[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m not saying forelife doesn’t experience love, I’m saying he’s not as atheist as he thinks.
I believe in love, I just don’t believe there is anything supernatural about it.
Saying love is nothing more than a chemical reaction is like saying art is nothing more than paint on a canvas. The human brain has the capacity to construct meaning and purpose out of something ordinary, and none of that requires supernatural intervention. [/quote]
some people can, some can’t. One second you are all about your “science”, next you are extrapolating “meaning” and “purpose” from paint and oil. Science says a painting is just paint and oil. Further your bring up these mystical forces of love and purpose, then quote science as why god can’t exist.
You are being as fictional and unscientific as religious nuts. Science says being in love and eating chocolate are the same thing. Either you accept that science as your gospel or you quit trying to use it to tear down others beliefs.
[quote]pat wrote:
Anyhow, what you are touching on is called cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is based on cause and effect relationships and basically states that cause and effect reduces to an infinite regress unless something outside the causal chain can have a causal effect.[/quote]
Why does the first cause have to be intelligent? What if your first cause is simply a natural phenomenon that indifferently and randomly creates universes?
Also, simply because everything we experience inside the universe has a cause, does not mean that the universe itself requires one. It might be a property of universes to be self-causing. The god you believe in has the property of “does not require an external cause”… maybe the universe has that very same property.
Also, why would “nothing exists” be more likely than “something exists?”
You have a lot of unwarranted assumptions going on.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Would a child be better off if the parents gave it everything it asked for?
I never suggested that your god should grant every prayer. What I did suggest was that unless your god does so at a rate greater than expected by chance alone, not only would it call into question the existence of said god, but there would be no value in worshipping him/her/it.
Flip flopping again. now you are mocking people for worshiping even if god exists.
You don’t do what I ask, I’ve never seen you, maybe you don’t exist.
What are you talking about? My criticisms have always applied to any brand of god, not just your Christian variety. There is no flip flopping, the logic applies to equally to any supernatural claim.
Now how about addressing the actual point?
Are you claiming that your god answers prayers at a rate greater than expected by chance alone or not?[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Unlike the Natural laws (which you suggest are the same as a moral law) we are unable to choose to obey those governing laws. Instead we are forced to obey them. IE we can’t say I am not going to obey the law of gravity today.
With morals on the other hand we have a choice to follow them or to disregard them. Which in that sense renders them totally different from Natural Universal laws.
By universality of moral laws, I wasn’t suggesting that people are forced to follow them. I was suggesting that following them tends to produce predictable positive results, and failing to follow them tends to produce predictable negative results.
Not that I think universality is required for a moral to be “real”, I was just challenging the idea that universality requires the need to believe in a supernatural being.[/quote]
They still could not be laws, because laws have guaranteed predicatble results. Morals don’t guarantee you anything.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Edit: Actually, I’m reading your “good example” with a capital G-ood.
I think you’re reading “a good example of” as “a good example for.”
I was unaware that the mental model most of you had when they hear the words “average human being” was that of a suicide bomber.
[/quote]
No one is average. No one has the same perspective on the world. Life is valued differently by large groups of people around the world. How about if you went and asked all the people around the world if Christians deserved to live? I’m betting that a large part of the world’s population would say they don’t.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
some people can, some can’t. One second you are all about your “science”, next you are extrapolating “meaning” and “purpose” from paint and oil. Science says a painting is just paint and oil. Further your bring up these mystical forces of love and purpose, then quote science as why god can’t exist.
[/quote]
The realm of science is to describe the nature of the objective universe. Science cannot define meaning and morality, nor should it try to do so. It can only provide relevant facts about the way things really are, which can then be used to inform meaning and morality.
If religion were only about morals, that would be fine. Unfortunately, religion crosses the line by trying to define the nature of the objective universe.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Depends on whether it’s an amputee asking for his limb back.
[/quote]
Exactly, I’m sure it is just coincidence that never once has an amputee reported a miraculous restoration of a limb. Surely god could do that if he/she/it wanted to do so?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
some people can, some can’t. One second you are all about your “science”, next you are extrapolating “meaning” and “purpose” from paint and oil. Science says a painting is just paint and oil. Further your bring up these mystical forces of love and purpose, then quote science as why god can’t exist.
The realm of science is to describe the nature of the objective universe. Science cannot define meaning and morality, nor should it try to do so. It can only provide relevant facts about the way things really are, which can then be used to inform meaning and morality.
If religion were only about morals, that would be fine. Unfortunately, religion crosses the line by trying to define the nature of the objective universe.[/quote]
That’s exactly what you are doing talking about the natural forces of love and morality.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pookie wrote:
Depends on whether it’s an amputee asking for his limb back.
Exactly, I’m sure it is just coincidence that never once has an amputee reported a miraculous restoration of a limb. Surely god could do that if he/she/it wanted to do so?[/quote]
You should be demanding to know why god made it happen in the first place.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
They still could not be laws, because laws have guaranteed predicatble results. Morals don’t guarantee you anything.
[/quote]
How is that any different if you say the source is “god” rather than the universe? Do moral laws have guaranteed predictable results in one case but not in the other?
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
They still could not be laws, because laws have guaranteed predicatble results. Morals don’t guarantee you anything.
How is that any different if you say the source is “god” rather than the universe? Do moral laws have guaranteed predictable results in one case but not in the other?[/quote]
So you are agreeing you are being as ignorant in your beliefs as religion?
Edit: and yes, according to most who believe in something higher, there are definite and ultimate consequences for your beliefs.