Zone1 Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust

[buttercup]

That's not what I said. What I said is that I see undeserved intellectual superiority from atheists who think that just because they don't believe in anything more than a material existence, they must be more intelligent than those that don't. What I see is an intellectual dead end for not engaging in working through the origin questions.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:22

 

[buttercup]

Would you like to debate this in the bull ring with me. Because by your logic morals can be anything man says they are and I whole heartedly disagree with that ridiculous belief.

I can tell that many of the atheists here who have chimed in simply haven't given this topic much thought.

The funny thing is, they don't realize that a number of famous atheists who have given this topic a lot of thought understand how problematic and absurd moral subjectivism is....and because of that, some of them have adopted the position that morality is objective. Sam Harris, for example.

The only difference, of course, is that they don't ascribe the basis for that objective morality to God.

Although I give Sam Harris credit for recognizing that morality is not subjective… I have to say, he doesn't present a convincing case for moral objectivism. Why, because the bottom line is that atheism simply does not have a way to account for objective morality. They have no valid basis for it. That's one of the biggest weaknesses of atheism.

 

[presonorek]

There's no other practical option other than forgiveness. Unless of course you are willing to kill them.

You might have a hard time getting evangelical Christians to advocate for a law that forgives criminals.

 

[forkup]

God is hard to define because God is a mystery to us. The closest I can come is to say God is consciousness. God is existence. God is every extant attribute of reality which encompasses every incorporeal attribute of existence. It's significantly better than anything you have come up with.

I think "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I find it superior to attributing the word God to anything that I can't explain.

In fact as far as I can tell. You have broadened the concept God to such an extent I can't make heads or tails out of it anymore.

Is God conscious or not? What does it do? How does it relate to humans? Is it a law? A concept? A theory?

If the thing you're trying to describe is so nebulous that the definition says nothing. It might just be a replacement for the words "I don't know."

 

[forkup]

Would you like to debate this in the bull ring with me. Because by your logic morals can be anything man says they are and I whole heartedly disagree with that ridiculous belief.

I don't think you understand what I did say.

As to your premise . I don't believe morality is subjective. I believe morality has nothing to do with God, or for that matter that it relates to survival as Ding claimed.

It is as I said a human construct

 

[ding]

Is it a house though? That's a nice metaphor but is it a good description of reality? At some point you finish building the house and what you're left with is a structure fit for living in. The law of entropy suggest a different fate for our Universe.

Entropy. One of my favorite subjects. It doesn't matter what the fate of the universe is when it comes to what the purpose of the universe is. That's like you arguing a GM plant wasn't built to build cars because it will eventually start falling apart and need to be torn down.

You're trying to connect facts to separate and irrelevant points. It's true our type of life requires certain conditions. That doesn't mean these conditions were engineered to produce our type of life.

These conditions - and more - absolutely were required for intelligence to arise. But I don't think they were engineered. I believe they were willed into existence. This is a life breeding, intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. The linkage between mind and matter isn't a new concept. It is primarily physicists who have expressed the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind; Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker, Wolfgang Pauli and George Wald, all discussed this subject.

Your sloppy metaphor is actually a point in my favor. You build a factory to produce a certain product. If your factory spends the vast majority of its time not making that product then it's a poorly designed factory. The argument that our Universe is finely tuned for life is refuted by the fact that it actually isn't. You could tune it a lot better than it actually is. You could tune it so life begins earlier or so that space doesn't keep expanding until light can't cross the distance between stars and atoms are eventually torn apart. The argument that all this was created to produce life when it will only produce life for a brief moment in its existence is irrational.

Says the guy who would characterize the universe as a rock producing machine instead of an intelligence producing machine. Refining end products requires great amounts of waste to be generated. It's not the waste that defined what it is, it is the finished product. And in the case of the universe it is intelligence; consciousness.

Logic doesn't take leaps. It procedes step by step. If you can't tell me how you got from one step to the next that isn't logic or rationality, that's guess work.

But I can tell you the steps though...

There have been 5 stages of evolution of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of consciousness.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.

I don't even know where to begin with this convulted mess.

How was it convoluted? How is it a mess? Maybe you can start by actually backing up what you are claiming with logic and reason.

 

[ding]

I can tell that many of the atheists here who have chimed in simply haven't given this topic much thought.

The funny thing is, they don't realize that a number of famous atheists who have given this topic a lot of thought understand how problematic and absurd moral subjectivism is....and because of that, some of them have adopted the position that morality is objective. Sam Harris, for example.

The only difference, of course, is that they don't ascribe the basis for that objective morality to God.

Although I give Sam Harris credit for recognizing that morality is not subjective… I have to say, he doesn't present a convincing case for moral objectivism. Why, because the bottom line is that atheism simply does not have a way to account for objective morality. They have no valid basis for it. That's one of the biggest weaknesses of atheism.

Exactly. They are so dead set against God existing that they will argue absurd positions just because they think it harms their belief that God does not exist. When in reality arguing absurd positions is what harms their position. I don't agree often with Sam Harris, but at least he was intelligent enough to recognize the idiocy of arguing for moral relativity.

 

[ding]

You might have a hard time getting evangelical Christians to advocate for a law that forgives criminals.

But the law does forgive criminals. At least the ones that get released from prison, right?

 

[Curried Goats]

Entropy. One of my favorite subjects. It doesn't matter what the fate of the universe is when it comes to what the purpose of the universe is.

You haven't proven it has a purpose. What you've provided are metaphors that dont really stand to scrutiny. Metaphors aren't rational explanations.

That's like you arguing a GM plant wasn't built to build cars because it will eventually start falling apart and need to be torn down.

Again, this is the problem with arguing in metaphors, it does a poor job defining your argument. Factories breakdown, the Universe could be eternal.

These conditions - and more - absolutely were required for intelligence to arise.

How can you say for certain? We don't know how life itself arose. We don't know it's limitations. We don't even really know how to define it. We have a decent understanding of the limitations of our type of life but not all life. That's why I say, sure, you change some things and you make it impossible for our type of life to come about. That doesn't some other type of life couldn't come about.

But I don't think they were engineered. I believe they were willed into existence. This is a life breeding, intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. The linkage between mind and matter isn't a new concept. It is primarily physicists who have expressed the relationship between mind and matter, and the primacy of mind; Arthur Eddington, Von Weizsacker, Wolfgang Pauli and George Wald, all discussed this subject.

And? Name dropping some people doesn't mean shit. What did they say about it particularly that you think supports your premise above, that we or whatever was willed into existence.

Says the guy who would characterize the universe as a rock producing machine instead of an intelligence producing machine. Refining end products requires great amounts of waste to be generated. It's not the waste that defined what it is, it is the finished product. And in the case of the universe it is intelligence; consciousness.

I don't characterize it as any type of machine, I'm merely addressing your metaphors.

But I can tell you the steps though...

There have been 5 stages of evolution of space and time; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of consciousness.

In his book, "The Phenomenon of Man" Pierre Teilhard de Chardin describes evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity, culminating in a Christ consciousness. He limited his observations to biological evolution but the same observation can be made about all stages of the evolution of space and time. The complexification of matter increased until it naturally and logically made the leap to the next stage. The last and final stage of evolution of space and time is consciousness. So it seems logical that consciousness would also increase in complexity until it to made the leap to the next stage which Chardin describes as Christ consciousness.

1. The universe began as a soup of subatomic particles and radiation and naturally and logically complexified into hydrogen and helium. This is what is called the cosmic stage of the evolution of space and time.
2. Hydrogen and helium then naturally and logically complexified into structures like stars and galaxies. This is what is called the stellar stage of the evolution of space and time.
3. From the life cycle of galaxies and stars all of the other elements and compounds were naturally and logically formed. This is what is called the chemical stage of the evolution of space and time.
4. As chemical evolution naturally and logically complexified the leap to biological life was made. This is what is called the biological stage of the evolution of space and time.
5. As life logically and naturally evolved and complexified the leap to consciousness was made. This is what is called the conscious stage of of the evolution of space and time.

So we can see that each successive stage of the evolution of space and time complexified until it made the leap to the next stage. And it did so naturally and logically. So Chardin's assumption that consciousness will make the leap to a Christ consciousness is logical because it presumes that consciousness will evolve and complexify and make the leap to the next level because every other stage of the evolution of space and time did so too before it.


How was it convoluted? How is it a mess? Maybe you can start by actually backing up what you are claiming with logic and reason.

There's math, observation, and experimentation to prove the steps that came after the big bang that lead to the Universe we see today. The theory of some universal consciousness by comparison is poorly defined. What makes astrophics compelling is that it can look backward and forward in time. It has predictability because it's well defined.

 

[ding]

You haven't proven it has a purpose. What you've provided are metaphors that dont really stand to scrutiny. Metaphors aren't rational explanations.

Again, this is the problem with arguing in metaphors, it does a poor job defining your argument. Factories breakdown, the Universe could be eternal.

How can you say for certain? We don't know how life itself arose. We don't know it's limitations. We don't even really know how to define it. We have a decent understanding of the limitations of our type of life but not all life. That's why I say, sure, you change some things and you make it impossible for our type of life to come about. That doesn't some other type of life couldn't come about.

And? Name dropping some people doesn't mean shit. What did they say about it particularly that you think supports your premise above, that we or whatever was willed into existence.

I don't characterize it as any type of machine, I'm merely addressing your metaphors.

There's math, observation, and experimentation to prove the steps that came after the big bang that lead to the Universe we see today. The theory of some universal consciousness by comparison is poorly defined. What makes astrophics compelling is that it can look backward and forward in time. It has predictability because it's well defined.

I have proven to myself the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence. It's not my responsibility to prove it to you. My obligation was satisfied when I presented my evidence and reasoning.

If you want to believe life and intelligence doesn't have certain requirements for evolving from inanimate matter, that's your mistake to make. My obligation was satisfied when I presented my evidence and reasoning.

 

[Curried Goats]

I have proven to myself the purpose of the universe is to produce intelligence. It's not my responsibility to prove it to you. My obligation was satisfied when I presented my evidence and reasoning.

You didn't present any reasoning. You presented claims supported by metaphors.

If you want to believe life and intelligence doesn't have certain requirements for evolving from inanimate matter, that's your mistake to make. My obligation was satisfied when I presented my evidence and reasoning.

You can't even define life let alone know its requirements.

 

[ding]

You didn't present any reasoning. You presented claims supported by metaphors.

You can't even define life let alone know its requirements.

Sure I did. I'll let the record stand for itself.

 

[Curried Goats]

Sure I did. I'll let the record stand for itself.

That's fine by me.

 

[alang1216]

I have. You dismissed it all.

Got anything better?

 

[alang1216]

First of all space and time are not infinite. Secondly you know what something is by how it ends. In this case, the universe is an intelligence creating machine. Which that potential existed before space and time were created.

Does space or time end? News to me if you answer "Yes". If space and time are infinite, or nearly so, billions of light years and billions of year is a very long time, EVERYTHING will be created. I see nothing special, from the universe's point of view, about intelligence.

 

[presonorek]

But the law does forgive criminals. At least the ones that get released from prison, right?

That isn't a Christian nation. If you don't forgive them in 1997, punish them for 27 years then forgive them later in 2024 that isn't forgiveness at all. That is giving someone a just punishment that they deserve. Forgiveness would allow criminals to commit crimes in mass and then demand forgiveness, rinse, lather, and repeat. Justice isn't forgiveness at all.

 

[ding]

That isn't a Christian nation. If you don't forgive them in 1997, punish them for 27 years then forgive them later in 2024 that isn't forgiveness at all. That is giving someone a just punishment that they deserve. Forgiveness would allow criminals to commit crimes in mass and then demand forgiveness, rinse, lather, and repeat. Justice isn't forgiveness at all.

Isn't penitence and penance a part of forgiveness?

 

[ding]

I think "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I find it superior to attributing the word God to anything that I can't explain.

In fact as far as I can tell. You have broadened the concept God to such an extent I can't make heads or tails out of it anymore.

Is God conscious or not? What does it do? How does it relate to humans? Is it a law? A concept? A theory?

If the thing you're trying to describe is so nebulous that the definition says nothing. It might just be a replacement for the words "I don't know."

If you can't force yourself to have a reasonable perception of God (i.e. one that views God in the best possible light) then you have already poisoned the well so to speak and your conclusions shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[ding]

I don't think you understand what I did say.

Ah, you were right. I did not.

 

[ding]

Got anything better?

Nothing you haven't already heard. So you should be able to understand me now as that is your reason for being here, right? To understand why people who are intellectually inferior to you believe as they do.