelcom.net/foundingfathers.htm

"...Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." -John Adams, 2nd President, 1797. The Treaty of Tripoli.

Out of context!
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

If anything, it can be argued that this nation was built on the principle of widescale Genocide. Over 500 nations of residents, numbering higher than 12 million, populated the United States prior to the European invasion. They were slaughtered in the name of the Christian god.

This is not any different than when God commanded Moses to slaughter those who had no hope of finding God and rebelled against him.

Ethics and morals are human qualities. Not religious. Humanity created religion and gods. We create morality and ethics as well. Christian followers are probably the most unethical and untrustworthy because in the backs of their minds they believe that all they need to do is repent before their deaths and they get to have "everlasting life."

A system of ethics is part of every religion.
You speak of "Christians".
They cease to be Christian when they take advantage of the grace. Jesus called the Pharisees on that fact. True Christian followers are the most ethical and trustworthy and in the backs of their minds they remember every sin and realize how unworthy they are of grace. However, we know God's promises, so we have faith in them.

 

[jayleew]

Except that Darwinism isn't a religion. It is a paradigm of science.

Goodness, are you smoking something? I mean seriously, I've said the same thing at least three times that Darwinism isn't religion.

There's also no such thing as a "creationist scientist."

You are toying with me. You understand what I mean.

I understand the differences, yet the only people that really use the terms are pseudoscientists of creationist thought. The first person to coin the terms (Iurii Filipchenko) was also the first to state that they were equal as did Theodosius Dobzhansky 10 years later (1937). The mechanisms which cause change in both are the same. Period. No one has demonstrated otherwise.

You will argue about anything. This argument is pointless as I was merely clarifying my statement which you thought was too vague.

There is no such thing as "secular" science. There is no such thing as "creation" science. There is only science. Science is not an entity, but rather a method. Those that don't follow the scientific method are bad scientists. Those that seek to distort or corrupt the scientific method to make it fit their agenda are pseudoscientists.

Again, you are toying with me. You know what I mean. I feel like I'm talking to a four-year-old. You dispute everything. You are chaotic.

I could say the sky is blue. And you would say, "The sky is nothing more than gases and we should label it as a collection of gases that reflect light. Sky is a term used by creationists.

We could accomplish more if you would stop nitpicking and get to the meat of the debate.

I've seen all the arguements of the "mythology" of the separation of church and state. But what I'm speaking of is the Jeffersonian idea and policy that was set in 1802 when he responded to the Danbury Baptist Association.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The interpretation is debatable.

 

[cato]

Most of the signers were Christians with Christian principals which were created through a Christian goggles. So how could the Constitution or the DoI be anything but biased to Christian morals and ethics i.e. birthed from Christian morals and ethics?

you are wrong, the way of christanity is to spread the word, and convert as many people as possible. it was that fact that caused so much trouble in Europe, so they decided to avoid the pitfalls and weaknesses of their religion by keeping it unforced upon people. they had the vision to see where christanity could go if it was integrated into the government. moreover, ethics, morality, and the like, are not based in religion, they may have even thought they were using christen ethics in things like the bill of rights, but in fact they were just using human intuition.

 

[Godless]

Sweet and to the point. Our Founding Fathers were not CHRISTIANS!!.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/morris-founding_fathers.html

http://www.borndigital.com/founders.htm

Three free ref. for ya!.

Godless

 

[Raithere]

God sent that commandment in mercy. In the previous verses, the people had made a golden calf and did all manner of idol worship and audultery. Then Moses "drew a line in the sand" by telling everyone who was with God to come to him. Those that were not for God were slew out of mercy.

You're missing my point. I'm not asking here whether or not it was just to kill these people. What I'm pointing out is that God says, "Don't kill" then turns right around and says "Kill these people". So what is it? Should it be, "Though shalt not kill... except when I want you to"? Is there any structure to this morality beyond "you must do what I want you to"?

With everyone wanting his own way? Good luck, I doubt if you can change ethics for the better, because of natural human instinct.
...
Without objective morality, we are on a roller coaster ride.

We're talking about an ethical system, not people's adherence to one. Do you feel there's no room for improvement at all? How does one distil the Bible into a single 'objective' and static system of ethics in the first place? Can a static system of ethics be maintained in a changing world and culture?

Regarding behavior, it seems to me that people pretty much do whatever they want anyway. However they need to justify it, they will. So I don't see where having a supposedly objective morality changes anything in that regard.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

Why do you assert that making man in such a way that he desires to do only good (we'll leave the term general for now) is incompatible with free will? Man, as he is, has tendencies and desires that conflict with being good. Wouldn't it be possible to make all humans wise, intelligent, honorable, and compassionate? How would that prohibit free will?

I'm really not sure (not God) - what I can say is that there appear to be wise, intelligent, honorable, compassionate... good humans that exist and appear to have free will, thus I doubt it would (prohibit) - I frankly thing all humans possess the potential to be good.

The thing is that it may supress awareness as I'm sure you can see (imagine space being "isotropically" white, you being a part of it and no different except you have "lidless" eyes which collect the light). What would you be aware of? If all humans are the same then we become unaware...

The problem why I view this as necessary with the world in this physical state (only one I can effectively process) is that once there is variation then we become aware - we become aware that, say, "that guy doesn't look like I do", his nose is bigger, he looks like wesmorris [Ohhh noo!].

This, then coupled with the concept of "better" introduces judgments. Why "aspire" to anything if there is no "better"? Why be "human"? Unless God could make us "aspire" and yet not assign the concept of "better"?(?) I cannot see that as being possible.

So it then becomes the issue that we make judgements due to our free will. I aspire to this while you aspire to that. Then it becomes who looks better... who is better... etc... and I'm sure you have reduced it to the fact that the concepts would not exist to us if there is no variance, no opposition - but then we lose our awareness - we aren't human anymore (no free will, only God's Will). I cherish my freedom (or maybe I should say my awareness of it). It can be no other way.

Can you give me a logical argument that demonstrates that God is necessary?

No. I can give you several arguments which point to God being necessary, and I have. If the arguments are based on assumptions, so be it - so are yours. You might find the assumptions unecessary but for some they are.

There's nothing to verify. As far as I'm aware, one cannot make an absolute reduction to basic principles. The only irrefutable I've seen is, "I exist." (leaving "I" somewhat ill defined). Everything else on out is based upon assumptions. The only questions are which ones and how many of them.

Nuance - nothing can be verified - no base assumptions. Then the question stands out; why accept one as opposed to the other? Faith or fate? You have yet to provide an answer other than; "we must assume" which is now painfully, obviously, not an objectively arguable point. I cannot see why if I say "I know God exists" you would want to equate it to an assumption of knowledge - there may be some faculty which makes me know such that I cannot refute it (such as existence). Of course you would never be able to believe me except through faith or you may never believe via your faith in the scientific method of discovery. Another question is; "Why is existence irrefutable?"; Answer "Because I cannot refute it." "Why do I know God exists?" "Because I know." Faith is the term I apply to what holds it all together. The belief without the proof, the ability to believe - to see it such that it cannot be any other way.

Given that we might assume anything at all it seems to me that one should parsimonious with one's assumptions. Assuming only that which is necessary to create a foundation from which one can then deduce other things. Given that basis all other assumptions are superfluous. This is why I find God unnecessary, I do not need God to explain life, ethics, intelligence, or anything else.

As I've acknowledged previously, that's the problem. I see some things as necessary while you do not. I characterise something which is missing (in my eyes). It might seem like "god of the gaps" but if so then everything is. You may consider celestial mechanics and how the outer gas planets were discovered. Based on what we perceived something was missing. I know, I cannot "show" you God (any more than I already have tried), but then that's why God is a personal being, that's all a part of Who God Is.

The error in the fine tuning argument is that it has turned the problem around backwards. It begins with the result and attempt to deduce the probability of the initial state. It's like being surprised that the cake pan is the same shape as the cake. But the shape of the cake is a result of the shape of the pan, not the other way around. Thus order, life, intelligence are a result of the forces and laws of the Universe; the Universe wasn't formed to the requirements of what it has produced.

I concur with your analysis to the point where we then ask what about the cake pan? It's the simple "why". If we take the analogy a bit further we must consider the baker... meaning... purpose... baked the cake cause he likes the smell... cake tastes good... cake is to be eaten... of course he has to put the right ingredients in, right tempterature... etc.

How the cake came about is due to the pan... but why? Because the baker wanted to make a cake. We are in the cake itself... as what(?) crumbs? What more do we need to ask other than why were we baked? We have no business asking where the baker came from, who created the baker... of what relevance is that to cake crumbs? Sure, we are not mere atoms and molecules, we are cake crumbs, we taste good we smell good... I'm happy referencing my existence to that which created me...

Maybe when my creator eats me I'll get a better knowledge of what the hell he's all about; I shall become a part of the cell I wait to be eaten in patience and in faith. (Let's not take the analogy any futher or analyse it too tough - I've particularly had enough of this discussion). Hopeless isn't it?