The BREAKING POINT of the rational-responders' argument with Kirk Cameron
Offline One of the considerations of an atheist is that he/she seems to base their belief on the science. And one of the basis of science is that, it is 'revisable' (changeable). This makes their “facts/truths” 'relativistic' too. So even the seemingly scientific, provable and "settled facts" of the Law of conservation of energy or Law of conservation of mass for example, are based on a relativistic concept. In other words what is considered true today may be changed or revised tomorrow. So these so called "proven and settled facts" may change at a future date based on new facts that may be discovered. This BREAKS the rational-responders' final argument that GOD needs a creator, as they were using current science as their basis and the conservation laws as examples. So Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron's statement that GOD doesn't need a creator as He exists OUTSIDE the TIME as He himself CREATED the TIME, still stands.
The REALITY as we see it (eg: our existence, evil, suffering, etc) needs an absolute to measure it by, otherwise what makes evil evil? Who or what defines evil. What one person X sees as evil may not be considered as evil by another person Y. A recent example of this is the Virginia tech incident; the victims(X) vs the killer(Y) where Y simply justified what he did by what X and others did to him. So there needs to be a fixed point of reference, an absolute, other wise evil can't be called evil. It then becomes merely a group of molecules committing another meaningless act on another group of molecules. Such an argument will not stand in the court of law. Would it? That is why an ABSOLUTE is necessary and that absolute is GOD. Who not only created the TIME,SPACE, MATTER and us but set up some absolute laws (scientific as well as moral) that govern everything and serve as the absolute basis for each category.
- Login to post comments
Offline Who cares? What someone believes is true and what is actually true is not necesarrily the same. Truth is truth, not determined by a vote. As Bertrand Russel said "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
I agree with MattShizzel Truth is truth, not determined by a vote. And the logical conclusion of this is that an ABSOLUTE is necessary and this absolute is the GOD as I said in the 2nd pragraph of my original post on the very top.
- Login to post comments
Offline Total non-sequitor. No evidence for a god. In fact, the overwhelming evidence is that the Christian God is flase.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline AiiA wrote:You are the one who defines evil.
In the above statement if you are implying either you/me have the authority to define evil. I'm sure there will be dis-agreements between our definitions, however minute those dis-agreements might be. To explain this consider the following excerpt of an apologetic speech given by Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig. I have summarized it below.
The two questions are:
How can God exist with all the evil in the world?
How can the Christian God (who is all powerful and all good) allow evil in the world?
FIRST QUESTION ADDRESSED:
If you are assuming there is evil, aren’t you assuming there is something good?
If good exists, then aren’t you presupposing a moral law based on which to differentiate good and evil? How do you determine moral law? It can’t be based on feeling. Some people love their neighbors and some people eat their neighbors…both based on feelings. You can’t decide monumental decisions of life based on feeling.
If there is evil, then there is good
If there is good, then there is moral law (on which to differential good and evil)
If there is moral law, then there is a moral law giver
HOWEVER
If there is no moral law giver, then [there] is no moral law
If there is no moral law, then there is no good
If there is no good, then there is no evil
SECOND QUESTION ADDRESSED:
Philosophers say that God could have created 4 different world scenarios:
Create nothing
Create no such things as good and evil (ammoral world)
People would only choose good (a robotic world)
Choose between good and evil
Most would argue the last is best, because it allows for choice and free will and conscious living. More importantly, it is the only world that allows for love.
Love is the greatest of all ethics. Love is only possible when the opposite exists–to reject love and choose something contrary to it (evil). If love is the supreme ethic, this is the world that makes it possible.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yes there is. Humans establish morals...
AiiA, Lets assume Humans establish morals. Which humans are you talking about? You/me or some others if it is the last, could you PS specify who those law givers are?
And lets see where that logically leads to. Ok?
- Login to post comments
Offline Everybody, to a degree
- Login to post comments
Offline AiiA, Lets assume Humans establish morals. Which humans are you talking about? You/me or some others if it is the last, could you PS specify who those law givers are?And lets see where that logically leads to. Ok?
Morals exist because people want them to. Humans are social animals. We depend on others to survive: even hermits and solitary survivalists need supplies and education from other people. Humans have the ability to empathize with others: to treat others' feelings as their own. It probably evolved as a way to deduce and predict the motives and behaviors of others by simulating their thoughts in one's own mind, but in the process of that evolution it evolved the ability to experience the emotions of others. We take on others' emotions as our own, and because we don't like to feel bad, we treat others well, so we will be empathizing with someone who feels good and thus we will feel good with them. The notion of empathy is the base of all moral codes: every culture in history has had some variant of "Treat others as you would like to be treated" or "Don't treat others in a way you wouldn't want to be treated".
By treating others well, we benefit: either the person will be more willing to provide us with necessary goods or services, or the person will respond by treating us well, or any number of benefits. This sort of thing can result in everybody winning.
Of course, some people have different priorities. Some people value less-valuable short-term benefits over more-beneficial long-term ones, or prioritize personal benefit at the expense of others. Such behavior is an unfortunate side effect of the innate drive to satisfy one's own needs. That's where laws come in. Laws are drawn up with the intent of benefitting society as a whole (at least in the best case scenario). Most people can satisfy their desires within the scope of the law, with the idea that social interactions will discourage most bad stuff, but when people do things that can't be discouraged, stricter measures are needed.
Stricter measures work because humans are subject to behavior modification: we associate things with pleasure, we associate things with pain, and we try for the first while avoiding the second. That is how criminal punishments work. Indeed, that's how all punishments work: the social ostracization, embarassment, humiliation, loss of status, or what have you that result when you do something stupid, will influence your behavior to not do stupid things anymore. Humans need society, and so, as a result, usually dislike any feeling that they have lost standing with society, because that means they have lost some of their ability to deal with society in order to get what they need: social interaction, friendship, or anything else.
So, humans are moral because we want to be. Sure, I would get an immediate benefit from stealing food from the supermarket. But as a rational being, I am capable of evaluating the long-term effects of this behavior: not just jail time, criminal prosecution, and loss of my job and apartment, but my friends and family would lose respect for me, and I like having their respect. I would be harming the people I'm stealing from, and because I can empathize with their feelings of loss, I would feel loss as well. I would lose respect for me, as well: I dislike criminals, and I want to like myself, so if I became a criminal I would eventually be counter-acting my own desires. All that because I stole something I didn't need to steal. Why, then, is it in my best interests to steal? On the contrary, it is in my best interests to be as moral as possible.
And that is where human morals come from. Basically. It got a little rambly near the end but I hope you get it.
I'd recommend "The Origins of Virtue" by Matt Ridley, but honestly we both know you'd never read it.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
- Login to post comments
Offline Great! Thank you. for proving my statement that 'TRUTH is absolute' by providing an another example about the earth. Hope this serves as a basis for you to truly study and understand the other claims made by the Bible and find them to be logically TRUE!
Err... I think I demonstrated exactly the opposite. Truth in the scientific sense is often relative as it's dependent on our knowledge. However, this has nothing to do with biblical 'truth' - and your asumption that I haven't 'truly' studied the bible is more than a little patronising - as the bible is supposedly the infallible word of God as revealed to men and is full of more holes than a swiss cheese from a factual point of view.
In other words, it is in no way logically true, nor has any attempt been made to revise its inaccurate claims in light of evidence. As such it cannot be regarded as a 'true' document.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
- Login to post comments
1. Which God?
2. Time is a man-made measurement. God didn't create it.
I may be wrong but I think this is incorrect. I think in contemporary physics time is as real as gravity and matter.
My Artwork
ajay333:
Theories of science may change, but facts remain the same. Like gravity- the fact is we're not floating off into space. After doing tests and experiments we get to know the explanation (theory) for this. If new information comes in, we may get a better understanding of the reasons, but we would still experience gravity.
I would agree morality can change, depending on many factors. But Christians are bound by this too. For example, it's getting harder for them to believe we should be killing gays, and they've done away with killing Sabbath workers altogether.
Welcoem to planet Incorrect Assumption. Population: You.
Or having the sense to admit something is wrong when confronted with new evidence. Science doesn't claim to be infallible.
Step off a high cliff and you may find the theory and practice of gravity fairly consistent. For a short period of time.
Yes, your point is?
By George! I think you're getting it!.
How exactly? Because science has the sense to update itself in light of new information when religion doesn't? In fact I'm not seeing how that's a deal breaker at all.
Sure. Pretty drunkenly though and going down fast, but for them moment it does. Of course, so does the theory that the universe doesn't need a creator at all and he was looking pretty sober last time is saw him.
Yes, we call this 'The Law'.
Who cares? If the law does then person Y is screwed.
By committing murder, an unlawful act worldwide. His personal justification makes no difference to that.
THE. LAW.
No it wouldn't. Fortunately the law is concerned with what individuals, corporations and governments get up to, not their component atoms. Which is just as well or my arse would be up for treason when I farted as the Queen was pasing on her last visit to Edinburgh.
THE. LAW.
Please try to understand before one of us dies.
This is the same guy who approved the genocide of the Midianites, right? I'll stick to secular law as defined by the cultural conventions of a particualr society, thanks!
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
To the Patrician:
Or having the sense to admit something is wrong when confronted with new evidence. Science doesn't claim to be infallible.
...
Yes, your point is?
So Patrician by your own admission science doesn't claim to be infallible and changeable. So if science doesn't admit God is the creator now how can you be SURE that it will not in the future? and If sometime in the future if it DOES admit that GOD is the creator, what will it make the current assumption that God doesn't exist be? Truth or a Lie.
Simply put, according to what you believe, something can be 'false at one point of time' and the same thing be 'true at another point of time'. Isn't this illogical? That is relativism based on time and TRUTH is not relative, it is ABSOLUTE. Think about it..
Time is an illusion. Time is only known through human terms. It really has no relevance elsewhere.
Existence is. (period) It doesn't need a measure. Suffering, isn't necessarily always evil; I've never considered the common cold as being evil. The determination of what is evil is a subjective judgment. There are evil things in the world to be sure, for example suicide bombings which actually should be called suicide killing. This act of evil is commited by people who think it is justified in the name of a god that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of. From this I've actually come to the conclusion that the belief in a god is in itself evil.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Dear, AiiA
In the above statement if you are implying either you/me have the authority to define evil. I'm sure there will be dis-agreements between our definitions, however minute those dis-agreements might be. To explain this consider the following excerpt of an apologetic speech given by Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig. I have summarized it below.
The two questions are:
How can God exist with all the evil in the world?
How can the Christian God (who is all powerful and all good) allow evil in the world?
FIRST QUESTION ADDRESSED:
If you are assuming there is evil, aren’t you assuming there is something good?
If good exists, then aren’t you presupposing a moral law based on which to differentiate good and evil? How do you determine moral law? It can’t be based on feeling. Some people love their neighbors and some people eat their neighbors…both based on feelings. You can’t decide monumental decisions of life based on feeling.
If there is evil, then there is good
If there is good, then there is moral law (on which to differential good and evil)
If there is moral law, then there is a moral law giver
HOWEVER
If there is no moral law giver, then is no moral law
If there is no moral law, then there is no good
If there is no good, then there is no evil
SECOND QUESTION ADDRESSED:
Philosophers say that God could have created 4 different world scenarios:
Create nothing
Create no such things as good and evil (ammoral world)
People would only choose good (a robotic world)
Choose between good and evil
Most would argue the last is best, because it allows for choice and free will and conscious living. More importantly, it is the only world that allows for love.
Love is the greatest of all ethics. Love is only possible when the opposite exists–to reject love and choose something contrary to it (evil). If love is the supreme ethic, this is the world that makes it possible.
Can't recall saying that I said it would. Unlikely though as the theories that look most likely to explain the origin of the universe aren't exactly congruent with some beardy geezer snapping his figures.
So, yes, it's a possibility. Mind you, so is New York spontaneously morphing into a big pile of lime jello.
It would make it a false hypothesis.
1) People believed the Earth was flat.
2) We now know it isn't.
Not seeing the lack of logic there.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
People believed the Earth was flat. That didn't make it true.
It did to them.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Who cares? What someone believes is true and what is actually true is not necesarrily the same. Truth is truth, not determined by a vote. As Bertrand Russel said "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
truth noun 1 the quality or state of being true, genuine or factual. 2 the state of being truthful; sincerity; honesty. 3 that which is true. 4 that which is established or generally accepted as true • scientific truths. 5 strict adherence to an original or standard. God's (honest) truth something that is absolutely true. in truth really, actually. to tell the truth or truth to tell to be frank or honest • To tell the truth, I really can't stand her.
Number 4 is your baby.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Shit! Why didn't someone tell me? Why am I always the last one to know? Next thing you are going to tell me is that the brain does the thinking and not the heart! Why do you have to distroy my pretty delisions I hold so dear?
YOU MONSTER! I liked believing the world was flat and you distroyed my warm fuzzy feelings. You think I care about truth when my fantacies keep me warm at night?
I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU......I WANT MY MOMMY!
"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
Ever hear of equivocation? "Man" can be defined as "human." but calling a woman a man because women are human would be wrong. Misusing dictionary definitions is a form of sophism.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I think you're missing the point here.
ajay's proposition is that truth is a relative concept and - to a degree - he's right. The difference, however, between scientific truth and religious truth is that the former does not claim to be absolute and immutable.
Take Newtonian physics for example. For a long time it was held to be an absolute truth. Of course, Electricity and Field theory and Nuclear physics show that it isn't.
I cannot absolutely prove a creator doesn't exists but I strongly believe one doesn't and the most valid current theories - Big Bang, etc - support this. Therefore I can relate ajay's assertion that our truth is relative to the flat earth statement. Sooner or later we'll be able to prove that a creator is a load of bollocks too.
It's just we can't at this moment in time.
See?
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Not sure we'll ever be able to prove absolutely there is no creator, but I'm pretty sure we'll be able to make it less and less useful a concept - as we'll have more evidence for evolution, the big bang, etc to the point only an idiot would disbelieve in them (assuming you don't think this is already the case!) I'm looking at along the lines of the idea that the sun is a star and the Earth rotates aroud the sun.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Get out of town! No-one's going to buy that crazy theory!
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
It would make it a false hypothesis.
1) People believed the Earth was flat.
2) We now know it isn't.
Not seeing the lack of logic there.
Great! Thank you. for proving my statement that 'TRUTH is absolute' by providing an another example about the earth. Hope this serves as a basis for you to truly study and understand the other claims made by the Bible and find them to be logically TRUE!