Five proofs for God
Offline (1) It is impossible for a finite being to be the net effect of an infinite regress of prior causes and effects, as that would be the equivalent of saying that I could possibly give you a dollar after I flick the light switch an infinite amount of times, where in fact you would never get to the dollar if that were the case. Therefore, it is necessary that there be one being that is infinite and uncreated. That being we call "God".
(2) Logical absolutes are concepts which require a mind to account for them. These are the law of identity, the law of excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction. These concepts are transcendent, in that they are a priori and cannot be falsified empirically insofar that if you were to travel a million miles one way and a million miles the other way, they would still hold true. These laws are the grounds for understanding, language, and any other forms of logic in the fields of philosophy or quantum physics (including trivalent logic, which falsely proposes that the law of excluded middle is disproved). Logical absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds, because human minds are different and what one person believes is logical may not be what someone else believes is logical and it is quite clear that you could conceive of possible worlds where no human beings exist and the laws of logic would still apply. Yet you would not be able to escape the fact that the laws of logic require a mind (because truth and concepts exist in a mind) and could not avoid the presupposition that there is a mind. And if you have only two possibilities to account for something and the other is falsified, then the other is validated by default. Therefore, since logical absolutes cannot be accounted for if God does not exist, then clearly God does exist as the logical absolutes are concepts grounded on a divine intellect.
(3) Moral absolutes are also transcendent and require a mind to account for them. Natural scientists cannot look under rocks and find moral absolutes. And yet we assume that there is a framework of right and wrong in humanity. Moral absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds for the same reason that logical absolutes cannot be dependent on human minds: Human minds are different and what I think is moral may not be what you believe is moral. And you would have no basis for falsifying my morality. Morals are ends in themselves and if they are for any utilitarian reasons, then they have no moral worth and true morality does not exist. For if morality is dictated by utility, then something which is immoral at one time period could be immoral at another time period. Moreover, morality would be contingent rather than necessary and transcendent. Therefore, if God does not exist, then everything would be permitted. Yet I would grant that no sane person could possibly believe that everything is permitted. Therefore, the existence of morality proves that there must be an infinite mind through which the moral concepts are.
(4) It is well documented by historians that Jesus Christ was a real human being. His existence is confirmed in the writings of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Talmud, Lucian of Samosota, Mera Bar-Serapion.. and most importantly, Matthew, John, and Luke. Moreover, it is well documented that there were MANY eye witnesses who claim to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and all of these people were willing to suffer prolonged torture and death for what they knew they had witnessed. People will not die for what they know is not true, but they will die for what they believe to be true. These people knew what they saw. That is enough to convince me that the resurrection really happened. The Christian martyrs either saw Christ after his death or they did not. If they did not, then why would they be willing to die for a lie? Could they all have been mentally ill? We are talking about THOUSANDS of people here. This was enough to convince PAUL, who was a violent persecutor of the Church.
(5) In "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking points out that the universe has to be EXACTLY how it is and if it is even an infinitesimal amount different, then we would have no universe. The mass of the proton, the mass of the electron, gravitation force, etc. has to maintain the EXACT values that it does in order for the universe to be what it is. The universe is clearly finely tuned. If there is no divine intellect, then the universe would be the result of natural devices which are completely void of any intent, since intent only exists in minds. To believe this is absurd. That would be like assuming that winds could write "Hello, how are you?" in the sand on the beach.
- Login to post comments
We've discussed this a million times and it still is completely illogical.
You don't understand that these "laws" are actually our perceptions of reality and that, without them, reality would go on as usual, just without our perception of it.
I stopped reading this paragraph right here.
Cite your sources, please, because as far as I know, there are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus.
You're right: If things were different, they would be different. But they're not, so they're not. That's all you're saying.
Also, Citation + this argument fails for appeal to authority.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
That is not a rebuttal.
In other words, you believe that logical absolutes are a posteriori in that we determine they are true after we've observed them to be true and that they have their basis in the external world, which cannot be the case since they provide the grounds for understanding the external world to begin with. Without them, we could not even perceive truth in the external world. And yes, without human minds, I would agree that reality would go on as usual. But concepts are OF THE MIND and in order for them to exist, there must be a mind.
That is not a rebuttal.
The key thing is what you've just said, "as far as I know", which is to say, that you do not know at all. Josephus, Pliny the Younger, and the others I've mentioned ARE my sources.
Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities 18:3.
Africanus mentions Jesus in Extant Writings, 18.
Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus in Letters 10:96.
Talmud confirms the crucifixion in Sanhedrin 43a.
There are also numerous Gnostic writings. And Matthew, John, and Luke are contemporaries of Jesus. As far as secular evidence goes, we have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Socrates and Alexander the Great.
Thank for you for the tautology.
No, I am saying that there is absolutely no way that the universe, which has to be exactly as it is in order to be, could come to be through random natural processes without an intellect. In other words, there could NOT have been a universe with the values set at 1.222223 because the values have to be 1.222222 precisely or we have NO UNIVERSE.
That does not even make sense.
Hahahahaha! Thanks for this, I needed the laugh!
I know, but I am so tired of that argument that I don't want to dignify it with a response.
Are you trying to prove that humans have minds?
Who cares? The whole topic is ridiculous.
Are you saying that whatever you know, it isn't "as far as you know"? Do you have a separate entity in your mind telling you things that you don't know?
Lol.
I'm not familiar with all of these documents, but I do know that Matthew, John, and Luke are all after the death of Jesus and also are midrash. And Pliny was born in 69 AD.
Even if this were true, it doesn't mean anything.
I meant, cite where Hawking said that, and that since you used Hawking's name instead of relevant statistics, that your argument was an argument from authority.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
Then you cannot tell me that I am wrong.
Uhh, no.
I care. If you don't care, then why are you replying to my post?
I'm saying that you do not know.
That is not a rebuttal.
Actually, Pliny the Younger was born in 61 AD but thanks for playing.
And if you are not familiar with any of these documents, then how can you tell me that I'm wrong?
And Matthew, John, and Luke existed at the same time as Jesus.
I just told you what it means.
I did cite where he said that. It's in "A Brief History of Time". And actually, an argument from authority is where you argue that a statement is true because A says it is true. I never did that.
Have you ever even taken a philosophy class?
I'm a little confused here, I think I might need a little more coffee but are you drawing a comparison in this scenario to God and the Dollar? Is that some kind of ironic euphemism and what is printing this so called dollar, it must be one heck of a printer?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
It is impossible for anything to come after an infinite progression because an infinite progression has no end and therefore there cannot be an after to it. That was the point of the dollar example.
As far as I am aware all these people where born after jesus had died. All they proves is christianity was around back then not that jesus existed.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Once again, there is that phrase "as far as I am aware". Why do the standards of legitimate history get raised when we talk about Jesus? The evidence we have is overwhelming compared to that of other ancient historical figures.
And no.. Matthew, John, and Luke were not born after Jesus died. And actually, Josephus was thought to be born between 30 AD and 36 AD, which means that he may very well have lived at the same time as Jesus though it would be a moot point because Josephus would have been a small child unaware of the events going on. Still, I think we would give a little more leeway to any other historical figure in that respect, yet atheists do not want to believe that Jesus was real.
You are assuming that the light switch is a "being" insted of reality which is an uncognative "process". Secondly you also falsely assume that evolution jumps from a single cell to a complex animal. There are intermediate stages. AND evolution does not address the origins of the universe, it merely describes how biological life slowly built up over long periods of time.
Thirdly, even if I was to buy this garbage, which I dont, you'd have to atribute distructive complex things like Anthrax, AIDS, and cancer to such a being as well.
What you would have us believe in place of REAL science, is that a magical being is capable of manipulating all the neurons in all the humans brains and at the same time manipulate every atom in the universe all at once.
I have a more simplistic alturnitive. People like the false placebo of having a super hero in the sky, so they make up stories to make themselves feel good.
But, beings with no bodies or brains don't exist, sorry to burst your bublle. And beings with no penises or body, do not knock up girls. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The flicking of the light switch constitutes a sequence of events, and in this example, an infinite amount of events. In the hypothetical, it would be impossible for any event to follow the sequence because the sequence, being infinite, would never end. This isn't about evolution. This is about causality and is based on the self-evident principle that no being can create itself.
Now you are talking about something different. I'll debate you on the problem of evil if you'd like.
Zeno's paradox is easily solved by calculus.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
So you believe that because we are able to take the word "infinite", represent it by a variable (as if it is a real number, which it is not), and disposition it in an equality.... that it proves that an infinite regression of cause and effect (in a spatio-temporal world, no less) is possible?
Come on, you can do better than that.
You indicated infinite regression initially, not progression. Which direction are your assertions going towards the beginning or the end?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
The important thing to remember is that nothing can come after an infinite sequence of events. That is true whether you have an infinite progression with an actual starting point or if you have an infinite regression, which implies that the sequence still goes on. In my hypothetical, it was a progression because it had a starting point. Now take that one step further into reality. How do you arrive at a starting point without invoking an uncreated being? You can't.
Cut the crap. You have a GOD YOU believe in. Most of the time when we run into this argument they are apologists for Christianity, which you seem to be.
SPARE US YOUR SCI FI CRAP, that has been thoroghly debunked.
Go find some godsperm and replicate a dead human body surviving rigor mortis, get it peer reviewed by the medical community, then you will have something.
"God did it" is bullshit.
Your god is as real as Harry Potter and Peter Pan, if others here want to entertain your "pay no attention to the myth behind the curtain" distraction, be my guest.
I am not fooled.
Your book of myth treats the sun and moon as different sources of light, creates plants BEFORE the process of photosynthesis, and magically a fully grown adult "poof" pops out of dirt.
Do not talk to us about science when you buy the bullshit in the bible.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You are such a whiner.
I have read Josephus was born later than that but it is irrelevant because as you say he would of been a young boy. And about the phrase "as far as I am aware" all infomation is as far as people are aware. "as far as you are aware" Jesus existed. Contary to what you think I do think Jesus existed, I do not think he was the son of a god and performed miricales. With Historical figures we tend to assume they existed until proven otherwise but that does not mean we can assume they did miricales.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
No not evil, diseases do not have intent people can be evil by spreading diseases on purpose but the disease by it's self is not evil. Gods is the creator of AIDs if you believe in god.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
So you are stating that nothing can come after an infinite sequence of events. If you assume a regressive perspective the rule would still apply, correct? Nothing could come at the beginning of these events. However you are asserting that there is hypotheticaly a starting point that does not follow your first rule? and that this starting point is God?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
Ok, I am a whinner and you still don't have any godsperm nor can you replicate dead human flesh surviving rigor mortis.
Good luck with finding that stuff, how about we meet a week from never and see what you have then.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I would argue that there is no infinite regress, as the idea is incoherent. God is the first cause.
Don't you need some evidance of that? You seem to be saying because I don't think it could be 'this' it must be 'that'. And you can't say the bible well you can but it would be stupid. The origns of species isn't the proof for evolution it is just where the idea came from (I think). Similarly with the bible. You can say it is impossible for the universe to come into existance by its self but that doesn't mean it was a god that did it.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
You see the problem?
Proof#1 is not doing that. It is making an assertion, based upon a hypothesis that only leaves questions not answers. At which point you would need to argue against your own defining statement to justify it.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
The evidence is the first argument that I gave.
And I did not specifically say that the universe couldn't have come into existence by itself. The universe is not even a thing in itself. It is the sum of many different things. In fact, a fundamental philosophical question that I never see asked among the scientific community is this: What is it that makes the universe what it is? What is the essence of the universe?
In other words, if I were to go up to you and ask you, "Where is the universe?", how would you respond? You could show me your house, your pets, your car, the trees in your yard and so on. My response would be, "Okay, you've shown me your pets, your car, the trees, and everything else you could have possibly shown me. But where is the universe?" And you could in fact take me up in a rocket ship and point out the various planets and stars and galaxies. But once again, where is the universe? If the universe is the sum total of everything that physically exists, then does the universe stop existing when something changes? If matter is neither created nor destroyed, then do we have this generic "stuff" that is part of everything? Is there some underlying material that is of no particular sort of material but rather just genetic "matter" within me that is infinite and unchanging? If so, can you point it out to me? Where is it on my body?
I even reference the universe in my 5th argument, but is it really a thing that adheres to certain values? Or perhaps I should just throw out the term altogether and just say that what we experience today as outside of us would not exist if the values were even slightly different. There would be no planet Earth, no stars, no sun, etc.
You are assuming there is such a thing as a moral absolute, when history and logic would firmly disagree with that concept. Look at how many things even in the last 100 years have changed from socially unacceptable to accepted, or accepted to unacceptable. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it "wrong" or "evil" or "bad", it just means you disagree with it. You might share opinions with others, but that still doesn't make it a "good" or "bad", "holy" or "evil", or whatever you want to call it.
It is impossible to lay judgement and try and divide the world into two sides, and then expect it to mesh with other people's personal values.
To elaborate: You do not like stealing to be okay within your society, out of enlightened self interest. (That while you can steal from others, everyone else can from you.) The other people in your society get together and say, hey. This stealing thing, lets agree not to do it. You all agree, and then someone breaks it a few weeks later, stealing a goat. You have to collectively punish that person then, to help ensure that your agreement stays valid...because without anything enforcing it, it may have well not existed at all. Then a negative stigma will be attached to stealing within that society, and people will begin to look upon the act unfavorably.
Now say, you are in one society on a hill, with a valley between you and another society on another hill. There are only enough resources in the valley for one society. Both societies go to war and begin to kill each other, but since they are not part of your social group killing the other one is basic for survival of your society. Out of enlightened self interest, it is not viewed as a bad thing to kill your enemy society, even though they are in reality no different from you.
Basically, any society protects itself and tries to grow because of the human desire for security. From one culture to another, what they view as "bad" is usually what the majority thinks will harm their security. In a cannibalistic tribe in Africa, it may be considered a good thing to kill another tribesman and eat them. If they believe it makes them stronger, eliminates competition for their resources, and provides a resource in itself, then to them it is good.
So you can see that morals and values are not absolute, they are subjective to the individual making judgements on the world around them.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
This boils down to a God of the gaps discussion? We have never found a God in lightning bolts, mountains, fire, rivers, clouds, etc. The Gods pile up, religion convert to myths, and the evidence that such beings exist in between the gaps disipates. I have to say based upon this history my opinion favors towards disbelief.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
With your where is the universe thing, it is simpily put as space (not like as in outer space but simply space as in somthing you put things in) now I haven't done any research on this or really thought about it so I may be way off beat. As I understand it the unverse is space. It holds things so without a overly advanced space ship I couldn't show you all of it. The universe is not the planets etc but they are in the space of the universe. With out the planets yes there would still be space as aposed to no space not to be confused with a full space. So from what I understand (whitch may be wrong) you are asking me to show you all the space in the universe? Im assuming the universe ends where planets and stars end but there is still space beyond that correct? But there is no container (like a wall space ends here)? So universe is just a word we have given to an amount of space? So it follows if there were no planets etc. the space would still be there it would only be the term universe that would fall away as we wouldn't be here. But the thing we call the universe the space would still be here minus the planets etc. So if I am correct witch I wouldn't know your last piont would be invalid.
But back to the point you say in your first point that is what we call god. But in reality you have not said it is actually a god you have more use 'god' as a place filler. So it is not a proof for god. Hyperthetical situation (be warned mine suck feel free to change space alien froma differant plain of reality to anything that makes more sense) there are space aliens from a diferent plain of reality. It could be the space aleins from a different plain of reality that you are calling god. Except they wouldn't be god. Yes that is stupid 'diferant plain of reality' but by your arguement it has the same probability of being correct. This is why It doesn't prove god. Why can't space aleins from a diferant plain of reality be infinate. This wouldn't make them god they would still be space aliens.
i believe this is your piont something must of started it all, it couldn't of been infinate and you postulate 'god' as a place filler for the origanal cause. I am 100% cool with 'god' as a place filler until we understand what this 'god' is. This doesn't mean that it is god as not a place filler. Btw if I have typed something overly stupid forgive me im falling asleep.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Too many assumptions.
1)There is a infinite regress of prior causes and effects - Who says this is the case and why?
2)An infinite being exists. Where was there a need? How do you know?
3)Why is the asserted infinite being in 2) need to be a god?
Laws and absolutes exist whether or not we take notice of their existence and viability. If other intelligent species exist elsewhere in the Universe these same constraints apply as well and they would not be a per se human mind.
If there are only 2 possibilities to account for something and one is falsified the other may be as well as insufficient information may be available. In other words, there may be a god or not is not the only possibilities. There may be other choices as well. There was a god and there isn't any more, god blew himself up in the big bang. The universe is god, we are all god, everything is god, nothing is god, there were many gods, et al. How do you know for sure there are only 2 choices???
Morals are relevant not absolute.
It was considered moral to sacrifice your child in ancient societies for the good of the tribe as an example.
It is considered moral in some Islamic countries to kill a woman who has been raped.
It is considered moral to cut off the hands of a thief in some societies.
In the surviving copies of Josephus there is a mention of Christ but it is marginal and not understandable for a Jew such as Josephus to have such a view. Please explain why you consider it to be historically the original writing of Josephus and not a later addition by copyists or by even Eusebius as he was the 1st to mention it in 324 CE?
Pliny the Younger's letters only prove he was aware of Christians and are not proof a Jesus Christ existed.
Tacitus' wrote of Christus and Chrestians in regards to Nero and the burning of Rome. Or did he? Could this be more copyist insertion? Who can tell? No early Christian writer mentions Tacitus in regards to Christian persecution or Nero. Nary a word from the like of Eusebius, Augustine, or Tertullian.
Julius Africanus' work no longer exists except brief excepts from Eusebius. Further he lived in late 2nd and early 3rd century CE not at the time of Jesus supposed life.
As to the Sanhedrin 43a this is again dated to late 2nd century CE and is not from the time period.
The 4 Gospels have much contradiction among one another which you might need to explain if you choose to rely on them as historical. Since you don't list Mark as a source I'm puzzled, do you think his account is even less based in reality than those you list?
There is a claim of many witnesses however few are listed in detail other than supposed disciples and followers. There are no notarized documents attesting to any of these events that have survived if any ever existed.
Yet from lack of mention we have both Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberias both from the area and living there supposedly at the time of Jesus writing nothing. Justus was even from Tiberias in Galilee near where Jesus supposedly had his home base wrote nothing in his major works. Was Jesus invisible?
Personally, either way real or not the problem is still was Jesus the messiah that the Jews thought was promised to bring about the kingdom of God on Earth? They didn't think so.
We would have no Universe in the way we understand it, what there would be is something else we don't understand because we are unable to imagine it. This is not support for your position a god fine tuned the Universe, it only establishes it is what it is and it's not what it may have been that we don't understand.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Infinite sequences are handled all the time in Mathematics, it is not incoherent.
As long as each successive element in a progression of elements, events, cause/effect steps, whatever, is lesser in some respect, whether time, space , or other measure, by some finite amount, even just, say, 0.1%, than its predecessor in the sequence, whether working forward or back from the reference point, then the totality of that measure will be finite.
The elementary example is that the sum of an infinite progression of quantities defined by the expression
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... <to infinity> = 2.
As already mentioned, calculus also handles infinite limit processes, completely resolving classic puzzles such as Zeno's paradoxes.
There is only really a problem of sorts with an infinite progression of cause/effect steps if you assume that causes must be at least as great by some measure as their effect. This resolves if you drop that assumption, which is not logically or scientifically required. All we need as an initiating 'cause' is an infinitesimal twitch of the quantum substrate of reality, or something of that nature.
It is the assumption of a God creator which leads to the truly incoherent infinite regress, ie what created God?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
1) I'm arguing that this CANNOT be the case.
2) I explain that in the argument. An infinite regress of causality is impossible and therefore there must be an uncaused cause.
3) At the end of the argument, I conclude that an INFINITE being must exist. Are you saying that "God" is something other than an infinite being?
I agree that they exist whether or not WE take notice of them. But that does not change the following facts: (1) They are conceptual by nature, (2) concepts cannot exist without a mind, (3) logical absolutes are transcendent, which apparently you agree on.
Then there are not two possibilities. But if there ARE two possibilities and one is falsified, then the other is validated. In this case, there are TWO possibilities. There is either God or there is not God.
So you believe that it is okay for Muslims to kill women but not okay for you to do it? If you do not, then you must believe that morals are absolute.
You are not offering me anything objective. Because Josephus was Jewish, he could not have written about Jesus so favorably? Are you aware that the first Christians WERE Jewish? Clearly, ALL Jews did not hate Jesus. Furthermore, Antiquities has numerous translations and some translations have it as "he was believed to be the Christ," so whether or not he was speaking favorable is subject to debate. I need to point out that the authenticity of the Antiquities went UNQUESTIONED for thousands of years before some scholars in the High Middle Ages decided that it did not make sense for a Jew to say those things about Christ and give validity to him. Perhaps that explains why the historical records are relatively scarce, although that could also be explained by the fact that in 70 AD, the Romans destroyed most of Israel and many historical documents were lost as well as many of Christ's eye-witnesses.
So the Christians that were tortured for their beliefs just made the guy up?
"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubborness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished...
They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: that they met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery ...
This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they called deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths." -- Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96
Everything is an "insertion", right?
In other words, you cannot give me an answer but you know that the answer cannot be God.
The point is, we have what we have and there was a much HIGHER probability that it could not have happened. Yet it did. I do not believe there is anyway that what we have was random. It required an intellect.
I never made that claim. It is perfectly coherent to assume that a progression of events begins and continues without ever stopping. We have no problem conceiving of that. What is incoherent is the belief that an event can occur AFTER an infinite sequence of events, which presupposes that an infinite sequence has an ending thus contradicting it being an infinite sequence.
And how do you quantify sentient things in percentages?
Did I ever claim that everything needs a creator?
The length that theists go to to twist logic around never fails to astound me.
You should go read post 26 again if you have any questions regarding your #3. I'll leave the rest to other people unless I get bored later tonight. :3
I think I fairly well explained how moral absolutes do not exist, providing adequate examples. A few posts down after me gave some as well. (pauljohntheskeptic)
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Your argument is actually a non-sequitur. Just because perceptions of right and wrong have changed over time does not mean that morals are relative. That does not follow at all.
The belief that morality is some sort of evolutionary meal ticket is essentially utilitarianism.
Oh, come now.
Why do you not want to believe in God?
Really? You find the notion that morals are relative absurd? I think the only explanation for that kind of thinking is lack of diversity in your environment. You clearly have not been near anyone with differing opinions of the world.
Yes, I am drawing a conclusion based on you stating that morals changing in one society over time, and differing from society to society, and individual to individual, means they are not relative. THAT is absurd.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Which god?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Actually, I live in Massachusetts, which, if not necessarily the most multi-cultural state, is the most liberal state in America.
I have cable TV. I see the practices of different cultures. Yes, there is diversity in the world. There are different belief systems. There are different ideas.
But the truth is not relative. In accordance with the law of excluded middle, there is either true or false. Never both or anything in between.
There is right and wrong. And I have no problem stating that a particular culture or religion or belief system is wrong.
[duplicate post]
God.
You say there is a right and wrong. Who decides what is right and wrong?
Which god is that? I'm sorry, God is not a name, it is a title.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Nobody "decides".
Moral absolutes are grounded on the nature of God.
What moral absolutes? You have not proven the existence of them. The only thing that has been proven is everyone has different morals, from different values. That shows the LACK of absolutes, if anything.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Let me ask you this:
"It is wrong to rape a small child."
Is that statement true or false?
Neither true or false. Things in the world don't have "good" and "bad" attached to them. Do you think a lion believes killing a gazelle is bad?
If raping a small child was the only way to ensure the survival of the species, would the person doing it believe it was bad? Probably not.
It is not good or bad, because the terms are subjective. Neither good or bad exist. You may not like it, but it is true. The world is not black and white.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
He's talking about the real one.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
So God decides.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Violates the law of excluded middle. Cannot be neither true nor false.
I don't believe that the lion has a "belief" at all. The lion is a wild animal who has nothing but instinct, whereas humanity is defined pragmatically by the capacity to act contrary to natural instinct. But if you want to split hairs, I'll revise the statement:
"It is wrong for a rational free human being to rape a child."
True or false?
"It is wrong for a rational free human being to rape a child in the case where the rape would not be to any evolutionary advantage."
True or false?