"True Christianity"

[Acumen]

Humanists, Buddhists and others base their morality on the understanding that all of us are linked by our common humanity and what one of us does affects the others. Some people understand that we really don't need a Big Daddy in the sky waving a carrot and a stick to make us act compassionately.

Okay, without Big Daddy, how do humanists, Buddhists, and others understand the effects of what one does? 

[sferrari17]

You base your claim that morality can evolve without a higher authority on the fact that there is morality and you believe there is no higher authority.  However, you completely circumvent the actual issue;  your arguments completely ignore the possibility that the reason humans have a common morality is that is was ingrained on their souls by that higher authority.

[Acumen]

You base your claim that morality can evolve without a higher authority on the fact that there is morality and you believe there is no higher authority.  However, you completely circumvent the actual issue;  your arguments completely ignore the possibility that the reason humans have a common morality is that is was ingrained on their souls by that higher authority.

What usually happens in a conversation about morality with atheists, or perhaps agnostics is they usually refer to a moral criteria based upon some variation of the harm principle, which states something like "do no harm to others."  The problem with relying on such a principle is that "harm" isn't the easiest concept to define as it often transects the conceptual parameters of pain and suffering all the while presupposing knowledge of human wellbeing without an effort to define human wellbeing as anything more than the absence of suffering. 

Furthermore, the harm principle, if valid, only addresses acts of immorality.  How do we know what is good?  There are a host of human actions that do not cause harm, are we to suppose they are good on such a basis?  What criteria do we use? 

They say they don't need Big Daddy, but they do.

[metis]

All animal and human societies have morals of one type or another, and there's simply no reason to jump to the conclusion that this morality must have been injected by a deity or deities.  Maybe there are deities but maybe there aren't.  This become especially acute when we consider social animals, such as ourselves, simply because there needs to be some rules of cooperation no matter whether these rules are instinctive or learned.  And in order to provide some sort of convincing evidence that this morality is supplied theistically, then we would have to provide convincing evidence first that there is/are a god or gods.  Good luck.  Simply basing one's thoughts on this matter on "belief" and/or "faith" falls well short of being the evidence needed.  This is not to say, however, that the theistic approach is wrong, but merely what evidence is there to conclude that it is right? 

If one cannot provide such convincing evidence, then they are probably just jumping to conclusions.  Obviously, many theists don't like it when we ask for such evidence since they are essentially never able to provide it, so all they tend to do is to attack us for asking such questions.

As I've said many times before, I do not know whether there is a god or gods, and I think there may be, but I'll be the first to admit that I am far from being certain there is.

[jacknky]

"your arguments completely ignore the possibility that the reason humans have a common morality is that is was ingrained on their souls by that higher authority."

Simply because the mind can conceive of something such as a Higheer Authority providing morality doesn't mean it's true.

[metis]

Humanists, Buddhists and others base their morality on the understanding that all of us are linked by our common humanity and what one of us does affects the others. Some people understand that we really don't need a Big Daddy in the sky waving a carrot and a stick to make us act compassionately.

Okay, without Big Daddy, how do humanists, Buddhists, and others understand the effects of what one does? 

Cause and effect-- what we do or don't do has implications.

[metis]

Existance does not provide any evidence whatsoever that a deity must somehow exist.  As most cosmologists and physicists believe, it is hypothetically possible that energy/matter may have always existed in one form or another and, therefore, needs no creator-god.  If that somehow seems illogical, then how does one explain how god or the gods got here?  Sooner or later one has to accept the fact that something always was here in one form or another, and I don't find the belief in an uncreated "Big Daddy" to be more logical than energy/matter always existing.

[jacknky]

"Furthermore, the harm principle, if valid, only addresses acts of immorality.  How do we know what is good?  There are a host of human actions that do not cause harm, are we to suppose they are good on such a basis?  What criteria do we use?"

It seems clear to me that we use the non-theistic reason and experience criteria because it works. Reason and experience are more universal than Holy Books and religions. Theists have the comfort of acting according to their Holy Books but only those who believe in them will understand their actions and even within those religions there is disagreement. But reason and experience are more universal. If one human being helps the other out of compassion both humans will understand that and agree on compassionate action despite their religious differences.

You act as though religious criteria is universal but, of course, it isn't. There is no way to agree on what god wants because what god wants is an unanswerable question. (I realize you'll disagree and that you feel that you know, as do the adherents of all the other religions.) Of course rational people can and will disagree but more common ground can be found when the criteria is this world, not a hypothetical other world.

[metis]

Let's see, if matter/energy has always existed without a beginning then would you consider them supernatural, because surely eternity/infinite is not within the natural realm and can never be? 

There's some who actually think that energy/matter is actually a form of "higher intelligence", which would then make "supernatural" quite "natural".  I simply do not know, however, whether that approach is correct.

 

And, why in the world would it be easier to believe that a supernatural energy/matter is eternal but not a supernatural God?  Since we have the capability (intelligence) to conceive energy, matter, eternity, etc.. don't you think it's kind of backwards to think that something unintelligent (for energy/matter cannot ponder self existence, in it's most basic form) can "create" something that is intelligent (human beings or any animal for that matter) instead of believing that an eternal intelligence created energy/matter?  It's definitely an argument but not a very sensible one, it's more like wishful thinking. 

Because we know with certainty that energy/matter exists, but we do not know with certainty that any deities exist.  Most theists even acknowledge that belief in a god or gods is just that-- belief, and not necessarily a slam-dunk fact.

And what you are suggesting above is that most cosmologists and physicists are "not very sensible" since the vast majority of them are non-theists.  I'm not implying that they are necessarily correct, but it seems to me that they are attempting to look at such matters in quite an objective manner, which is something that theists rarely do since their paradigm is one to accept a particular rubric without objective evidence.

[metis]

To compare the two different rationales of existence that "believing in an eternal God and believing in eternal energy/matter" have the same problem of explaining how they had no beginning is a lack of understanding the eternal "God" hypothesis.

So I lack an understanding of the eternal "God" hypothesis?  I was a theist for over 40 years, but supposedly I don't understand this concept, which would include Aquinas' "Immoveable Mover" theory?  You've got to be kidding.

In your world, you believe that energy/matter which is totally under certain limitations of time and space (unless you concede that if they truly are eternal then they must be supernatural) is eternal.  The problem is that you make your argument about the supernatural within the limitations of the natural world.

"Supernatural" is a term that we may attach to certain events, but to a deity this term would probably create quite a bit of laughter.  After all, they would more likely consider this just to be their nature and the way they make things work.

To a cosmologist, "supernatural" again is something that simply cannot be accepted at face value without some supporting evidence.  I've read about a dozen books written by cosmologists dealing with the big bang, and every single one of them, including those who are at least somewhat theistically inclined, state that there simply is no evidence, including logical evidence, that seemingly indicates that there must have been a theistic causation.

Once the supernatural is accepted as obvious since we exist, then to fathom a supernatural "intelligence/God" that is eternal and outside of time and space is definitely "awesome" but definitely not unreasonable.

Let's say you and I are talking in a room and suddenly a light goes on, and I say "Look, God turned on the light!".  What would you think of, not only what I just said, but myself as well?  Might you not question what maybe I was drinking for lunch or that maybe I "lost it"?  When you assert that there must be a theistic causation to our universe merely because it exists, this is the exact same approach. 

Instead, wouldn't it be far more logical to attempt to find out why the light went on by checking to see if someone maybe turned it on, or maybe power was restored, or maybe there's a short in the line somewhere?  IOW, I would hope we would look for some sort of cause and effect relationship.

When one jumps to the conclusion that simply because there is a universe that exists, so there must be a deity, this rubs against what we hopefully do in our daily lives.  An uncaused cause (a creator-god or gods) violates cause and effect, which we experience all the time. 

But isn't that also true of thinking that matter/energy may have always existed?  No.  The reason is that energy by its nature is constantly changing.  The minute energy were to somehow miraculously stop, it no longer is energy.  Therefore, it needs no causation beyond itself.  The research on the big bang gives some evidence that our entire universe was tied up in a black hole roughly the size of a marble or even smaller, but within that black hole there still was some movement in all liklihood.  Under those conditions, time as we know it becomes very distorted.

Therefore, we have at least some scientific evidence that energy could have existed throughout our past, but we have not one iota of evidence to suggest that a deity caused this to happen.  However, this does fall well short of somehow disproving that there could have been a creator or creators.  Essentailly all the research cosmologists that I have read do not eliminate that possibility. 

[metis]

Again, let's not get ahead of ourselves by moving on to the next logical conclusion of a "God."  Let's just  stick to the objective fact of the supernatural first.

In order to do so, we would have to have evidence that miracles actually have and do occur, but according to the scientific community and not just myself, there's simply no evidence for them.  Are there strange things that occur?  Of course.  Can we explain all events in terms of cause and effect?  Of course not.  But there has not been one event studied by the scientific community, according to them, that was a controlled study whereas it could be verified that a miracle could be the only possible explanation.

This, of course, proves nothing.  I simply don't know if there are any miracles that have occurred.  I used to believe in them, but then I was brought up to believe in them.  Now, I find no reason to do so, but I'm painfully aware of my limitations and, therefore, I do not have the "final answer".  If some are convinced miracles occurred, so be it-- that's their experience or perspective and who am I to state that they could not possibly have occurred.  But, as a scientist, I'm quite a skeptic about such claims unless there's some pretty solid evidence.  It's just my hang-up, I guess.   

[Acumen]

All animal and human societies have morals of one type or another, and there's simply no reason to jump to the conclusion that this morality must have been injected by a deity or deities.

Sure there is.  Some people aren't satisfied with the notion that morality is the invention of the human mind, which is developed and legitimized by majority rule.  Remember, a few hundred years ago, majority rule got us into trouble with immoral economic practices such as slavery.  But then, it wasn't considered immoral to demoralize certain darker skinned savages by treating them like livestock and means of production.

As far as deities are concerned, I think the notion of divine plurality would cause the same problems with a moral system as moral relativism.  The only way that a system of morality can work is if it derives itself from a single perfect source.  Anything less is relativistic and subjective.

Maybe there are deities but maybe there aren't.  This become especially acute when we consider social animals, such as ourselves, simply because there needs to be some rules of cooperation no matter whether these rules are instinctive or learned.  And in order to provide some sort of convincing evidence that this morality is supplied theistically, then we would have to provide convincing evidence first that there is/are a god or gods.

 


I disagree.  I think we can move to a theistic conclusion from the philosophy of ethics and philosophy of religion.  As a synthetic system, it just works better than the non-existence of a Creator.

[SquirleyWurley]

Existence absolutely provides all the evidence needed to know without a doubt that there is a "God," you choose to deny the obvious, that is not a lack of evidence, since 99% of all of mankind has always shown a belief in the divine from that same evidence.  Which "God" is "the" God is tougher to prove, but anyway.

The majority often are wrong.  The vast mobs of humanity thought exorcising demons was a way to handle disease rather than exploring chemistry and bacteriology (Jesus was among such primitives).

Re: a "God"

If you mean by proof the existence of order, functional organisms, life, consciousness, I will grant you that this does demonstrate an amazing primordial/latent potential in REALITY.  If you call this 'God' I will simply retort that this alone is not what people often mean when they speak of a god or gods.

Let's see, if matter/energy has always existed without a beginning then would you consider them supernatural, because surely eternity/infinite is not within the natural realm and can never be?

Perhaps what is called 'supernatural' is simply a mysterious aspect of the realities of matter/energy in some primordial states.

To claim to KNOW it is supernatural or a deity, is arrogant posturing, NOT knowledge.

And, why in the world would it be easier to believe that a supernatural energy/matter is eternal but not a supernatural God?

Everything we experience transforms, changes, interacts, relates.  If such a supernatural 'god' (I suppose you are arguing for a 'being' at this early stage of the argument, even) is a being of some sort, I don't see how you could claim knowledge that it hasn't changed over time.  Sure you can manipulate arguments and deduce things from premises, but you don't have such knowledge.

Since we have the capability (intelligence) to conceive energy, matter, eternity, etc.. don't you think it's kind of backwards to think that something unintelligent (for energy/matter cannot ponder self existence, in it's most basic form) can "create" something that is intelligent (human beings or any animal for that matter)

I think it's projection to suppose it is a question of what is 'created' rather than processes which happen naturally.  But I do agree with you that it makes sense to at least consider what potentials, latencies, primordial qualities may be associated with later manifestations of very complicated order/systems, life, consciousness.

It is wishful thinking to claim that the matter is settled or obvious that the Catholic position, for example, is true.  Which you seem to acknowledge below:

Arguments against specific Gods, such as Jesus, is a much more difficult question to answer, as a Christian

but it's just common sense that there is a supernatural intelligence that started everything that we know to exist, nothing else makes sense.

To you...  Please take personal responsibility for your own interpretation.

And if nothing really makes any sense than neither does denying that there is a God and that God is Jesus.

Sure it does.  If nothing really makes sense, denying ALL positions is sensible.

[Acumen]

The majority often are wrong.  The vast mobs of humanity thought exorcising demons was a way to handle disease rather than exploring chemistry and bacteriology (Jesus was among such primitives).

First, I reject the proposition that any human not versed in the current paradigm of science is primitive.  Not only is such a term erroneously and arrogantly applied, but it's a slap in the face of the world's greatest minds.

Second, exorcising demons was not the treatment for disease.  I don't recall Jesus healing lepers, the cripple, the sick, whithered hands, severed ears, blind eyes, or even raising the dead by casting out demons.  And this tells me that diseases in the bible weren't necessarily linked to demonic forces.  In fact, the vast majority of them had no association with demons.  What you've displayed is a bias toward demon possession as whole, not an evidence-based proposition that Jesus and his ilk were primitive.   

[sferrari17]

Right on, Acumen.  Guess I don't have anything to add.

[metis]

I most succinctly proved without a doubt that the supernatural exists for the very fact that eternity exists, based on the undeniable fact that we exist, this cannot be intelligently debated... You say possibly energy/matter, and that's fine, but you are then admitting that there is a supernatural element to energy/matter since it is eternal and therefore supernatural by definition.

First of all, as far as I'm concerned, you "proved" nothing in regards to the concept that the "supernatural" actually exists, but I tend to think the problem comes in with regards to your use of the words "eternal" and "supernatural".  And, if you somehow "proved" that the supernatural and deities exist, then why is it that even theistically inclined scientists admit that there is simply no objective evidence that somehow establishes that there is a deity or deities?  If the "proof" was as easy as you have stated, they should be the first on board to support you-- but they're not.

"Eternity" and "infinity" are essentially similar terms.  If matter and energy goes back and then forward into infinity, then that's pretty much the same as saying "eternity".  Now, does this somehow give "proof" of the "supernatural"?  No, simply because it may well be "natural" in the sense that the developments may well have followed the basic laws of physics as Einstein theorized.  So, what we might call "supernatural", since we may not understand certain causations, may well be quite "natural".  And, at least mathematically based on what we do know about the big bang, it seems to more likely the case.       

Are we agreed that anything eternal has a supernatural element?

No.  As explained above, all might well be very much compatible with the laws of physics, but notice the word "might".  I simply do not know if that's the case or not.  And if it were somehow "proven" that this is tghe case, why is it that the cosmologists who study such matters don't use the term "supernatural" with the exception of some stating that there hypothetically could be a theistic cause?     

[metis]

As far as deities are concerned, I think the notion of divine plurality would cause the same problems with a moral system as moral relativism.  The only way that a system of morality can work is if it derives itself from a single perfect source.  Anything less is relativistic and subjective.

If one reads or sees any of Jane Goodall's work with chimps, one clearly can see morality with the chimp societies she has studied.  Much the same has been noted with bonobos and gorillas as well.  Now, what religion are they?  The idea that morality can only exist if there's a deity teaching it makes very little sense. 

Now, is it at least hypothetically possible that a deity may have ingrained morality into, not only our species, but others as well?  Yes, imo.  Does that establish that there, therefore, must be a deity?  No. 

Can an atheist have morality that is not "relativistic"?  Why not?  Each of us set our own priorities of what we feel is correct or not even if we're theists (unless you believe in complete predestination that involves no free will whatsoever) because even a theist has to decide which set of religious morality to follow.  For example, some religions practiced human sacrifice, so if you believe that's wrong, then you have rejected that morality and believed in another (I would consider that to be a good move, btw).     

[metis]

One of the objectives one may have in meditation is to take a problem and attempt to get what's involved down to the "bottom line" or the "nitty-gritty", so that's what I'm going to do next.

No matter whether one is a believer in a theistic causation of our universe or a believer that energy/matter always existed in one form or another, they have to logically accept the premise that there was something always in existance going back into infinity.  The next step is to attempt to find out if there's any objective evidence to give at least some limited support to either hypothesis.  

Therefore, is there objective evidence that energy/matter was always in existance?  No.  Is there any objective evidence to indicate that a deity created our universe?  No.  So, at this point, it appears to be a stalemate.

However, there's another step we could take because we also can consider what are the more likely possibilities.  Is there objective evidence to suggest that energy/matter actually exists?  Yes.  Is there any objective evidence to suggest that a deity or deities exist?  The scientific community, which includes some theists, say no.  

Therefore, which is most likely causation of our universe based on our limited evidence?  That energy/matter goes back into infinity has to be considered the leader at this time.  Does this "prove" that this is the correct answer?  No.  

My position has consistantly been that I do not know what the correct answer is, and I consider that to be the best position simply because I do not believe there's enough evidence one way or the other.  This position, of course, pleases neither the theist nor the atheist.  

But over the years, I have not found it a weakness to simply say "I don't know" when I don't know.

[metis]

it is illogical to conclude that something could have came from nothing.  

Who said "something came from nothing"?  I didn't.  Both of us agree that something always had to be in existance.

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"I don't recall Jesus healing lepers, the cripple, the sick, whithered hands, severed ears, blind eyes, or even raising the dead by casting out demons."

"In my name shall they cast out devils..." (Mark 16:17)

"What you've displayed is a bias toward demon possession as whole, not an evidence-based proposition that Jesus and his ilk were primitive."   

Doesn't the Catholic Church itself practice exorcism? (I saw "The Exorcist" so it must be true.)

What "evidence" would you consider enough to "prove" that Jesus was a primitive by our standards? I doubt there is such evidence.