Had to edit this post, since apparently this is actually a reply to Phil Fernandes, whose Theism vs. Atheism debate with Michael Martin can be found here:
Biblical DefenseHere are just some of the things I thought while reading this. The following is not exhaustive, just the things that occurred to me as I skimmed through.
"There is no known..." I'm not arguing for the model in whose context those words were used, but those four words are more interesting and telling than many people take them to be.
"Simply because scientists cannot presently find the causes does not mean that the causes do not exist. " Yes, exactly. Not just to the point for which you used this sentence, but overall. Not knowing for the time being does not necessitate jumping to something else for which there is no explanation as an explanation.
Maybe I'm just not smart enough to wrap my around it, but I still don't see how you, or anyone, can find it impossible to believe a universe came from nothing, but you can accept a complex consciousness doing it. Or even that this complex "being" has always been and always will be.
I knew Zeno would pop up in there somewhere.
Morals do not have to come from someplace outside of us. No, there is no right and wrong just floating around to be grabbed. Morals come from our ability to feel pain and pleasure, which is why we must be careful when forming them. Yes, morals come from a moral being- man, who is capable of understanding that we can exercise some control over pain and pleasure with the formation of morals. And that, as I said, is reason to be careful that we form them from what we absolutely know to be true outside of our desires and wishes. Wishes are not reality, hence their being wishes.
Where is this perfect, absolute law handed down to us? I would love to see a law in existence that could be called faultless.
You are fuzzy on your alternatives. Removing God as lawgiver does not leave us without objective standard.
Here's some law: We are born with separate and individual minds, right? We must earn the things we want because we are not born with all the things we want, and because they do not fly to us when we wish for them. Each person must act toward his or her individual goals, while leaving others free to do the same (that is the payment for freedom, since you can't get what you haven't paid for in some way). I say the only wrong is to take what isn't yours. That can be logically followed to include all the things I consider evil. For those things it doesn't apply to, I don't consider them evil.
And, yes, you can steal (outright theft or some other manipulation) to get what you want, and we call this wrong because our logic tells us we must offer value for value.
You're fond of the Hitler example, so I'll say this to it. Given my moral code above, Hitler is still evil. He broke my one absolute rule, which is based on life as we know it, and thought to cheat reality by behaving irrationally- both in claiming what was not his and by many of his ideals, one being that the appearance of our birth can be any kind of character preset. So, yes, I can call him wrong without calling on God for any help doing it.
If every part of the universe is dependent, but all needs are filled, wouldn't we call it self-sufficient?
And, wait, He must be all good because He is not limited by evil? How do you know it isn't the other way around? What if He's all evil because he's not limited by good?
I still see, no matter how many times I hear this, absolutely no reason to believe there could be no order without a designer. Is it really more difficult to believe that parts can act upon other parts, forcing a kind of self-correction into a coherent structure?
And I always want to say, as silly as it sounds, to someone who's telling about this magnificent designer: Have you seen a rhinoceros?
I find it important to say "life as we know it", and I don't find it so hard to believe that it could happen by chance. It certainly had enough time. All this shifting possibility given all this time, and it couldn't click together? If you're rolling dice, and your odds of rolling a certain combination are 1 in x, you don't have to wait until your xth roll to see that combination come up. And if there was a creator, why did it take so long? What was He waiting for?
Oh, and this one last question on this that I just must have an answer for- I don't believe there was a creator, but if, somehow, it is true, why is it absolutely the Christian God?
(Not saying everyone thinks it is, just a question I wanted to ask of those who do.)
We're made from a perfectly rational god, but irrationality is so rampant? Why do so many people lean toward living life subjectively (which accounts for Hitlers, by the way)? We are capable of pushing causeless emotion aside and viewing absolutes. I'm not saying we have to be Spartans; I'm saying that someone claiming perception keeps us perpetually clouded as to the nature of reality does not make it so.
You cite Kant, and then proceed as though his were the last word in humans acquiring knowledge. You wrote: "Atheism and agnosticism offer no good reason why we should assume that the gap between reality and appearance can be bridged." But you offer no reason to assume this gap actually exists. A man who stated that nothing can be known objectively is not really sound foundation for factual discussion, and any man stating something does not make that thing fact. His claim states within itself that it believes it is only one man's perception of what cannot be known. If it cannot be known, it is not fact, and so is not a basis upon which to build.
"These truths stand above human minds..." Absolute truths that stand above human minds? Yes, objective reality. And we "discover" them through our logical ability, not through any skewed perception. "Absolute, unchanging truth" is a category designed by human minds for those things tested and found to never change. If they are absolute truths and they exist outside of us, how do we know them if you want to use the argument that there is a gap to be bridged? How do we know who knows them, as in who has this perfect rationality from God and who doesn't?
Also, how would Kant know? If there is a difference between what is and what we see, how would he know it?
"Atheism has no basis for eternal, unchanging truths." Well, I have this whole idea about things happening through logical process, and you have this being who can create and destroy at will. I think you're wrong about which is more reliable.
The eternal truth of a mathematical formula will prove you wrong? Yes, and that fits with the idea of objective standards (which can be shaped into morals) coming from this objective reality (which is understood through our senses and only skewed by choice by those who do not want to accept what they know).
I believe the best explanation for guilt is this- we go against what we know to be true. In many cases, people feel guilty because they accept a fallacy as truth (say, if I felt guilty for arguing with my aunt when she's wrong because some people think her age and relationship to me demand my automatic acquiescence). Whether fact or actual truth, breaking with what we understand as fact causes guilt.
Once you have cleared the difference between what others tell you is true and what you know is true, I assure you there is a lot less guilt hanging around.
What does Freud not being able to explain it have to do with anything? Just as world consensus is often mistaken, so are well-known personalities.
Back to objective moral law- all the parts of our moral law that can be called objective (I wish all parts could be) are the result of observing and understanding the world around us. Is this the method your creator chose to give the law? Why? And, if so, we're back to why believing in him is necessary. Why give this Absolute Law in a way so easily corruptible?
And, actually, law should (even must) be descriptive of the way things are- absolutely are, of course. That is what true law is- a laying down of truths which are undeniable. "Should be" can easily be manipulated to "as someone wants it to be", and it has been.
Life on Earth never fully satisfies? I have to disagree with you there. And I've heard before that I'm only claiming that I can be fully satisfied by this life out of denial. It's not true, but those who want to believe that will continue to, I'm sure. I realize there is nothing I can say to prove otherwise, since we are talking about something that only I can really know about myself.
Why do I need to be concerned with a million years from now? Why is it an ugly thing to really believe that having right now is enough? Was Hitler not punished and was Theresa not rewarded? And, no, those two people don't go on claiming center stage forever, nor does anyone else. The cycle of relevance keeps moving, and that is a good thing.
You say "there are no eternal consequences", but you don't give any reason we should think eternal consequences are important or worthy of desiring. You just assume they are.
That was Russell's opinion. That does not make it fact. His seeing a life without God in a certain way does not make it fact that any life without God is that way.
The god of the Bible, who thinks that riddles about good and evil are fun, who slaughters on a whim, and who shows himself to be a petty, insecure dictator gives us reason to hope? For what?
And here's "no more value than the animals" again. No. However we got it, we possess an amazingly capable consciousness. We can determine our own value. We don't need it assigned to us.
"Sacred" is, again, a human-made designation, and we can call ourselves that just by fact of being able to conceive of the sacred. We are remarkably different from everything else we know. We don't need God to place our value above rocks for us.
Human rights- I am a human being, and my most basic need, after the physical ones, is personal freedom. I believe that is a right everyone is born with. Why? As I said, we are born with individual minds that must make individual choices. And you can't get without giving. As long as people are going to exist together, no one should force another, based on these principles. That gives us pretty fair ground for human rights. Now, if someone wants built-in advantages, my code can't help. That's the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. You have a right to try for it, but you have no right to demand it.
I absolutely can call something evil, and, once again, without God's help. I've stated what I think is wrong, and why. I think murder is evil because it is taking what no one can ever have the rights to- the life of someone else. Rape is evil- similar reason.
To remove evil totally and completely means removing choice. That is the only way to guarantee no one ever commits another evil act. What about rectifying injustices now? Should we just give up trying to change things here, a place we know is real and in need of some reworking, because Jesus will come and take care of it? (It's an earnest question, not a catty one.)
Bertrand Russell, one more time, does not speak for anyone but Bertrand Russell. To make him a spokesperson for all atheists makes no more sense than making you a spokesperson for all Christians.
I am amazed that you can really believe there is no reason without God. Not amazed because I've never heard anyone else say it, just amazed that people can really mean it. Basing morals and ideals upon those things I can see certainly seems like a more reasonable path to me.
Cute little frog and prince story, but do you have an answer to the time thing? To why all animals didn't just appear at once? To why they changed over time? Was God uncertain?
And I usually don't do this, because it can come across as petty, but I'm not sinking below the respect I think is due to any discussion I choose to be part of. I only thought you would want to know (I would want to know)- "whence" means "from where", so you don't say "from whence".
I say it is wrong to crush an innocent child because: 1. Apparently he's innocent. 2. Not taking what does not belong to you includes children. 3. A child is beautiful because it is hope and potential. We don't know who and what that child will be. Or what he or she will make, create, solve, etc.
The first two are really the ones answering the question. The third is just a bonus.
I can offer someone who lived as though life matters this consolation: You did your very best with the time you had. You had to die some time, and now you can do it in peace, knowing that you created your own purpose for your existence.
That's what I'd want someone to say to me, if they had to say anything at all.
And Pascal's little argument there- I always wondered if God would really accept this: "Well, I saw absolutely no reason to believe in you, but I didn't want to be wrong, so I held a kind of loose belief, just in case."
