Can Atheists be Moral?

[saveliberty]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

God cannot be matter and energy and exist outside of space and time. It isn't possible for matter and energy to exist outside of space and time.

God must be something different. Specifically, God must be no thing. Spirit is no thing. In fact, science tells us that space and time were created from nothing. Science is literally telling us no thing (i.e. spirit) created space and time.

You seem to be placing limits on God.

 

[ding]

Going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[G.T.]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

If we re-define what we mean by "God" to fit any idea we'd like, it becomes a meaningless concept. Sure, Tony the Tiger is God if we re-define God as the bringer of frosted flakes.

Except I have not redefined God. We are made in His image, He is omnipresent and all the other terms used in Christianity. Tony has not existed since the beginning of time. Also Frosted Flakes would not get soggy in milk if it were Holy.

Tony was an analogy, not literal.

I'd be interested to hear your take on the attributes of God, according to Christianity - if you care to list them.

 

[ding]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

God cannot be matter and energy and exist outside of space and time. It isn't possible for matter and energy to exist outside of space and time.

God must be something different. Specifically, God must be no thing. Spirit is no thing. In fact, science tells us that space and time were created from nothing. Science is literally telling us no thing (i.e. spirit) created space and time.

You seem to be placing limits on God.

Not at all. There are no limits on God because God is no thing. If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is consciousness without form.

 

[ding]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

God cannot be matter and energy and exist outside of space and time. It isn't possible for matter and energy to exist outside of space and time.

God must be something different. Specifically, God must be no thing. Spirit is no thing. In fact, science tells us that space and time were created from nothing. Science is literally telling us no thing (i.e. spirit) created space and time.

You seem to be placing limits on God.

When it is said that we were created in the image of God, they were talking about beings that know and create. God is literally existence. When asked his name he answered I Am. We can't possibly understand the nature of God because there is no thing that we can compare God to. The closest we can come is a mind without a body or consciousness without form. It totally matches up with science.

 

[saveliberty]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

If we re-define what we mean by "God" to fit any idea we'd like, it becomes a meaningless concept. Sure, Tony the Tiger is God if we re-define God as the bringer of frosted flakes.

Except I have not redefined God. We are made in His image, He is omnipresent and all the other terms used in Christianity. Tony has not existed since the beginning of time. Also Frosted Flakes would not get soggy in milk if it were Holy.

Tony was an analogy, not literal.

I'd be interested to hear your take on the attributes of God, according to Christianity - if you care to list them.

Basically He is our Father. Sets down rules which are meant to guide us in the direction of a good life. Loves us by providing for us, while giving us the independence to feel accomplished and make our own mistakes. Keeps a place for us in His home.

 

[saveliberty]

Not at all. There are no limits on God because God is no thing. If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is consciousness without form.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

 

[ding]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

Space and time did have a beginning. Matter and energy were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation. Once space and time were created, you are correct, matter and energy cannot be destroyed. It can only change form. Science tells us that the atoms in our body are ~14 billion years old. That our atoms were literally present when God created space and time.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[G.T.]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

If we re-define what we mean by "God" to fit any idea we'd like, it becomes a meaningless concept. Sure, Tony the Tiger is God if we re-define God as the bringer of frosted flakes.

Except I have not redefined God. We are made in His image, He is omnipresent and all the other terms used in Christianity. Tony has not existed since the beginning of time. Also Frosted Flakes would not get soggy in milk if it were Holy.

Tony was an analogy, not literal.

I'd be interested to hear your take on the attributes of God, according to Christianity - if you care to list them.

Basically He is our Father. Sets down rules which are meant to guide us in the direction of a good life. Loves us by providing for us, while giving us the independence to feel accomplished and make our own mistakes. Keeps a place for us in His home.

That's respectable to me, in terms of possessing those properties as a faith of what God is.

 

[ding]

Not at all. There are no limits on God because God is no thing. If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is consciousness without form.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

I don't see how it does. If God can create the material world he can be born into the material world.

 

[saveliberty]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

Space and time did have a beginning. Matter and energy were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation. Once space and time were created, you are correct, matter and energy cannot be destroyed. It can only change form. Science tells us that the atoms in our body are ~14 billion years old. That our atoms were literally present when God created space and time.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Hole number two, God says He has existed for eternity, that has no beginning or end.

 

[BreezeWood]

Not at all. There are no limits on God because God is no thing. If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is consciousness without form.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

According to the Trinity ...

both have holes if christianity really does represent a trinity that is theirs ...

 

[saveliberty]

Not at all. There are no limits on God because God is no thing. If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is consciousness without form.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

I don't see how it does. If God can create the material world he can be born into the material world.

You just finished telling us He has no consciousness form. I pointed out He did through Christ.

 

[saveliberty]

Not at all. There are no limits on God because God is no thing. If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is consciousness without form.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

According to the Trinity ...

both have holes if christianity really does represent a trinity that is theirs ...

...and your future is limited if it exists, so think on that for awhile, that way adults can talk.

 

[saveliberty]

Getting way off the topic. In essence, I see Atheists as defining themselves as God of their own morals. Some will have high standards and others not so much. They are likely to fail at reaching their standards as are the rest of us.

 

[BreezeWood]

Not at all. There are no limits on God because God is no thing. If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is consciousness without form.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

According to the Trinity ...

both have holes if christianity really does represent a trinity that is theirs ...

...and your future is limited if it exists, so think on that for awhile, that way adults can talk.

not to mention there is no evidence to indicate jesus ever claimed to be a messiah.

 

[ding]

What if God is all energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That God was released in a Big Bang? That we are in His image because we are energy, matter, spirit and intelligence? That these things can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore eternal?

Space and time did have a beginning. Matter and energy were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation. Once space and time were created, you are correct, matter and energy cannot be destroyed. It can only change form. Science tells us that the atoms in our body are ~14 billion years old. That our atoms were literally present when God created space and time.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Hole number two, God says He has existed for eternity, that has no beginning or end.

Right, our space and time has a beginning. Outside of space and time there is no such thing as time.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. Matter and energy cannot be eternal because matter and energy are not unchanging. Matter and energy will always seek equilibrium. Specifically, thermal equilibrium. Spirit on the other hand has no such constraint.

We literally have an example of a "no thing" which existed before space and time; the laws of nature. The laws of nature are "no thing." They do not exist as matter or energy. They existed before space and time were created.

We also have an example of a "no thing" in our material world which is eternal and unchanging. The final state of fact. For any given thing there is a final state of fact that once it is discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way. In other words, the final state of fact is eternal and unchanging. Another name for the final state of fact is objective truth. Objective truth is reality. Reality is existence. Ergo God is existence.

What I am trying to tell you is that God - who is spirit - created the material world so that beings like us could know and create. Everything I am describing to you is consistent with science, the laws of nature and logic.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

 

[ding]

Getting way off the topic. In essence, I see Atheists as defining themselves as God of their own morals. Some will have high standards and others not so much. They are likely to fail at reaching their standards as are the rest of us.

I disagree. God is pruning us all. Even the ones who do not believe he exists. Here's how...

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.