Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Rikurzhen]

My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.

Not so fast with this Ghost in the Machine business:

“Utilitarian moral judgments are those that save a bigger number of people even if it means an innocent person might be harmed in the process,” explains Marsh, the first author of the study published today in the online journal PLoS ONE.

Marsh and her team found that people with a long allele of a particular gene (a serotonin transporter) rated unintentionally harming someone as more acceptable than did people with short allele carriers of the same gene.

Study participants who carry the short allele version of the gene were reluctant to endorse actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual.
​

Your mind, from which morals spring, is grounded by the constraints of biology. The world you know is constrained by biology.

Then if it's all biological that is substantial evidence that a supernatural being's intervention is wholly unnecessary.

The morality you create is constrained by the biological machine in your head.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Neither M. D. can prove positively that God exists, nor Pratchettfan can prove that God does not exist. They cannot provide the factual evidence. Keep asking them.

With no evidence for the existence of God, then the lack of proof of the non-existence of God simply puts the idea of God into the same category of every other possible being or thing that we have no evidence of existing.

God then becomes the equivalent of Big Foot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.

Not so fast with this Ghost in the Machine business:

“Utilitarian moral judgments are those that save a bigger number of people even if it means an innocent person might be harmed in the process,” explains Marsh, the first author of the study published today in the online journal PLoS ONE.

Marsh and her team found that people with a long allele of a particular gene (a serotonin transporter) rated unintentionally harming someone as more acceptable than did people with short allele carriers of the same gene.

Study participants who carry the short allele version of the gene were reluctant to endorse actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual.
​

Your mind, from which morals spring, is grounded by the constraints of biology. The world you know is constrained by biology.

Then if it's all biological that is substantial evidence that a supernatural being's intervention is wholly unnecessary.

The morality you create is constrained by the biological machine in your head.

That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective, in fact you may be reinforcing my position. The Rawlings guy claims there is objective absolute morality.

 

[sealybobo]

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Well, it would take a book to explain to you in detail why your attempt to overthrow the teleological argument is so . . . unnecessarily convoluted, that is, elaborately complex. While your second paragraph succinctly summarizes the complex, albeit, redundantly obtuse objections raised by critics in the past, theists have already swept all that noise away, and your allusion to the God in the gaps fallacy is not relevant to the ultimate thrust of the teleological argument in spite of what the Christian naturalist Henry Drummond mistakenly imagined as he foolishly lent credence to the atheist's erroneous criticisms, which have been subsequently quashed.

Hence, we need not bother with the dated misapprehensions of your second paragraph in any detail, as the debate has moved on to—or is it back to?—what the teleological argument is ultimately all about: the fact that our universe is finely tuned for sapient life. The argument's concern with the cosmos' finely arranged complexity is the subordinate concomitant, not the argument's culmination. Your critique of the argument on the basis of its allegation of a finely arranged complexity, without grasping/addressing the ultimate point, is the non sequitur here. You're nearly two-hundred years behind the same eight ball as was Drummond.

Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.

Hence, unlike the absolute logical proofs of justification—the Cosmological and transcendental arguments, and the argument from the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin, which unambiguously settle on a transcendent Sentience—the teleological argument is arguably, at first blush, a conditional/propositional proof regarding the ultimate origin for the existence of sapient life on Earth. But when its ultimate thrust is finally apprehended, after the cobwebs of misapprehension are cleared away, especially in the context of the absolute logical proofs serving as the foundation: it's implications are powerfully relevant.

Still not convinced as to why that is so?

What's wrong with your suggestion, sealybobo, regarding the undeniable potentiality of a non-transcendent extraterrestrial intelligence being responsible for the existence of sapient life on Earth? Why does it fail to undermine the ultimate thrust of the teleological argument?

Answer: Because the existence of such an extraterrestrial intelligence would be no less contingent to the origin of the very same singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions. The initial appearance of sapient life, whether it occurred here on Earth or somewhere else in the universe, doesn't undermine the teleological argument's transcendent implications after all.

Don't feel too bad about this though, as we methodological theists have simply been doing the logic of deep apologetics longer than theistic naturalists and atheists. . . .

I wish that you would rather opt to apprehend the reasons why God must be, but if you must go on conflating agency with the physical laws of the cosmos, I strongly suggest that you lose the passé counter-apologetics of the Nineteenth-Century and adopt the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe is fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable precursors of life: namely, the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias.

Mind you, this still doesn't in any way undermine the construct of a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Sentience of ultimate origin, or for that matter, the transcendent implications of the teleological argument, as, no doubt, most of the aforementioned cosmologists and physicists imagine. Illusion. On the contrary, if true, if subject to scientific falsification, a questioned yet to be answered, it would underscore the construct of God as a Being of unlimited power and genius, though in the end, for our purposes here, it would merely mean that some universes would not be contemplated . . . at least not by any indigenous residents.

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

 

[Rikurzhen]

That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective, in fact you may be reinforcing my position. The Rawlings guy claims there is objective absolute morality.

To go all Clintonian on you, that depends on how we define subjective. I took you to mean that you could create a morality out of whole cloth. There is evidence that this is not so, your biology limits and guides your thinking.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

 

[JakeStarkey]

M. D. believes one can create absolute morality and absolute deity out of nothing.

Why not? God created our existence out of nothing, or so the story goes.

One the other hand, no one can disprove that God exists.

 

[sealybobo]

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Non of that changes the fact that, logically, it is a valid argument.

What makes it a valid argument? That is having a sound basis in logic or fact? If your argument did that science wouldn't argue with you.

The rules of logic which state that, as long as the truth of the premises, which is automatically assumed, entails the truth of the conclusion, the argument is valid. Since the premises of the teleological argument lead to the conclusion that the universe was made, the argument is valid, even if you can prove that the premises are false. This is why I always mock idiots, like you, that assume that logic is applicable to the universe.

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid. Under such conditions it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.

An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid".

An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Validity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Any other stupid questions?

By the way, the rest of your post is irrelevant to the point I made that the argument is actually valid.

Are you saying something must have made the universe? Then what made the thing that made the universe? You can't have it both ways. If something must have made us, something must have made what made us. And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god. Who are god's parents?

 

[Foxfyre]

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

 

[sealybobo]

M. D. believes one can create absolute morality and absolute deity out of nothing.

Why not? :Lol: God created our existence out of nothing, or so the story goes.

One the other hand, no one can disprove that God exists.

Definition of Belief says: Belief is a state of the mind in which a subject roughly regards a thing to be true.

Roughly?

traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief". The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

You guys have no evidence a virgin gave birth after being impregnated by god.

A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory or any of the organized religions does not know that the Earth is flat or that Jesus did miracles.

The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition). So, like other propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind, whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial.

Us atheists explain in great detail why your god is all in your minds but you guys just can't seem to get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We don't have to prove God exists for our satisfaction to be met

You can't prove that God does not exist, and that is your issue, not that of the believer.

 

[PratchettFan]

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

Just a couple of points here. Despite cataclysmic events, this particular planet is certainly not hostile to life. The place has been teeming with life for quite some time.

There is also a basic flaw in an argument that a universe being hostile to life means it is not designed. That presupposes the intent of the designer. Life may very well be a byproduct the designer considers an annoyance, like a house with termites.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

No, you haven't. You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question. I do question them.
.

That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it. It's when people make arg

Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?

I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​

It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective, in fact you may be reinforcing my position. The Rawlings guy claims there is objective absolute morality.

To go all Clintonian on you, that depends on how we define subjective. I took you to mean that you could create a morality out of whole cloth. There is evidence that this is not so, your biology limits and guides your thinking.

Human sacrifice was a part of the religion of many cultures at one time, which effectively made it a part of their moral code.

One might argue, on the other hand, that human sacrifice is absolutely immoral.

 

[Rikurzhen]

That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective, in fact you may be reinforcing my position. The Rawlings guy claims there is objective absolute morality.

To go all Clintonian on you, that depends on how we define subjective. I took you to mean that you could create a morality out of whole cloth. There is evidence that this is not so, your biology limits and guides your thinking.

Human sacrifice was a part of the religion of many cultures at one time, which effectively made it a part of their moral code.

One might argue, on the other hand, that human sacrifice is absolutely immoral.

And that continues today with the practice of abortion. Right? A lot of why some think it's OK and others don't could well be attributed to genetics.

 

[Foxfyre]

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

Just a couple of points here. Despite cataclysmic events, this particular planet is certainly not hostile to life. The place has been teeming with life for quite some time.

There is also a basic flaw in an argument that a universe being hostile to life means it is not designed. That presupposes the intent of the designer. Life may very well be a byproduct the designer considers an annoyance, like a house with termites.

True but this planet is not much more than a grain of sand compared to all of the universe. Again whom among us wise to enough to know what is out there beyond our feeble ability to explore or investigate? It is as naïve to believe that we have all the science we will ever have or know as it is to believe that scientists 100 or 200 hundred years ago knew and understand more than a small fraction of what we know now.

Of course a universe hostile to life could be as much by design as one teeming with life put here with a purpose. And both could be by happenstance.

The anti-scientist type shrugs and says there is no way to know and lacks the curiosity or intellect to even wonder. He/she might even make snarky, unkind, or rude comments to those who do wonder.

IMO the science religionist looks at the most popular theories/conclusions and says that is the way it is and nobody with a brain would even challenge it.

And some of us do observe the complexities, the symmetry, the unanswered questions and reason that an intelligence capable of designing the universe we live in could also be that spark of wonder and curiosity and ability to comprehend that intelligence.

 

[sealybobo]

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.

 

[Foxfyre]

Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand. Are you a christian? Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong? Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin? The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years. Do you believe that?

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God. God = not-God is logically untenable.​

Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The universe is fine-tuned for life.
The Fine-Tuning Argument

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.” – Victor Stenger

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life. We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things. We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument. (An argument I happen to subscribe to.) The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design. Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.

So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.

I am a probablist. There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know. But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then list the reasons you think I think.

No.