Paul here is a short résumé basis of my world view:
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was already with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.
He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity.
The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it. ...
He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him. Yet, the world didn't recognize him. ...
God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.
God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world.
Those who believe in him won't be condemned. But those who don't believe are already condemned because they don't believe in God's only Son.
This is why people are condemned: The light came into the world.
Yet, people loved the dark rather than the light because their actions were evil.
People who do what is wrong hate the light and don't come to the light. They don't want their actions to be exposed. ... For the anger of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
And of course, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds..."
I would even add Voltaire's view on atheists, which I share, "The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability....." -Philosophical Dictionary
And Plato's "Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding....."
That last one is clearly your case, given your past.
Next post I'll extend & explain one small part of that and then I'll address your 3 main claims, all of which are wrong and unprovable.
"In the beginning was the Word. ...Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.
He was the source of life..."
This is now visible and most literally seen in the DNA molecule.
DNA is a humongous set of prescribed, encoded algorithms and information processing apparatus designed to create living things.
Instructions, in this chemical code, are words, phrases and paragraphs describing in complex detail how to living organisms.
DNA has been called a "book of instructions".
It is a highly complex information processing system with code, sub code, codes embedded in other code etc.. It also contains meta-information - i.e. information on information.
It is impossible for meta-information to exist without intelligence. That's intrinsic in the very definition of meta-information.
The living cell is also full of complex bio machinery that produce everything needed to build living things.
Code, by default, implies intelligence. Code requires a symbolic convention with syntax and semantics.
Code that formally describes algorithms which perform highly specific tasks cannot arise without intelligence.
Indeed, no encoded algorithmic information can arise by random processes.
In the Word is life. I believe that DNA is one of the physical extensions of that Word encoded for life on earth.
DNA thus, could not have arisen by random chance and necessity. The laws of physics and chemistry refute all such notions.
The probability of a "chance" + the laws of physics and chemistry, building even a single small protein are approx. 1 in 10^164.
According to atheism, this feat has nevertheless been accomplished by pure chance and necessity!
Indeed, the estimated number of atoms in the universe is currently considered as at least 10^80.
You have a better chance of finding a single elementary particle in the entire universe by chance than of building that single protein.
DNA is thus the work of some immense, unfathomable intellect. Digitally encoded assembly instructions, error detection/correction, nano machines etc. cannot be produced through any natural process known.
Only intelligence produces code. The level of intelligence required for building the DNA code of life is far far beyond anything the human mind could ever conceive.
The only intelligences possible for such a magnificent piece of design and engineering are the following: 1) some alien intelligence 2) the being men call God
We know of no aliens ...yet anyway. If that were true we'd still be forced to ask where they came from etc.
We do have immense evidence for the existence of a supreme being with will, purpose and creative function.
The late Fred Hoyle stated, Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Hoyle was an atheist, yet he recognized that the design inference was the only possible viable answer.
The signature of God is everywhere visible to any unclouded, unbiased mind -as all human history tells us- yet the DNA/RNA coupling contains his most clear Word of power and intent and his most clear signature.
Are you going to attempt to refute anything here or are you just hoping to gather other "Judas Iscariot" Christ betrayers to you new found faith in nothing?
Heh. I used to be like you. Trolling the internet for Jesus.
Wrong. I am nothing like you ever were.
Anyone that abandons Christ for foolish and childish reasons like you is a sorry Judas & a loser. If you ever really were a Xian that is. If not you just exchanged one religious trip for a more useless one. Nothing is more inane & useless than atheism.
Atheists live in denial of reality and that's pretty much what we get as "debate".
Athies typical response: "Don't believe that evidence, don't believe this evidence, , pretend I didn't see that evidence, ignore this evidence, can't see any evidence with my blinders on and I will never take them off, bla bla."
Anyone that abandons Christ for foolish and childish reasons like you is a sorry Judas & a loser. If you ever really were a Xian that is. If not you just exchanged one religious trip for a more useless one. Nothing is more inane & useless than atheism."
Gary, we were like you. I suppose you annoy me more than most other Christians because I was just as antagonistically christian as you are now. That's how I ended up blindly walking right off the Christian cliff, falling straight into the river of incredulity.
You perceive us as hostile when you are the only hostile one here. Most of us come here for amusement, I assume. Probably to laugh at the embarrassment of our former stupidity. It's cheaper than therapy.
You are debating Paul, Read his post and respond. What Gary replied with was a heap of cut and paste... With no reference to what Paul had said...
ROTFL
Once again little boy, you demonstrate you inability comprehend plain English.
Gary don't reply to me reply to Paul
Ya right.
Here's what I wrote, "Next post I'll extend & explain one small part of that and then I'll address your 3 main claims, all of which are wrong and unprovable."
Duh. So obviously you can't read and/or fail to grasp simple phrases.
Why don't you go cry to your mommy while I prepare the next part for Paul?
I think you're a spoiled little brat with no real understanding that wants to pretend to himself and others that he is a very intelligent person for adopting the multiple inanities of atheism.
Are you absolutely sure? Absolute truth exists and everyone knows it. If no absolute truth exists what & why are you debating?
absolute morality does not exist
If no absolute morality exists, then nothing is ever morally right or wrong. There is no evil and no good under this idea.
Proximate values are no values at all. Collective cultural consent values are also meaningless without the overarching absolute Moral Law.
If someone were to attempt rape and murder upon your family you'd be the first to think that was absolutely wrong, and very quickly indeed. If such persons succeeded in their desires, you could never even say it was wrong in any sense at all.
"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all."
absolute laws of logic do not exist
Then science is a crock. It becomes foolish attempts to explain existence by logic, yet without logical absolutes nothing can ever be either proved or disproved.
In what imaginary universe would 1+1=3.56?
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared - the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age." -C. S. Lewis
Indeed, because of this inane self-refuting idea, that there are no absolutes, many scientists are now turning to New Age mysticism and we will see more and more occult mixed in with "science" as this trend moves backwards to alchemy-like beliefs.
I'm pretty certain that someone will absolutely misunderstand my worldview.
Absolutely? ;-)
I bet you don't quite understand your world view yourself. Most atheists don't understand the nature and implications of atheism.
If no logical absolutes exist, what is the foundation of your reasoning? And, why should anyone believe you?
Well, I did a blog post on what it means to win a debate, considering Gary here says he always wins his debates with atheists. Offhand, I would say that insulting the audience is not likely to be conducive to that goal. I would like to note that it has been nearly twelve hours and you have yet to address those three main points. I wouldn't have expected it to take so long to prepare a reply, particularly since (if I understand the claims of your previous posts correctly) you have dealt with the question of "absolute truth" before. You should have something more compelling than the loaded question you like to use.
Gary Assuming you know what these words mean, I'd start with the facts that currently we know amino acids can form by themselves, we know nucleotides can form by themselves, and we know RNA can replicate itself (see 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry).
Given the formation of nucleotides, it doesn't seem strange to think that RNA could form, as it's a chain of nucleotides. Once RNA has formed, we know that it is a self-replicating molecule, so it can begin to do its thing. Ta-da, life!
With those basics, I'd recommend they don't pepper me with questions and challenges, and instead look up the current state of scientific literature on the subject for yourself.
Oh, that's right you can't your a fucking idiot. Well, do your best.
Oh, if you try pointing out and citing incomplete knowledge of this topic as evidence for the supernatural is an argument from ignorance, and is completely unacceptable.
"Absolute truth exists and everyone knows it. If no absolute truth exists what & why are you debating?"
Ok, good. We can start here. I'll post one response for each heading.
We are debating based on our notions of relative truth, otherwise one of us is knowingly lying. I'm not lying and I don't think that you are either, so how can we both be right ?
However, within our own paradigms we are both right.
Unless you are secretly an atheist and you are lying or I am secretly a Christian and I am lying.
"If no absolute morality exists, then nothing is ever morally right or wrong. There is no evil and no good under this idea."
This is a terrible strawman.
Let me demonstrate using the two most common examples used by Christians as actions that are absolutely morally wrong.
1) Sexually molestly children for fun 2) Eating your own mother
1) I've raised the issue of Brit Milah with a number of Christians. It's a practice that I find morally objectionable. It involves the use of a sharp knife on the male genitalia of a baby of 6 days of age as part of a Jewish religious ritual.
Is the practice absolutely morally wrong or relatively morally wrong or absolutely morally right or relatively morally right ?
Does the motivation of the person carrying out the ritual matter ? Doe the consent of the parents matter ?
If the practice of male circumcision can be viewed as morally right (whether absolutely or relatively) how should female circumcision be morally viewed ?
2) Have you seen the film "Alive" or read the book ? Would necessity make an act which was otherwise morally wrong - right ? How would you morally judge a society whose funereal practices involved eating the remains of deceased relatives ?
The point about absolute morality is that people quote it's existance because it makes judgements very easy - however the reality is that humanity is a far more complex entity than absolutism would allow.
"Then science is a crock. It becomes foolish attempts to explain existence by logic, yet without logical absolutes nothing can ever be either proved or disproved."
This has been answered very well by other atheists in debates with theists when the so-called absolute laws of logic are thrown into the mix. One theist evens decides to talk gibberish as if making a point that the absence of absolute laws of logic means that there no laws of logic NOW, within our own paradigm.
Logic has changed and developed over the centuries, and will continue to do so.
Consider how many degrees there are in a triangle. Would you say 180 ?
Would you say that that was a mathmatical absolute ? Even on a curved surface ?
Theists need absolutes. They make the world much simpler than it really is.
Douglas Axe (PhD in Chemical Engineering) also, experimentally not theoretically (with site directed mutagenesis experiments on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme) estimated that the probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 10^77.
If the universe is indeed some 13.7 billion years and since using the Plank length (smallest possible distance) which is 10^-33 centimeters, and the Plank time (number of possible events per sec.) which is 10^43 and then the number of elementary particles in the universe which is estimated to be 10^80 - calculating the number of possible events in the universe since the BB gives ~10^139. That's using Dembski's very conservative calculation.
Other scientists have given much smaller results like University of Pittsburgh physicist Bret van der Sande's estimate of the probabilistic resources available in the universe at 10^92 - a much less favorable number for the supposed evolutionary time frame than Dembski's. Worse of course is that this is the number that applies since the beginning of the universe - not the beginning of Earth!
MIT computer scientist Seth Lloyd has calculated that the most bit operations the universe could have performed in its history (assuming the entire universe were given over to this single-minded task) is 10^120, meaning that a specific bit operation with an improbability significantly greater than 1 chance in 10^120 will likely never occur by chance. None of these probabilistic resources is sufficient to render the chance hypothesis plausible. Dembski’s calculation is the most conservative and gives chance its "best chance" to succeed. But even his calculation confirms the implausibility of the chance hypothesis, whether chance is invoked to explain the information necessary to build a single protein or the information necessary to build the suite of proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell.
The probability of producing a single 150-amino-acid functional protein by chance stands at about 1 in about 10^164 (when including P for the requirements for having only peptide bonds and only L-amino acids) - "L-amino acids" dominate on earth, etc. "If you mix up chirality, a protein's properties change enormously. Life couldn't operate with just random mixtures of stuff," - Ronald Breslow, Ph.D., University Professor, Columbia University). Chirality: The term chiral is used to describe an object that is non-superposable on its mirror image.
For each functional sequence of 150 amino acids, there are at least 10^164 other possible nonfunctional sequences of the same length. Therefore, to have a good (i.e., better than 50-50) chance of producing a single functional protein of this length by chance, a random process would have to generate (or sample) more than half of the 10^164 nonfunctional sequences corresponding to each functional sequence of that length.
Notice that to have a better than 50-50 chance of generating a functional protein by chance, more than half of the 10^164 sequences would have to be produced. Now compare that number (0.5 x l0^164) to the maximum number of opportunities – 10^139 – for that event to occur in the history of the universe.
Theists need absolutes. They make the world much simpler than it really is.
Wrong, theists recognize the existence of absolutes. Atheists merely deny them - as you do here - and that all while assuming they exist!
*You've take the habitual atheist route of mixing evasion & assertion *You're points on morality miss the point.
We are debating based on our notions of relative truth
No, we are actually debating on whether or not debate is possible without logical absolutes.
And about your implied assertion that you're absolutely sure no absolutes exist!
GH "If no absolute morality exists, then nothing is ever morally right or wrong. There is no evil and no good under this idea."
PB This is a terrible strawman.
No it isn't and you either know this or are playing word games. Read Provine's statement below. It's ubiquitous.
Logic has changed and developed over the centuries, and will continue to do so.
That is poor logic in itself. Logic has never changed. Our understanding of it has.
1+1 = 2 According to your view this could change any time.
Do you plan on proving the contrary all while assuming logic is changeless? Thus far this is what you're doing!
What is your foundation for reasoning? You didn't answer that. Where do you get your "rightness" from? Upon what basis do you claim there is no Real basis? By what rule do you measure right and wrong? Under atheism there is none but subjective opinion.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine
PB Is the practice [of circumcision] absolutely morally wrong ...?
Is getting a tattoo morally wrong or right? How about a haircut? Bad question that misses the point, but I'll answer: Circumcision of men changes nothing in their lives -it was a mere sign or symbol given to ancient Hebrews- not the whole world. Circumcision of females has dire consequences on their subsequent sexuality. (urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility etc.)
Measuring rightness or wrongness therein is a matter of context, but the underlying Moral Rule does not change. Your question merely avoids the issue of an transcendent Moral Law.
Does the motivation ...matter?
Again, you're evading the underlying issue of ultimate foundations for any morals at all. To answer your questions -based on the logical implications of atheism- no, there is no right or wrong involved in any act whatsoever. Be it rape, murder or mere circumcision.
Would necessity make an act which was otherwise morally wrong - right ?
Another side step from the fundamental issue. The rest follows suit.
The point about absolute morality is that people quote it's existance because it makes judgements very easy
Generally no it doesn't. Only in the identification of some wrongs. Conversely, under atheist "logic", no judgment at all is possible for there is no objective rule whatsoever upon which to base one!
however the reality is that humanity is a far more complex entity than absolutism would allow.
You have it backwards. Atheism is mere denial and preaches emptiness and universal origins that are so pathetically simplistic as to be both ludicrous & impossible.
"Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow's ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys....." James M. Gillis
It is the very specified complexity of the universe that warrants a design inference.
Douglas Axe (PhD in Chemical Engineering) also, experimentally not theoretically (with site directed mutagenesis experiments on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme) estimated that the probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 10^77.
If the universe is indeed some 13.7 billion years and since using the Plank length (smallest possible distance) which is 10^-33 centimeters, and the Plank time (number of possible events per sec.) which is 10^43 and then the number of elementary particles in the universe which is estimated to be 10^80 - calculating the number of possible events in the universe since the BB gives ~10^139. That's using Dembski's very conservative calculation.
Other scientists have given much smaller results like University of Pittsburgh physicist Bret van der Sande's estimate of the probabilistic resources available in the universe at 10^92 - a much less favorable number for the supposed evolutionary time frame than Dembski's. Worse of course is that this is the number that applies since the beginning of the universe - not the beginning of Earth!
MIT computer scientist Seth Lloyd has calculated that the most bit operations the universe could have performed in its history (assuming the entire universe were given over to this single-minded task) is 10^120, meaning that a specific bit operation with an improbability significantly greater than 1 chance in 10^120 will likely never occur by chance. None of these probabilistic resources is sufficient to render the chance hypothesis plausible. Dembski’s calculation is the most conservative and gives chance its "best chance" to succeed. But even his calculation confirms the implausibility of the chance hypothesis, whether chance is invoked to explain the information necessary to build a single protein or the information necessary to build the suite of proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell.
The probability of producing a single 150-amino-acid functional protein by chance stands at about 1 in about 10^164 (when including P for the requirements for having only peptide bonds and only L-amino acids) - "L-amino acids" dominate on earth, etc. "If you mix up chirality, a protein's properties change enormously. Life couldn't operate with just random mixtures of stuff," - Ronald Breslow, Ph.D., University Professor, Columbia University). Chirality: The term chiral is used to describe an object that is non-superposable on its mirror image. The concept of handedness - right, left
Look up "Chirality"
Thus, for each functional sequence of 150 amino acids, there are at least 10^164 other possible nonfunctional sequences of the same length. Therefore, to have a good (i.e., better than 50-50) chance of producing a single functional protein of this length by chance, a random process would have to generate (or sample) more than half of the 10^164 nonfunctional sequences corresponding to each functional sequence of that length. Unfortunately, that number vastly exceeds the most optimistic estimate of the probabilistic resources of the entire universe - that is the number of events that could have occurred since the beginning of its existence.
To see this, notice that to have a better than 50-50 chance of generating a functional protein by chance, more than half of the 10^164 sequences would have to be produced. Compare that (0.5 x l0^164) to the maximum number of opportunities – 10^139 – for that event to occur in the history of the universe.
"If someone were to attempt rape and murder upon your family you'd be the first to think that was absolutely wrong, and very quickly indeed. If such persons succeeded in their desires, you could never even say it was wrong in any sense at all."
Morals are RELITIVE,
The person doing the raping feels it morally ok, the other people don't!
You would say it's ok however to rape if done in the name of your God see Numbers (31:7-18 NLT) however everyone else thinks it wrong...
So how the fuck are morals absolute?
OH
"Atheism is mere denial and preaches emptiness and universal origins that are so pathetically simplistic as to be both ludicrous & impossible." said the hypocritical fucking idiot.
Those of you interested in morals may be interested in Dan's latest thread where he argues drinking and premarital sex is wrong but genocide can be right.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later." - CS Lewis
This has been abundantly illustrated here already in this single thread by those who deny it's truth. Uncanny isn't it?!
I should rest my case for absolutes since any intelligent jury would see this is true by merely observing reactions, but I'll respond to PB when he gets back.
The rest of you are like ignorant little brats cursing and whining in a school yard while the prof is busy elsewhere. You will be ignored as you deserve.
"I should rest my case for absolutes since any intelligent jury would see this is true by merely observing reactions..." And here we see what Gary apparently means when he says he wins debates. Basically he is defining anyone who does not fall all over him as "not intelligent." Well, so far, Gary has not made a case. He has played word games.
Ok, the temptation is to get sidetracked into the myriad of side trail arguments that Gary is throwing about.
Instead I'd like to stay focussed on the main three lines of argument and therefore please do not do me the disservice of accusing me of being unable to answer a side argument when, instead, I'm ignoring it.
"PB Is the practice [of circumcision] absolutely morally wrong ...?
Is getting a tattoo morally wrong or right? How about a haircut? Bad question that misses the point, but I'll answer: Circumcision of men changes nothing in their lives -it was a mere sign or symbol given to ancient Hebrews- not the whole world. Circumcision of females has dire consequences on their subsequent sexuality. (urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility etc.)"
Ok, so what you're saying then is that it is absolutely morally right for a person to be forced against their will to undergo a medically unnecessary surgical procedure on their genitalia in persuance of their cultural norms, but only where the gender is male ?
Can you specify a truth that you can state to be absolutely certain, without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such ?
The probability of a "chance" + the laws of physics and chemistry, building even a single small protein are approx. 1 in 10^164.
"Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way."
Now read the rest at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Thirdly - it's Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute stuff - which pretty much condemns it.
Shrug offs based on metaphysical prejudice pretty much condemn this kind of attitude.
I'd have to shrug off nearly every piece literature coming from Darwinist sources because its about 95% (I'm being kind) pure materialism (methodological naturalism disguised as science) and the research is done, with equal bias, to fit the data to the theory.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us.
Now if you had the Welcome Foundation ...then I might take it seriously.
vide supra
I would also say that I can't take this comment seriously -not given the history of "consensus science".
In both cases their work is predicated on an Intelligent Design worldview. They then conduct research to fit.
Again vide supra - mere prejudice and the same applies to materialists.
R. Sternberg for ex., (double P.h.Ds is evol. biology), accepted his post at biologic upon condition that he would be allowed to research without having to fit it to any preferred view at all.
A scientist can't even get a job in anything remotely related to biology in the US if he doesn't tow the Darwinist party line full pitch.
Has the high probability number been validated by anyone other than ...?
If you'd have looked up the names I gave you'd know that some have nothing to do with the DI.
Many have proposed P values to life origins and evol. - none of them are encouraging for materialists. Atheist Hoyle was an ardent anti-Darwinist and put the P value at 1 in 10^40000 for an OOL on earth. Far worse than anyone else! Indeed Hoyle treated Darwinists as mentally ill.
Research, contrary to what you imply, does not stand on whether the author is atheist or creationist but on whether it is good or not.
Would you have joined the consensus gang in Galileo's day?
As an informatics specialist myself I could go on for days on why the information content of DNA/RNA etc. -all by itself, with no creationist premises involved- spells doom for Darwinism. ---- So, you wish to stick to your 3 fundamental statements on absolutes? That's ok with me.
People ask for evidence, there are "mountains of overwhelming evidence" for the existence of a supreme being. Citing DNA as evidence is just barely scratching the surface.
Thirdly - it's Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute stuff - which pretty much condemns it.
Shrug offs based on metaphysical prejudice pretty much condemn this kind of attitude. When high level scientists are involved you can do so if you please but you just lot a ton of credibility in my book.
I'd have to shrug off every piece literature coming from Darwinist sources because its about 95% (I'm being kind) pure materialism (methodological naturalism disguised as science) and the research is done, with equal bias, to fit the data to the theory.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us. There is no such thing as pure objectivity in science.
Now if you had the Welcome Foundation or Hoffman La Roche publishing a similar paper then I might take it seriously.
vide supra
I would also say that I can't take this comment seriously -not given the history of "consensus science" -an oxymoron, btw.
In both cases their work is predicated on an Intelligent Design worldview. They then conduct research to fit.
Again vide supra - mere prejudice.
R. Sternberg for ex., (double P.h.Ds is evol. biology), accepted his post at biologic upon condition that he would be allowed to research without having to fit it to any preferred view at all.
A scientist won't even get a job in anything remotely related to biology in the US if he doesn't tow the Darwinistas party line full pitch.
Has the high probability number been validated by anyone other than a worker at either institute ?
If you'd have looked up the names I gave you'd know that some have nothing to do with the DI. Indeed many have proposed P values to life origins and evol. - none of them are encouraging for Darwinism. Atheist Hoyle was an ardent anti-Darwinist and put the P at 1 in 10^40000 for an OOL on earth. Indeed Hoyle treated Darwinists as mentally ill.
Research, contrary to your implications, does not stand on whether the author is an atheist or a creationist but on whether the science is good or not.
By your rules no one would ever be able to trust a single Darwinist since their research is the most prejudiced, metaphysically imposed and biased on earth. Tow the line or be ostracized and risk the end of your career.
That's the reality so why should anyone trust what comes out of any materialism based research at all?
Would you have joined the consensus gang in Galileo's day?
As an informatics specialist myself I could go on for days on why the information content of DNA/RNA etc. -all by itself, with no creationist premises involved- spells doom for Darwinism. And indeed, that's exactly what we're seeing.
So, you wish to stick to your 3 fundamental statements on absolutes? That's ok with me.
People ask for evidence, there are "mountains of overwhelming evidence" for the existence of a supreme being. Citing DNA as evidence is just barely scratching the surface.
Curiously enough, there is zero evidence to the contrary! Atheism is thus a position held by blind faith alone.
You already know you cannot prove there is no God. So all atheist can do is attempt to dismiss, disdain and debunk all the evidence for God.
Thirdly - it's Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute stuff - which pretty much condemns it.
Shrug offs based on metaphysical prejudice pretty much condemn this kind of attitude. When high level scientists are involved you can do so if you please but you just lot a ton of credibility in my book.
I'd have to shrug off every piece literature coming from Darwinist sources because its about 95% (I'm being kind) pure materialism (methodological naturalism disguised as science) and the research is done, with equal bias, to fit the data to the theory.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us. There is no such thing as pure objectivity in science.
Now if you had the Welcome Foundation or Hoffman La Roche publishing a similar paper then I might take it seriously.
vide supra
I would also say that I can't take this comment seriously -not given the history of "consensus science" -an oxymoron, btw.
In both cases their work is predicated on an Intelligent Design worldview. They then conduct research to fit.
Again vide supra - mere prejudice.
R. Sternberg for ex., (double P.h.Ds is evol. biology), accepted his post at biologic upon condition that he would be allowed to research without having to fit it to any preferred view at all.
A scientist won't even get a job in anything remotely related to biology in the US if he doesn't tow the Darwinistas party line full pitch.
Has the high probability number been validated by anyone other than a worker at either institute ?
If you'd have looked up the names I gave you'd know that some have nothing to do with the DI. Indeed many have proposed P values to life origins and evol. - none of them are encouraging for Darwinism. Atheist Hoyle was an ardent anti-Darwinist and put the P at 1 in 10^40000 for an OOL on earth. Indeed Hoyle treated Darwinists as mentally ill.
Research, contrary to your implications, does not stand on whether the author is an atheist or a creationist but on whether the science is good or not.
By your rules no one would ever be able to trust a single Darwinist since their research is the most prejudiced, metaphysically imposed and biased on earth. Tow the line or be ostracized and risk the end of your career.
That's the reality so why should anyone trust what comes out of any materialism based research at all?
Would you have joined the consensus gang in Galileo's day?
As an informatics specialist myself I could go on for days on why the information content of DNA/RNA etc. -all by itself, with no creationist premises involved- spells doom for Darwinism. And indeed, that's exactly what we're seeing.
So, you wish to stick to your 3 fundamental statements on absolutes? That's ok with me.
People ask for evidence, there are "mountains of overwhelming evidence" for the existence of a supreme being. Citing DNA as evidence is just barely scratching the surface.
Ok, so what you're saying then is that it is absolutely morally right for a person to be forced against their will ...?
How on earth you derived that from what I actually said is baffling.
Can you specify a truth that you can state to be absolutely certain, without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such ?
I would call such a question "elephant hurling". A common debate tactic that most of us fall unwittingly into at times.
Can you tell me with absolute certainty that there are no absolutes?
That is the real question here.
Of course you cannot and you know it.
Now, given your own stance on forced circumcision, is it your opinion that it is morally wrong?
If so, upon what foundation do you claim this (or anything else) to be wrong?
Q: Is it relatively wrong or absolutely wrong, "without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such", to rape and murder children?
Gary is obviously a raving loon, Who is he talking(typing) to? His posts start by addressing Paul then go on about something abstract nothing remotely to do with what is being discussed.
Oh and course he's a genius who knows the in and outs of biochemistry, just couldn't be bothered to prove it just state it. Oh and his vast wealth of knowledge, but his own admittance doesn't come from "secular" sources.
What is it they study at the ID institute? poems, word puzzles, circular debate contests?
Q: Is it relatively wrong or absolutely wrong, "without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such", to rape and murder children?
IT"S RELATIVELY WRONG! the people doing it thinks it right!
Well let me tell you Paul, I have 3 dogs and their names are, absolute truth, absolute morality and absolute laws of logic... they all absolutely exist and I have their poop on my lawn to prove it!!! You are more then welcome to inspect a steaming pile anytime you like Mr. Baird. And while you're at it... cut my lawn.
Gary, what does PB stand for... Pea Brain?
And there's another reason why terms must be defined.
>>Can you specify a truth that you can state to be absolutely certain, without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such ?
Erm...tell me one thing that you know absent certainty?
My dogs name is 'Supernatual' Why won't James Randi pay me my $1,000,000? after all I sent him a picture of my dog, proving supernatual definitly exsists.
The "complexity" of life is often cited as an argument for the existence of gods. I can't agree. I find the complexity of biology (and cosmology, and physics, etc) to be evidence AGAINST the existence of gods. Gods have no need of such complexity. Their will be done, and all by magic. Simplicity would be their signature. The presence of complexity shows that it is far more likely NATURE, hard at work eons, that has slowly crafted this complex, messy, frail, striving, thriving force called life.
"Curiously enough, there is zero evidence for atheism. Atheism is thus a position held by blind faith alone.
You already know you cannot prove there is no God. So all atheist can do is attempt to dismiss, disdain and debunk all the evidence presented for God."
What has this or anything else in that particular post got to do with the subjects under discussion ?
I have tried, and will continue to try, to keep the thread focussed, and I'd appreciate any assistance you can provide too.
"Well let me tell you Paul, I have 3 dogs and their names are, absolute truth, absolute morality and absolute laws of logic... they all absolutely exist and I have their poop on my lawn to prove it!!! You are more then welcome to inspect a steaming pile anytime you like Mr. Baird. And while you're at it... cut my lawn.
Gary, what does PB stand for... Pea Brain?"
and which part of that lot actually addresses any of the points that I made ?
I might even have considered it if it was funny - but you need to watch far more Monty Python first.
"I'd have to shrug off every piece literature coming from Darwinist sources because its about 95% (I'm being kind) pure materialism (methodological naturalism disguised as science) and the research is done, with equal bias, to fit the data to the theory.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us. There is no such thing as pure objectivity in science."
Well, perhaps that is why we have peer review ?
All that I'm asking for is - who has peer reviewed the research that you are quoting ?
If you are simply going to state that the researcher has a Phd and that that should be enough then why do we not have cold fusion (discovered by two scientists with Phds).
"As an informatics specialist myself I could go on for days on why the information content of DNA/RNA etc. -all by itself, with no creationist premises involved- spells doom for Darwinism. And indeed, that's exactly what we're seeing."
Do you have that available for download as a pdf ?
"How on earth you derived that from what I actually said is baffling."
Quite easily.
You said
"Circumcision of men changes nothing in their lives -it was a mere sign or symbol given to ancient Hebrews- not the whole world."
I actually wrote
"1) I've raised the issue of Brit Milah with a number of Christians. It's a practice that I find morally objectionable. It involves the use of a sharp knife on the male genitalia of a baby of 6 days of age as part of a Jewish religious ritual."
So the inferrence is clear. I specified babies under 6 days old and you responded that it changes nothing in their lives.
I posted two news articles detailing the medical issues of botched religious circumcisions.
So therefore
1) the practice is not harmless and can change the life of the boy being circumcised
2) you don't seem to have a problem with the lack of consent for such a procedure, and remember that if you are going to cite parental consent as over-riding the consent that the baby obviously cannot give - then the same applies to female circumcision where that is carried out.
I think it's worth pointing out that in a previous series of exchanges with Sye Tenbruggencate about these subjects we went over 2,500 posts.
I'm more than happy to repeat that in order that we can fully explore our points of view.
"The late Fred Hoyle stated, Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Hoyle was an atheist, yet he recognized that the design inference was the only possible viable answer."
Poor old Fred.
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm
Gives a good run-down on the use and abuse of Fred.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us. There is no such thing as pure objectivity in science."
>>Well, perhaps that is why we have peer review ?
Bzzztt!! Not reliable.
"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." (http://bit.ly/3gUcsN)
""The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." (http://bit.ly/3gUcsN)"
Sorry, but is that the sum of your rebuttal of peer review ?
Dan, have you read http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/authorinstructions ?
You are presenting one paper from a journal that specialises in left field theoretical journalism as a mainstream critique.
I think Stehbens may have a point in his criticism (particularly with regard to pharmaceuticals) but is it a valid denounciation of the whole practice of peer review ?
You seem to think it is and you're treating it like a magic bullet to kill the mighty beats that is peer review.
It isn't, but it is a useful demonstration of the problem with absolutes.
You found one article. You use that one article to characterise an entire process. Absolutely.
It's very illustrative, Dan, and perhaps something you should give more thought to.
Interestingly, the journal does not itself practice peer review
"In June 2010, Elseview announced that Mehar Manku is the new editor, and also that "Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit. All reviewers will be fully aware of the Aims and Scope of the journal and will be judging the premise, originality and plausibility of the hypotheses submitted."
Did you read http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2809%2900047-4/abstract
Isn't it interesting, too, that Dan validates the concept of the peer review process by typing idiocy into a text box and making it visible to people around the world. Hard drives, network cards, keyboards, USB ports, the internet - all the result of its use.
What gets me is how neatly his foot fits in his mouth. It's almost as if it's used to being there...
Peer review is fine but today's version is hardly bullet proof. Indeed, it's full of holes and corruption. And that especially where origins are concerned.
Why? Because scientists really aren't very objective and the subject more than most others is laden with high levels of emotion and the fear of losing the security one may feel in his world-view, -of losing ones job, reputation, friends etc..
Darwinist reviewers generally will not allow the passage of anything that goes against the "consensus science".
Some papers do get through depending on who is doing the reviewing and to what journal the paper is submitted.
The hypocritical thing is that then the Darwinists claim there are no ID peer-reviewed papers when they themselves are prejudicially inhibiting their publication.
All that I'm asking for is - who has peer reviewed the research that you are quoting ?
The research papers of Douglas Axe, Robert Sauer, R. Sternberg, etc. are peer-reviewed and the P values for various genetic structures (while they vary) are published are widely known and all of them give near to impossible odds against the Darwinian scenario.
It isn't hard to do a approx. calculation on P values for many bio structures.
The now infamous E.Coli flagellum, for ex., is made up of about 50 genes (parts). They all have to fit together and be assembled in the correct order for it to function.
Assuming that all the parts already exist (a ludicrous assumption btw) that gives the simple formula of P = 1/50! (factorial) which is 1/3.04 × 10^64
I wouldn't bet any money on that every occurring - even with billions of years and millions of mutation/selection events.
Now if we add in the following facts : - we cannot assume the 50 genes already exist - nature "knows" nothing of and is not trying to build an outboard motor - nature must merely chance upon the the correct proteins within the sample space of all possible proteins (at least billions) - nature must gradually & accidentally find the correct assembly order while weeding out failures - etc. etc.
...you're pretty much looking at a probabilistic impossibility.
Indeed, Behe has been vindicated in this even recently- here
Do you have that available for download as a pdf ?
I would be genuinely interested in reading it.
Not at this time. I could give you a point form summary if you like. But I would rather suggest you look up and read the work of Dr. David Abel which can be found here
This is a rich mine of solid information on the nature of biosemiotics and why no chance/necessity hypothesis can ever explain life origins.
The home page itself contains links to many articles (I think most are PR'ed).
I really encourage you to read each article in order to get a basic understanding of what we're talking about on this. Abel basically shreds the Darwinian scenario to pieces -though he barely mentions it.
His work should be obligatory reading for biologists and information specialists imo.
In short it is the nature of the information found in DNA/RNA that excludes any Darwinian process from the realm of probabilities.
That information can be evaluated using Shannon infor. theory yet Shannon info. is insufficient.
The bio information in the living cell is in fact algorithmic and formally described - syntax, semantics and all.
There is also - as I already stated - meta-info. in the genome.
Meta-info being info on other info or data about data. By very definition, it excludes any origin but that of intelligence.
I have no problem with reproducible result. I would hope that Dan doesn't either -- though I don't have a great deal of confidence in that. But computers and internet connections are not dependent on universal common descent being true in order to function. The fact is that preconceived notions can bias a peer review process. It looks, even to me, that the experiments are set up such that nothing can be a disconfirmation of evolution, and then later, any result that is consistently shown not to happen becomes a "potential falsifier." A peer review process can be quite useful. But it will reinforce any consistent bias. It's the same situation where existing members of a group control who gets in. People are people. Incidentally, I thought the topic of discussion was the existence/non-existence of "absolute truth," "absolute morality," and "absolute logic." The review process among scientists seems unrelated.
Incidentally, I thought the topic of discussion was the existence/non-existence of "absolute truth," "absolute morality," and "absolute logic." The review process among scientists seems unrelated.
As is evolution. I'm trying to stay away from the discussion this thread was meant for, to give Gary and Paul lots of room. If I should happen to post a knee-jerk response to the Jerk who's trying to hijack it, my apologies.
"The research papers of Douglas Axe, Robert Sauer, R. Sternberg, etc. are peer-reviewed and the P values for various genetic structures (while they vary) are published are widely known and all of them give near to impossible odds against the Darwinian scenario."
"Why? Because scientists really aren't very objective and the subject more than most others is laden with high levels of emotion and the fear of losing the security one may feel in his world-view, -of losing ones job, reputation, friends etc..
Darwinist reviewers generally will not allow the passage of anything that goes against the "consensus science"."
That's pretty emotive stuff - do you have any evidence to substantiate the specific charges that you are laying, as opposed to some other benign explanation ?
Ok back to your circumcision ex. First, you just introduced the word "forced". Next, this is all beside the point.
The real issue is can atheism give a foundation for any ethics at all? The real question is not any specific event implying morality, but is morality itself sustainable under the atheist paradigm and the answer is no.
All values under atheism are subjective, not objective.
This means that you can never call any action whatsoever truly right or truly wrong. It is mere opinion in ALL cases.
So, upon what base rule does anyone, anywhere at any time claim that one action is good or evil?
A subjective cultural convention cannot be the answer. Why? Because such a basis cannot rule out any other opposing moral!
The Nazis, for ex, deemed it perfectly "good" and "right" to slaughter both Jews and the mentally ill (on a Darwinian basis).
The Allies deemed that morally wrong.
Who was right? The winner of the war? Hardly matters. Right and Wrong are NOT determined by a cock fight.
Upon what basis did we deem their actions "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" and atrocities?
Under atheism there can be no such thing as a moral atrocity because there is no ultimate Rule by which to measure such.
Now see how the atheist paradigm self-contradicts: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." R. Dawkins
compared to :
"there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". - Richard Dawkins
Do you see the contradiction?
He says you might be "wicked" for X state of mind, then says elsewhere that there is no such thing as wickedness.
Worse he says we're all just dancing to our DNA, which of course means, as so many other high level atheists claim, that free will is non-existent!!
This gets sublimely hilarious when after stating such the atheist high priests call themselves "Free" thinkers!!
It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism.
But this is all we see and this very thread proves it for we have the younger "mind-on-hold" atheists persistently bitching over "insults" and such (all while insulting others!).
So upon what moral foundation do they deem insulting others to be objectively wrong?
And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!
Yet during all the atheist paradigm is still insisted upon as being absolutely true!!!
Such cognitive dissonance beggars the imagination.
I think the explanation lies partly here: For if the gospel we preach is hidden, it is hidden only from those who are being lost. They will not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.
That's pretty emotive stuff - do you have any evidence to substantiate the specific charges that you are laying, as opposed to some other benign explanation ?
There are literally 100s of cases on record. You might want to look up those recorded and discussed in the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents"
I would have thought it hardly in need of more evidence that what we already see publicly in cases like Behe, Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker, etc.; and I know personally one anthropologist who was hindered for years by the ruling Darwinistas.
He may in fact show up here. He's written a very large, in depth book on the postmodernist world's "flight from Absolutes" (Fuite de l'Absolu) in French.
"Ok back to your circumcision ex. First, you just introduced the word "forced". Next, this is all beside the point."
Actually no it's not, it's very pertinent to the topic of absolute v relative morality.
The key to the moral exercise is revealed by the remainder of your post, which I'll go through to show you how it applies...
"The real issue is can atheism give a foundation for any ethics at all?"
Erm, yes. I'm an atheist and I'm applying my atheistic ethics to the issues at hand.
"The real question is not any specific event implying morality, but is morality itself sustainable under the atheist paradigm and the answer is no."
Making an unsupported assertion does make that assertion a fact. You need to provide some substantiation. I have not seen any so far. Perhaps it is to follow ?
"All values under atheism are subjective, not objective."
Really ? Do you have any support for that statement either ?
"This means that you can never call any action whatsoever truly right or truly wrong."
You need to first define some terms such as truly right and truly wrong, then we can move forward.
"A subjective cultural convention cannot be the answer. Why? Because such a basis cannot rule out any other opposing moral!"
Excellent, we have some progress, albeit based on a misunderstanding.
Let's go back to the moral exercise.
Consider my viewpoint as a non-Jew (or non-Muslim for that matter).
In my opinion the non-medically necessary surgical procedure performed without the consent of the patient is child abuse.
Consider the viewpoint of a Jew or a Muslim who does decide to have their baby son circumcised.
Are they doing so in the knowledge that what they are doing is morally wrong for the reasons that I have provided, or in the knowledge that it is morally right based on the rites and mores of their culture ?
Eventhough I can take the view that I believe that it is morally wrong from my perspective I can also accept that it is not morally wrong from theirs.
In terms of the more controversial female circumcision that acceptance would not preclude me from acting to prevent such a surgical precedure if I was aware that a girl was likely to undergo such a precedure.
"The Nazis, for ex, deemed it perfectly "good" and "right" to slaughter both Jews and the mentally ill (on a Darwinian basis).
The Allies deemed that morally wrong.
Who was right? The winner of the war? Hardly matters. Right and Wrong are NOT determined by a cock fight."
Well, firstly you need to define what you mean by 'right'.
The Second World War is full of alot of interesting moral issues, from the Wansee Conference, the Bombing of Dresden, the return of the Cossacks, and of course Katyn Forest.
Bomber Harris was never prosecuted ofr war crimes, but there is a substantial body of opinion that would suggest that if the standards applied to the Nazis were applied to the Allies then he should have been.
Anyone reading about the Normandy Campaign can quickly come across actions by the Allies that would be classed as war crimes if they had been carried out by the Nazis eg shooting unarmed prisoners.
"Upon what basis did we deem their actions "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" and atrocities?"
The law.
Under atheism there can be no such thing as a moral atrocity because there is no ultimate Rule by which to measure such."
That's a strawman.
""It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." R. Dawkins
compared to :
"there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". - Richard Dawkins"
Without citations I couldn't comment, I was an atheist before Richard Dawkins became famous so I'm not word perfect on his works.
"It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism."
Pot, meet kettle.
"And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!"
Ok, now have a think about that sentence Gary, a really good think.
"Yet during all the atheist paradigm is still insisted upon as being absolutely true!!!"
at the very least I'll need a source for that.
"I think the explanation lies partly here: For if the gospel we preach is hidden, it is hidden only from those who are being lost. They will not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."
As an ex-Pagan you'll have to excuse my guffawing.
Not only do you insist that there must be a God, but that it is the Christian God, the Western view of the Christian, and I'd even guess, based on our exchanges, the Protestant view of the Christian God. I'm tempted to go out on a limb and say the Calvinist Protestant Christian God.
That's the problem with absolutes, the world must be so simple for them all to apply.
Are they doing so in the knowledge that what they are doing is morally wrong for the reasons that I have provided, or in the knowledge that it is morally right based on the rites and mores of their culture ?
Eventhough I can take the view that I believe that it is morally wrong from my perspective I can also accept that it is not morally wrong from theirs.
In terms of the more controversial female circumcision that acceptance would not preclude me from acting to prevent such a surgical precedure if I was aware that a girl was likely to undergo such a precedure.
"The Nazis, for ex, deemed it perfectly "good" and "right" to slaughter both Jews and the mentally ill (on a Darwinian basis).
The Allies deemed that morally wrong.
Who was right? The winner of the war? Hardly matters. Right and Wrong are NOT determined by a cock fight."
Well, firstly you need to define what you mean by 'right'.
The Second World War is full of alot of interesting moral issues, from the Wansee Conference, the Bombing of Dresden, the return of the Cossacks, and of course Katyn Forest.
Bomber Harris was never prosecuted ofr war crimes, but there is a substantial body of opinion that would suggest that if the standards applied to the Nazis were applied to the Allies then he should have been.
Anyone reading about the Normandy Campaign can quickly come across actions by the Allies that would be classed as war crimes if they had been carried out by the Nazis eg shooting unarmed prisoners.
"Upon what basis did we deem their actions "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" and atrocities?"
The law.
Under atheism there can be no such thing as a moral atrocity because there is no ultimate Rule by which to measure such."
""It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." R. Dawkins
compared to :
"there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". - Richard Dawkins"
Without citations I couldn't comment, I was an atheist before Richard Dawkins became famous so I'm not word perfect on his works.
"It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism."
Pot, meet kettle.
"And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!"
Ok, now have a think about that sentence Gary, a really good think.
"Yet during all the atheist paradigm is still insisted upon as being absolutely true!!!"
at the very least I'll need a source for that.
"I think the explanation lies partly here: For if the gospel we preach is hidden, it is hidden only from those who are being lost. They will not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."
As an ex-Pagan you'll have to excuse my guffawing.
Not only do you insist that there must be a God, but that it is the Christian God, the Western view of the Christian, and I'd even guess, based on our exchanges, the Protestant view of the Christian God. I'm tempted to go out on a limb and say the Calvinist Protestant Christian God.
That's the problem with absolutes, the world must be so simple for them all to apply.
"I would have thought it hardly in need of more evidence that what we already see publicly in cases like Behe, Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker, etc.; and I know personally one anthropologist who was hindered for years by the ruling Darwinistas."
Oh, you are.
"Q: Would you agree with the Marquis de Sade's assessment of male-female relationships?"
"You might not understand half of what I would write myself unless you grasp what Abel et al. are saying."
It is becoming a massive digression and beyond what was the scope of the discussion and I'm now at the stage of asking how it relates to the three statements that I made in my opening post ?
"The real issue is can atheism give a foundation for any ethics at all?"
Erm, yes. I'm an atheist and I'm applying my atheistic ethics to the issues at hand.
The issue is not whether an atheist has some foundation whether it is logical that he has.
Without an objective foundation, all others are not really "foundations" at all, merely personal opinion based on some ones else's personal opinion and so on.
You need to first define some terms such as truly right and truly wrong, then we can move forward.
Are you wanting to play a word game?
Excellent, we have some progress, albeit based on a misunderstanding.
I think the misunderstanding is yours. You deny any absolute morals but still clearly assume them in all your own morals.
In my opinion the ...is child abuse.
Why? What's "wrong" with doing what ever one wants wishes to children?
I can take the view that I believe that it is morally wrong from my perspective I can also accept that it is not morally wrong from theirs.
This is the point. Is it wrong or right? All you've said is that it is in fact neither.
"Upon what basis did we deem their actions "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" and atrocities?"
The law.
You've only moved the question back a step. So whence comes the right to make law? Is that law right or wrong?
"Under atheism there can be no such thing as a moral atrocity because there is no ultimate Rule by which to measure such."
That's a strawman.
No, that's a fact, as the quotes I gave of well known atheists demonstrate.
strawman- "misrepresentation of an opponent's position." No misrepresentation at all. Its plain and simple logic.
I honestly don't think you even grasp the logical implications of atheism.
I'm beginning to think I've read far more of the atheist philosophers and their arguments than you have!
No absolutes = no atrocities.
The term atrocity is a moral one and needs to be defined on something more than subjective human ideas to have any ultimate meaning at all.
You're idea of atrocity vs someones else's isn't even worth arguing over if there is in fact nothing more than subjectivity involved.
Indeed the very idea of arguing requires an external rule by which to measure rightness and wrongness. Every argument you deploy here contains an underlying assumption that there is an ultimate rule by which propositions can be measured as true or false objectively.
This is where most atheists go wrong.
I find it very strange that amateur atheist debaters perpetually deny the logical consequences of their position, all while the other atheists publicly speak them out.
You don't like Dawkins' or Provine's bold statements that there are no ultimate foundations for ethics, no good, no evil?
That isn't the problem. The problem is that they are right if atheism is true. Do you deny this?
"there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". -Richard Dawkins"
Without citations ...
Do you mean references? The statements are simple and clear enough. Provine's statement was in a public debate against a theist. Dawkins' is in "Out of Eden" pg 133
GH "It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism."
PB Pot, meet kettle.
Show me exactly where I contradict myself? And give me your rule by which you measure so.
"And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!"
Ok, now have a think about that sentence Gary, a really good think.
Why don't you answer the question instead and I'll think about your answer.
As an ex-Pagan you'll have to excuse my guffawing.
I know many ex-pagans that would guffaw right back at you and shake their heads in shame of what they once were.
Not only do you insist that there must be a God, but that it is the Christian God, ...
You conflate my quote with an insistence or an argument for a specific God. The quote is not part of any argument. Its 1 of several reasons for why I believe atheists to be so blind to many obvious facts.
That's the problem with absolutes, the world must be so simple for them all to apply.
You repeat yourself as though you'd never read my previous answer to this statement.
Again, it is the atheist view that requires utterly unrealistic simplicity to swallow.
As ex-atheist CS Lewis states, "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
Thus far you have not provided a single piece of evidence for any of your 3 main points.
All you've done thus far is assert them, then merely deny arguments against them without giving any valid reasons.
Where is your proof that there are no absolutes? Moral, logical or other.
GH "You might not understand half of what I would write myself unless you grasp what Abel et al. are saying."
It is becoming a massive digression and beyond what was the scope of the discussion and I'm now at the stage of asking how it relates to the three statements that I made in my opening post ?
It relates because information sciences are involved in the whole. Logic, reason, information. It also relates in that I presented that point as a part of my own world-view foundations.
If you want to ignore evidence for God in biology fine. I have no problem sticking to absolutes and such. But that is just barely touching the surface of the multitude of problems with atheism.
I will however introduce tangents to the subject to illustrate points, add other pieces of evidence etc.
"I will however introduce tangents to the subject [in order to claim victory; it would be far too time-consuming to give a comprehensive rebuttal to thousands of irrelevant issues that can be raised in short order.]" I fixed it for you. No need to thank me. Mr. Baird seems to want to focus on the original topic of debate so that he has time to present an adequate case. I agree that he would not have appropriate time to chase down thousands of little rabbit trails.
"I think the misunderstanding is yours. You deny any absolute morals but still clearly assume them in all your own morals."
On what basis do you make that statement ?
"This is the point. Is it wrong or right? All you've said is that it is in fact neither."
Again, you need to define terms.
When you say 'wrong' do you mean absolutely wrong ? Ditto right. In these sorts of exchanges we both need to be clear what we mean when we use certain terms. You might construe such a request for clarity as playing word games but I think I've already provided good grounds to show that that is not what I'm doing.
Why? What's "wrong" with doing what ever one wants wishes to children?"
Great question.
This is the crux of the issue of relative morality - how do I determine what is right and what is wrong, and then extend that to the concepts of kin, group, and society.
I begin by asking a simple question
"How would I feel if that action or inaction were directly applied to me ?"
Then I extend the question
"How would I feel if that action or inaction were applied to my kinfolk (starting with my immediate family) ?"
from that I have a sense of ethics and morality relating to myself and my immediate family.
I can then extend the question to my social group, and to my wider culture and society.
Thus I can make ethical and moral judgements, and also accept that those ethics and morals can change.
Thus in respect of the practice of male circumcision my own ethics takes the view that medically unnecessary surgical procedures performed without explicit consent are abusive because if they were perfomed on me then I would consider the act to be one of assault on my person.
I would continue to hold that ethical view in respect of Jewish or Muslim religious practices.
I would object, strongly object, to the provison of any such services being made available on the NHS.
That all said, I do not believe that anyone involved in the practice is doing so as a deliberate and knowing act of child abuse - thus I am able to examine the practice from their perspective and accept that the pratice is considered as being morally right within their paradigm.
"You've only moved the question back a step. So whence comes the right to make law? Is that law right or wrong?"
Again, a very good question.
There is a debate to be had about whether or not the laws hould reflect morality, particularly as relative morality can be fluid over a period of several centuries.
I would argue that the law reflects the state of morality within the legislature at the time that the law was made, which is not necessarily the same as that of the wider society at that time.
The right to make laws is based on many factors - you would need to look at the constitutional history of the relevant country, and also look at the constitutional history of a larger group of nations to get a better overview.
If you are going to state that the right to make laws is dependent on moral authority then you need to look at the UK nationally now (coalition - university fees is a really good example), Scotland now (minority administration), even Zimbabwe or Burma now (executive and legislative authority being held by persons who did not legitimately win the popular vote which was the methodology set down in that countrys constitution).
- continued "And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!"
Ok, now have a think about that sentence Gary, a really good think.
Why don't you answer the question instead and I'll think about your answer.
I've explained in a prior post how my knwledge of what is right and what is wrong is built from a sense of personal experience.
You seem to be advocating that without absolute morality that worldwide society would be uncaring about the plight of anyone else.
The evidence does not support that contention.
What the evidence does support is a correlation between distance in miles and distance in relationship in empathetic responses.
ie we are more likely to respond positively to those physically closest and relationally closest to us compared to those more physically distant and relationally distant.
If absolute morality were true then there (generally) should be no such distinction in our empathetic responses - we should generally respond in equal measure to all.
"As an ex-Pagan you'll have to excuse my guffawing.
I know many ex-pagans that would guffaw right back at you and shake their heads in shame of what they once were"
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Christianity stole a great deal of it's rites, rituals, festivals and customs from earlier faiths.
Please ask for a list (Mrs Doyle impression - "Ach, go on, go on, go on, go on") and has consistantly denied the role of any earlier faiths in modern morality (again - please ask for a list - Mrs Doyle impression applies)
"...You deny any absolute morals but still clearly assume them in all your own morals."
On what basis do you make that statement ?
Because, logically, without an ultimate foundation you cannot provide any reason, beyond subjectivity, for any morals at all.
Again, you need to define terms.
Again, all along you've been making statements about rightness and wrongness without having defined them! So you require definitions when its convenient for you?
Very well.
Truly Right vs Wrong means that values or rules of logic are valid independently of our apprehension of them. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.
---- Indeed Paul, this whole thread is you and I trying to prove something is really right while something else is really wrong.
Under atheism neither can ever be proven. It will forever remain a cock fight of mere opinions which are in fact not freely chosen because we're all just "dancing to our DNA".
Proof itself is impossible without logical absolutes.
You deny the existence of logical absolutes among which is the law of non contradiction.
This law you attempt to apply everywhere here - yet all the time you deny it even exists! And even denying it exists requires its use!
GH - What's "wrong" with doing what ever one wants wishes to children?"
PB - This is the crux of the issue of relative morality - how do I determine what is right and what is wrong, and then extend that to the concepts of kin, group, and society.
I begin by asking a simple question
"How would I feel if that action or inaction were directly applied to me ?"
Then I extend the question ... from that I have a sense of ethics and morality relating to myself and my immediate family.
I can then extend ...
Paul, don't you see that your whole moral system is based on mere feelings?
PB - Thus I can make ethical and moral judgements, and also accept that those ethics and morals can change.
So tell me, how does the moral value "no child rape" change over time? Upon your system, it is all feelings and whims and perhaps the weather I don't know. Certainly nothing independent.
You said, "...I have a sense of ethics and morality"
Where did you get this idea that some things are right and others are wrong in the first place?
...male circumcision my own ethics takes the view that ...are abusive because if they were perfomed on me then I would consider the act to be one of assault on my person.
This begs the question, Why should you have any right to think that no one should assault you?
Where did you get that idea from?
...accept that the pratice is considered as being morally right within their paradigm.
Back to the bottom. You pass by the real issue - is it morally right or wrong in reality? Or is it all just subjective?
Would you say the same about the Nazis? Would you "accept the practice [of holocaust] is considered as being morally right within their paradigm"?
GH - "Show me exactly where I contradict myself? And give me your rule by which you measure so."
Christianity, which you are advocating, is full of contradictions. Would you like a list ?
This is not an answer to my question.
And no, this isn't about Xianity. The debate is over the existence of absolutes and an ultimate foundation for them - God.
It is there that the atheist is obliged to contradict himself.
A contradiction is where A is held to be true in one part of a statement and not true in another.
Unless the law of non contradiction is absolute, there is no such thing as a contradiction. Without it nothing can ever be proved.
Here I quote one time atheist CS Lewis, "Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; ... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought-laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory, in other words, unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare's nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it."
PB: I've explained in a prior post how my knwledge of what is right and what is wrong is built from a sense of personal experience.
Fine but this means that your knowledge itself is pure subjectivity and nothing more than your personal opinion. A very fleeting foundation indeed.
You seem to be advocating that without absolute morality that worldwide society would be uncaring about the plight of anyone else.
Again you miss my point. I'm not advocating any such thing. Open your mind "free thinker". ;-)
I'm saying that if there is no absolute basis for morality, logic and thus truth, then there is no reason but personal feelings (i.e. mostly selfishness) and no real obligation for anyone to care for anyone else at all.
You're confusing results or actual practice with logical foundations for such.
Again, where does this pesky moral sense come from in the first place? It is a law that we all know the basics of yet do not in fact obey.
If it were, as atheism requires, mere cultural imbibing and moralizing from parents to progeny, it would be easy to get rid of it and there would be far less consensus to what is truly right and wrong than there is.
If mere evolutionary adaptation to make us want to get along and be caring for mere survival's sake then the question "why should I care whether you survive or not" is begged.
Again, atheist evolutionists claim quite clearly that "morals are an illusion".
If absolute morality were true then there (generally) should be no such distinction in our empathetic responses - we should generally respond in equal measure to all.
I don't know where you get that from but I think its simply false. See here
So many orgs could never survive if your view were true. And more crop up every year.
(most founded by religious groups and most of them are Xian btw. Very very few are founded by atheists. Wonder why)
Yet 100s of billions of currency per year pass through these orgs coming from ordinary people, corporations, governments etc. destined to help people of other races, languages, religions, colors etc., 1000s of miles away from them.
Christianity stole a great deal of it's rites, rituals, festivals and customs from earlier faiths.
If you mean things like "Easter", "Christmas" etc, there is truth in that - especially where Roman Catholicism is concerned but other branches as well.
Unfortunately most atheists I meet mean far more than just holidays and such.
And fortunately they are quite wrong and generally have it backwards. I usually have no problem showing them the real facts of history vs the invented and reversed modern ones which quite often are outright manipulations.
That's another topic. --------------------------- So you're arguing for a non-sepcific deity ?
Really ?
Like I said, at this point I'm arguing for no specific deity. I'm arguing for a deity that's all.
Whether I myself believe in the only one that is feasible is a different subject.
All you've done thus far is assert them, then merely deny arguments against them without giving any valid reasons.
Where is your proof that there are no absolutes? Moral, logical or other."
Is this how you 'win' your arguments ?
I've seen nothing more than appeal to emotions in your "detailed lines" -all while you continue assuming the existence of logical absolutes.
Nothing you've said constitutes evidence let alone proof that there are no absolutes.
Do I need to repeat it again? Very well, without assuming logical absolutes no one can prove or disprove anything at all.
I've provided quite detailed lines of argument against absolute morality.
No you haven't. I'm in fact very surprised you think you have! I was hoping to finally see your "proof" soon.
You've merely explained what your own morality is based on and asserted (absolutely) that there are no absolutes.
Your "detailed lines" are seriously lacking in substance as thus far you've assumed the law of non contradiction everywhere in everything you've written!
Your morality appears to be based solely on personal experience and feelings extended to the universe.
I.e. utterly subjective and thus useless to the rest, unless valid independently of what anyone thinks.
But the very point is "why should anyone care about anyone's personal experience and feelings if there is no good or evil".
"You're nothing but a pack of neurons" returns to mind. So why should I care what one pack of neurons is doing?
Thus atheism preaches highly superficial and frail as the wind morality. Indeed atheism must borrow from religion whatever moral objectivity it uses!
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior. -Vox Day
Internal contradictions, thus undo atheism at every turn. It is fatally infected with internecine conflict.
...how the absolute laws of logic deal with an out of body or near death experience ?
Unfortunately, OOBs and NDEs have been experienced by both Christians and non-Christians.
So, is Christianity exclusively correct ?
OOBs and NDEs experienced by all imply that all humans are essentially spirit and that death is the separation of the spirit from its habitation the body.
So OOBs and NDEs according to Judeo/Christian and indeed many other religions should exist. In fact there are now millions of documented NDEs and OOBs on record and while there are many differences they are all consistent in many ways.
Is Xianity exclusive? Christ is exclusive. Paul deals with some aspect of this in Romans 1 and 2. Peter addresses the issue very succinctly in Acts in the Cornelius event.
But again that's another very broad topic. You might want to read CS Lewis "Chronicles of Narnia" -specifically the 7th book, "The Last Battle" to see how one Xian viewed your question.
And this implies that spirit is what really endures not mere matter which is subject to entropy.
There seems to be some sort of "collapse" (as one scientifically knowledgeable now ex atheist described his own NDE experience) of the space/time continuum after the separation event - at least space and time as we know them here.
And here is one testimony from a former skeptical Pediatric Oncologist that absolutely raises real serious questions on death and the realities of the spiritual world:
"consider seven year old Anna who died of leukemia: "Before she died, she mustered the final energy to sit up in her hospital bed and say: 'The angels-they're so beautiful! Mommy, can you see them? Do you hear their singing? I've never heard such beautiful singing!' Then she laid back on her pillow and died."
Dr. Diane Komp is no longer a skeptic. She is now a pediatric oncologist at Yale and has written several books on NDE's with children - including many children with zero religious upbringing who claim to have seen Jesus etc..
Because, logically, without an ultimate foundation you cannot provide any reason, beyond subjectivity, for any morals at all.
I have provided an ultimate foundation, Gary, and yes it is both subjective and relative.
Again, all along you've been making statements about rightness and wrongness without having defined them!
But I have already Gary.
Truly Right vs Wrong means that values or rules of logic are valid independently of our apprehension of them. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.
Really ? You've already acknowledged that 'logic' has not changed but our understanding of what that logic is has.
So how can we be sure that the 'truth' we think is objectively true and is not instead the current subjective view of the 'truth' ?
Would you say the same about the Nazis? Would you "accept the practice [of holocaust] is considered as being morally right within their paradigm"?
Now you're getting the point.
Instead of using the Nazis as an extreme example of evil it is far better to consider the Nazis as an example of how it is possible for a coherent moral paradigm to become so skewed relative to other moral paradigms that it is relatively abhorrent.
There is a very good argument to be made that the Nazis were building on a centuries old anti-semetic culture in Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, closer to home, after the war, even after having seen the photos of Belsen at an exhibition in London, several English people leaving the exhibition were overhead making anti-semetic comments.
There are also very good grounds for stating that had the Nazi invasion of Britain been successful then there would have been death camps here too - filled by Jews denounced by the British populace.
The lesson that the Nazis left for us was best expressed by Hannah Arendt in her book on the trial of Adolf Eichmann - wherein she stated that he was the embodiment of the banality of evil.
Have you seen the photographs of the female guards at Auschwitz ? They are all disturbingly normal looking.
We would like to believe that people carrying out horrific acts must be aware that what they are doing is absolutely evil, absolutely wrong.
It enables us to put up a barrier between the acts that they carried out and our own moral positions.
If they were so evil and the acts so absolutely wrong then there is no way that we can ever be in danger of doing anything similar.
Once again - it's not that simple, as the Milgram experiment amply demonstrated.
source for Hannah Arendt - http://www.iep.utm.edu/arendt/#H6
A contradiction is where A is held to be true in one part of a statement and not true in another.
Unless the law of non contradiction is absolute, there is no such thing as a contradiction. Without it nothing can ever be proved.
Again is the law descriptive or prescriptive and how can you prove that is absolute.
I'm happy to accept that it's true within my own paragdigm. I can't say about whether it held a million years ago or will a million years in the future, perhaps our understanding of what 'logic' is may have changed by then.
I usually have no problem showing them the real facts of history vs the invented and reversed modern ones which quite often are outright manipulations.
Really ? I'm very interested in seeing your "real facts".
We can also have a look at the real facts regarding Christian festivals.
I'm nonetheless gald that you acknowledge both Christmas and Easter - so what is the basis of your faith again ?
Yo Paul, if you would be so kind as to define each of the following:
absolute truth = ? absolute morality = ? absolute laws of logic = ?
Yo David,
You need to define what you expect me to put in where the question mark is, otherwise look at my first post.
Basically I'm a relativist, particularly a moral relativist.
I struggle to see how it is possible, given the history of our knowledge of the field of logic, to state that the three laws are absolute and prescriptive.
I have real issues with absolute truth - what on earth is it and who defines which bit of information is absolutely true ?
My own worldview is thus summarised by saying that I think that life, the universe and everything is far more complex than a set of three absolute statements would imply.
OOBs and NDEs experienced by all imply that all humans are essentially spirit and that death is the separation of the spirit from its habitation the body
Great.
So we have a breach of the First Absolute Law of Logic - The Law of Identity.
A human is essntially but not exclusively of the spirit.
So P=P and sometimes P sort of = P and in death P = another sort of P, which is not the same as the first sort of P, and sometimes, during an OOB or NDE then P might = P in the first sense, and a bit like in the second sense, but it may be a unique halfway house third sense.
Yep, a really straightforward application of the First Absolute Law of Logic.
Perhaps you would like another go at explaining it to me.
So OOBs and NDEs according to Judeo/Christian and indeed many other religions should exist. In fact there are now millions of documented NDEs and OOBs on record and while there are many differences they are all consistent in many ways.
Is Xianity exclusive? Christ is exclusive.
Sooooo, no I've read this bit several times and it still doesn't make sense.
Christ is exclusive. Ok But NDEs and OOBs are not exclsuive, and you accept that the prevalence of both phenomena in both Christians and non-Christians.
And this is all consistant ?
But again that's another very broad topic. You might want to read CS Lewis "Chronicles of Narnia" -specifically the 7th book, "The Last Battle" to see how one Xian viewed your question.
ah, the Pevensey Children. Bless. Iread the whole series as a child. But what of poor old Susan ?
>>Like I said, at this point I'm arguing for no specific deity. I'm arguing for a deity that's all.
Huge mistake.
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is, to know anything, and to know absolutes. Without the Christian God, the arguments ends in the absurd. An infinite regress of "and how do you know that?"...
Those who deny God's existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
I suggest you name the only deity that is the precondition to intelligibility.
Any of these are acceptable:
EL, ELOAH, ELOHIM, EL SHADDAI, ADONAI, YHWH, YAHWEH, JEHOVAH, YAHWEH-JIREH, YAHWEH-RAPHA, YAHWEH-NISSI, YAHWEH-M'KADDESH, YAHWEH-SHALOM, YAHWEH-ELOHIM, YAHWEH-TSIDKENU, YAHWEH-ROHI, YAHWEH-SHAMMAH, YAHWEH-SABAOTH, EL ELYON, EL ROI, EL-OLAM, EL-GIBHOR
There is no such thing as "absolute truth" in the same way that there is no such thing as "absolute red". It isn't a thing. Expressions can be described as true. Do you understand now?
RED BIRD: There is no such thing as "absolute red" in the same way that there is no such thing as "absolute truth". It isn't a thing. Objects can be described as red. Do you understand now?
RED DAVID: BIRD, ask yourself "what is absolute red?"... then write a post about your findings here
RED BIRD: ok- how about red is an "abstract concept"? Could you understand if I explained it like that?
RED DAVID: I have no expectations as what your answer or explanation will be. But I do expect more then... "it doesn't exist". Well, what doesn't exist? You must know what it is if know it doesn't exist.
To me, absolute truth is something which is true no matter the circumstance.
Every single definition of Absolute Truth I've ever heard has turned out to be relative (re. valid only for a limited set of circumstances).
As such, I conclude Absolute Truth does not in fact exist.
Now, if we instead label absolute truth as being possible within a specific system, then I'll concede it exists. For example, 1+1=2 is an absolute truth within trinary (or better) number systems with symbols and operators we understand the meanings of.
However, this "absolute" truth is very limited in scope, which seems (to me) to contradict the intended usage of the term. I thus conclude that the word is either not useful or being misused.
re. absolute truth either does not exist, or is so limited in scope that labeling it as absolute it silly. OR, as a third option, is beyond my abilities to perceive.
Judicious application of Occam's razor thus suggests that the term be discarded.
Just one? OK, God's existence. All evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. God has indeed revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them like His existence.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
OK, FSM existence. All evidence is evidence of FSM, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. FSM has indeed revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them like His existence.
"How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?"
A magical superbeing told him. Of course, since Dan is not omnipotent, he can't know for sure. If the superbeing said He couldn't lie, how could Dan check?
Just one? OK, God's existence. All evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
Two issues
- firstly your conclusion based on the 'evidence' is relative. Others have examined the same evidence and reached different conclusions.
- secondly your conclusion, although you have not specified it in this particular post, is that the God in question is the Christian God. You have no grounds for deciding that it is the Christian God and not some other deity, except for your very own relativism.
absolute truth: Paul's Definition Here absolute morality: Paul's Definition Here absolute laws of logic: Paul's Definition Here
from my OP
absolute truth does not exist absolute morality does not exist absolute laws of logic do not exist
However, to be fair to you your question is ambiguous.
What you MEANT to ask is
What is an absolute and why can't Truth, Morality and the Laws of Logic be absolutes ?
I use definition 4 from Merriam Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute
I do not believe that Truth exists as an absolute because it is the human race who define what is true and what is not, and we can get it wrong, and we can display an inter-group bias.
I do not believe that Morality exists as an absolute for the same reasons.
Logic is great. It's like History. There is this concept of 'real' history, what actually happened, and then there is our understanding and knowledge of what actually happened. Are they the same ? Have we reached a point where they are close enough to be described as equivalent ?
People cite the absolute laws of logic as though human thought will never ever change them throughout the rest of eternity. They cite them as prescriptive rather than descriptive and then go on to say that they evidence God.
In such circumstances human enquiry and development of logic should stop now. We know all the relevant bits, and we can prove the existance of God by the absoluteness of e and Pi.
Ah, crap, the fisrt part of my message did not make it...
Paul Baird said :
Ok, my worldview is that absolute truth does not exist absolute morality does not exist absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, here’s a link to a pertinent Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sade As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
Ok, my worldview is that absolute truth does not exist absolute morality does not exist absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, try the pertinent Wiki article:
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
Ok, my worldview is that absolute truth does not exist absolute morality does not exist absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, try the pertinent Wiki article:
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
Ok, my worldview is that absolute truth does not exist absolute morality does not exist absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, try the pertinent Wiki article:
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
Ok, my worldview is that absolute truth does not exist absolute morality does not exist absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, try the pertinent Wiki article:
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
Now I have a question for PB, do you agree with the Marquis de Sade who basically states that because Nature has made men stronger than women, this justifies men doing absolutely ANYTHING they want with/to women? If you agree with de Sade, then I would say that you are being logical and consistent with your worldview. That said, I do NOT agree with Sade’s materialism, nor his view of male/female relationships, but I do agree he is at least being consistent within his worldview. However if you disagree with de Sade’s view of male/female relationships, then I would demand you to justify your disagreement and indicate to the other participants of this forum what the BASIS for your disagreement is.
Refs Provine, William B. Response to Phillip Johnson. (Letter) pp. 23-24 in First Things mag. no. 6 (October 1990)
Sade, Marquis de; & Blanchot, Maurice (1795/1972) Français, encore un effort si vous voulez être républicains_. (extrait de La Philosophie dans le boudoir”) précédé de L'inconvenance majeure. Jean-Jacques Pauvert Paris (collection Libertés nouvelles; 23) 163 p. (has been translated, Philosophy in the Bedroom)
In order for anything to constitute evidence for a god, there must be an idea of what would constitute evidence against that god. Since you are claiming that everything is automatically evidence for your god, you violate the very concept of evidence. This tells me that you have no evidence.
>>In order for anything to constitute evidence for a god, there must be an idea of what would constitute evidence against that god.
So you are in the judge's seat again? You are the authority to determine the evidence? Because that is the problem in itself. God is the Authority, not us. If we are evaluating God to see if He is worthy of our following then we placing our authority over God's.
Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
You see you have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is "self". You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judge's chair. What you don't realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God's Word then you begin to understand Him.
>>Since you are claiming that everything is automatically evidence for your god, you violate the very concept of evidence.
That is merely a byproduct since God's Word speaks of everything, either directly or by implication. The Bible stands or falls as an entire system. That is not violating anything. God, and His Word, is evidence, for reason and evidence itself.
>>This tells me that you have no evidence.
Again because you are the authority to evaluate the evidence? Wrong way to go.
Pogo/Gary The one thing that really pisses me off is the use of sock-puppets.
Maybe you should calm down and think straighter.
Believe it or not this forum is public and anyone can post with a google or wordpress account.
Did you really imagine that I am alone in the world in my disagreement with atheism and its illogical reasoning process or that I alone think atheism hasn't got a logical leg to stand on?
Paul Baird said... I have provided an ultimate foundation, Gary, and yes it is both subjective and relative.
And therefore unreliable and quite possibly -based on my world-view- false, but in yours it doesn't even matter. If emotions and neurons are the basis of all morality then there really is no morality at all.
Morality, as our Darwinist friends state, is an mere accidental evolutionary adaptation, an illusion.
Really ? You've already acknowledged that 'logic' has not changed but our understanding of what that logic is has.
Our understanding is nevertheless of a real thing. One may get his sums wrong in arithmetic. Does that mean math itself is relative and subjective? No. Is there a real thin behind numbers? Of course. If there were not nothing would work.
That's the difference. If logic, like the atheist view of morals, were a mere Darwinian question of survival, it does not really exist at all; only as yet another accidental evol. adaptation - another illusion.
But if that be the case it is useless because it doesn't have existence outside the human brain.
So how can we be sure that the 'truth' we think is objectively true and is not instead the current subjective view of the 'truth' ?
That is truly possible.
But that is the very reason why we are obliged to assume that our powers of reason and absolute rules of logic really do exist!
Otherwise, vanity of vanities! All is in ruins - the whole sum of human thinking becomes nothing but a massive neurological phenomenon of matter and energy flowing through "3 pounds of meat", destined to vanity and oblivion with the physical universe itself.
Otherwise, vanity of vanities! All is in ruins - the whole sum of human thinking becomes nothing but a massive neurological phenomenon of matter and energy flowing through "3 pounds of meat", destined to vanity and oblivion with the physical universe itself.
Your appeal to (supposed) consequences shows how afraid of reality you are.
Gary and Paul
ReplyDeleteWhat is the topic of your debate going to be?
What are the debate rules?
Ok, my worldview is that
ReplyDeleteabsolute truth does not exist
absolute morality does not exist
absolute laws of logic do not exist
I'm pretty certain that someone will absolutely misunderstand my worldview.
It is not enough to simply question my worldview as part of any countering response.
Please take each part and briefly refute it.
If we can keep the posts brief but pertinent then the exchanges should be more fruitful.
Thanks.
Paul here is a short résumé basis of my world view:
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was already with God in the beginning.
Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.
He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity.
The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it.
...
He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him. Yet, the world didn't recognize him.
...
God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.
God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but to save the world.
Those who believe in him won't be condemned. But those who don't believe are already condemned because they don't believe in God's only Son.
This is why people are condemned: The light came into the world.
Yet, people loved the dark rather than the light because their actions were evil.
People who do what is wrong hate the light and don't come to the light. They don't want their actions to be exposed.
...
For the anger of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
And of course, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds..."
I would even add Voltaire's view on atheists, which I share,
"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability....." -Philosophical Dictionary
And Plato's "Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding....."
That last one is clearly your case, given your past.
Next post I'll extend & explain one small part of that and then I'll address your 3 main claims, all of which are wrong and unprovable.
Or to put Gary's world view another way;
ReplyDeleteJohn 1:1-10
John 3:16-20
Romans 1:18-22
Psalm 14:1
Voltaire quote
Plato quote.
"In the beginning was the Word. ...Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.
ReplyDeleteHe was the source of life..."
This is now visible and most literally seen in the DNA molecule.
DNA is a humongous set of prescribed, encoded algorithms and information processing apparatus designed to create living things.
Instructions, in this chemical code, are words, phrases and paragraphs describing in complex detail how to living organisms.
DNA has been called a "book of instructions".
It is a highly complex information processing system with code, sub code, codes embedded in other code etc.. It also contains meta-information - i.e. information on information.
It is impossible for meta-information to exist without intelligence.
That's intrinsic in the very definition of meta-information.
The living cell is also full of complex bio machinery that produce everything needed to build living things.
Code, by default, implies intelligence. Code requires a symbolic convention with syntax and semantics.
Code that formally describes algorithms which perform highly specific tasks cannot arise without intelligence.
Indeed, no encoded algorithmic information can arise by random processes.
In the Word is life.
I believe that DNA is one of the physical extensions of that Word encoded for life on earth.
DNA thus, could not have arisen by random chance and necessity.
The laws of physics and chemistry refute all such notions.
The probability of a "chance" + the laws of physics and chemistry, building even a single small protein are approx. 1 in 10^164.
According to atheism, this feat has nevertheless been accomplished by pure chance and necessity!
Indeed, the estimated number of atoms in the universe is currently considered as at least 10^80.
You have a better chance of finding a single elementary particle in the entire universe by chance than of building that single protein.
DNA is thus the work of some immense, unfathomable intellect.
Digitally encoded assembly instructions, error detection/correction, nano machines etc. cannot be produced through any natural process known.
Only intelligence produces code.
The level of intelligence required for building the DNA code of life is far far beyond anything the human mind could ever conceive.
The only intelligences possible for such a magnificent piece of design and engineering are the following:
1) some alien intelligence
2) the being men call God
We know of no aliens ...yet anyway.
If that were true we'd still be forced to ask where they came from etc.
We do have immense evidence for the existence of a supreme being with will, purpose and creative function.
The late Fred Hoyle stated, Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Hoyle was an atheist, yet he recognized that the design inference was the only possible viable answer.
The signature of God is everywhere visible to any unclouded, unbiased mind -as all human history tells us- yet the DNA/RNA coupling contains his most clear Word of power and intent and his most clear signature.
Christ Follower (no longer) said...
ReplyDeleteIndeed. And?
Are you going to attempt to refute anything here or are you just hoping to gather other "Judas Iscariot" Christ betrayers to you new found faith in nothing?
Indeed. And?
ReplyDeleteWhy does there have to be an "and"? I just added some context.
are you just hoping to gather other "Judas Iscariot" Christ betrayers to you new found faith in nothing?
Heh. I used to be like you. Trolling the internet for Jesus.
Christ Follower
ReplyDeleteHeh. I used to be like you. Trolling the internet for Jesus.
Wrong. I am nothing like you ever were.
Anyone that abandons Christ for foolish and childish reasons like you is a sorry Judas & a loser.
If you ever really were a Xian that is. If not you just exchanged one religious trip for a more useless one.
Nothing is more inane & useless than atheism.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you are going to get a debate here....
Zilly,
ReplyDeleteThere rarely is any real debate here.
Atheists live in denial of reality and that's pretty much what we get as "debate".
Athies typical response: "Don't believe that evidence, don't believe this evidence, , pretend I didn't see that evidence, ignore this evidence, can't see any evidence with my blinders on and I will never take them off, bla bla."
You certainly fit that bill.
Gary: "Wrong. I am nothing like you ever were.
ReplyDeleteAnyone that abandons Christ for foolish and childish reasons like you is a sorry Judas & a loser.
If you ever really were a Xian that is. If not you just exchanged one religious trip for a more useless one.
Nothing is more inane & useless than atheism."
Gary, we were like you. I suppose you annoy me more than most other Christians because I was just as antagonistically christian as you are now. That's how I ended up blindly walking right off the Christian cliff, falling straight into the river of incredulity.
You perceive us as hostile when you are the only hostile one here. Most of us come here for amusement, I assume. Probably to laugh at the embarrassment of our former stupidity. It's cheaper than therapy.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteYou are debating Paul,
Read his post and respond.
All Paul asked was
"Please take each part and briefly refute it.
If we can keep the posts brief but pertinent then the exchanges should be more fruitful."
What Gary replied with was a heap of cut and paste... With no reference to what Paul had said...
The theists of debunking atheists have show yet again there hypocrisy
Gary the master debater who doesn't debate nor seem to comprehend what a debate is.
Claims a Victory in a debate with his strawman.
And we have his leader Dan the Genocide bible basher.
*** Gary don't reply to me reply to Paul***
ericka
ReplyDeleteGary, we were like you.
No, you merely think your were.
You perceive us as hostile when you are the only hostile one here.
Wrong, when you use your long list of 4 letter words, curse and swear and all the rest of your usual tripe you are being hostile.
I'm hostile to lies, liars and hard headed atheists who love lies and that cannot and will not see beyond their own pathetic empty world-views.
ANTZILLA said...
ReplyDeleteYou are debating Paul,
Read his post and respond.
What Gary replied with was a heap of cut and paste... With no reference to what Paul had said...
ROTFL
Once again little boy, you demonstrate you inability comprehend plain English.
Gary don't reply to me reply to Paul
Ya right.
Here's what I wrote, "Next post I'll extend & explain one small part of that and then I'll address your 3 main claims, all of which are wrong and unprovable."
Duh. So obviously you can't read and/or fail to grasp simple phrases.
Why don't you go cry to your mommy while I prepare the next part for Paul?
I think you're a spoiled little brat with no real understanding that wants to pretend to himself and others that he is a very intelligent person for adopting the multiple inanities of atheism.
Paul Baird said...
ReplyDeleteabsolute truth does not exist
Are you absolutely sure?
Absolute truth exists and everyone knows it.
If no absolute truth exists what & why are you debating?
absolute morality does not exist
If no absolute morality exists, then nothing is ever morally right or wrong. There is no evil and no good under this idea.
Proximate values are no values at all. Collective cultural consent values are also meaningless without the overarching absolute Moral Law.
If someone were to attempt rape and murder upon your family you'd be the first to think that was absolutely wrong, and very quickly indeed.
If such persons succeeded in their desires, you could never even say it was wrong in any sense at all.
"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all."
absolute laws of logic do not exist
Then science is a crock. It becomes foolish attempts to explain existence by logic, yet without logical absolutes nothing can ever be either proved or disproved.
In what imaginary universe would 1+1=3.56?
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared - the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age." -C. S. Lewis
Indeed, because of this inane self-refuting idea, that there are no absolutes, many scientists are now turning to New Age mysticism and we will see more and more occult mixed in with "science" as this trend moves backwards to alchemy-like beliefs.
I'm pretty certain that someone will absolutely misunderstand my worldview.
Absolutely? ;-)
I bet you don't quite understand your world view yourself.
Most atheists don't understand the nature and implications of atheism.
If no logical absolutes exist, what is the foundation of your reasoning?
And, why should anyone believe you?
ericka,christ follower and other
ReplyDeleteLets leave this blog for Gary and Paul only. Leaving Gary no where to hide.
Over and out
"In the beginning was the Word"
ReplyDeleteThis message brought to you by the Church of Justin Timberlake
LOL sorry could help myself,
Well, I did a blog post on what it means to win a debate, considering Gary here says he always wins his debates with atheists. Offhand, I would say that insulting the audience is not likely to be conducive to that goal. I would like to note that it has been nearly twelve hours and you have yet to address those three main points. I wouldn't have expected it to take so long to prepare a reply, particularly since (if I understand the claims of your previous posts correctly) you have dealt with the question of "absolute truth" before. You should have something more compelling than the loaded question you like to use.
ReplyDeleteGary
ReplyDeleteAssuming you know what these words mean, I'd start with the facts that currently we know amino acids can form by themselves, we know nucleotides can form by themselves, and we know RNA can replicate itself (see 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry).
Given the formation of nucleotides, it doesn't seem strange to think that RNA could form, as it's a chain of nucleotides. Once RNA has formed, we know that it is a self-replicating molecule, so it can begin to do its thing. Ta-da, life!
With those basics, I'd recommend they don't pepper me with questions and challenges, and instead look up the current state of scientific literature on the subject for yourself.
Oh, that's right you can't your a fucking idiot. Well, do your best.
Oh, if you try pointing out and citing incomplete knowledge of this topic as evidence for the supernatural is an argument from ignorance, and is completely unacceptable.
"In the beginning was the Word...etc"
Classic theist gibborish
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"The probability of a "chance" + the laws of physics and chemistry, building even a single small protein are approx. 1 in 10^164."
Source ?
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"Absolute truth exists and everyone knows it.
If no absolute truth exists what & why are you debating?"
Ok, good. We can start here. I'll post one response for each heading.
We are debating based on our notions of relative truth, otherwise one of us is knowingly lying. I'm not lying and I don't think that you are either, so how can we both be right ?
However, within our own paradigms we are both right.
Unless you are secretly an atheist and you are lying or I am secretly a Christian and I am lying.
I doubt that though.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"If no absolute morality exists, then nothing is ever morally right or wrong. There is no evil and no good under this idea."
This is a terrible strawman.
Let me demonstrate using the two most common examples used by Christians as actions that are absolutely morally wrong.
1) Sexually molestly children for fun
2) Eating your own mother
1) I've raised the issue of Brit Milah with a number of Christians. It's a practice that I find morally objectionable. It involves the use of a sharp knife on the male genitalia of a baby of 6 days of age as part of a Jewish religious ritual.
Is the practice absolutely morally wrong or relatively morally wrong or absolutely morally right or relatively morally right ?
Does the motivation of the person carrying out the ritual matter ?
Doe the consent of the parents matter ?
If the practice of male circumcision can be viewed as morally right (whether absolutely or relatively) how should female circumcision be morally viewed ?
2) Have you seen the film "Alive" or read the book ? Would necessity make an act which was otherwise morally wrong - right ? How would you morally judge a society whose funereal practices involved eating the remains of deceased relatives ?
The point about absolute morality is that people quote it's existance because it makes judgements very easy - however the reality is that humanity is a far more complex entity than absolutism would allow.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"Then science is a crock. It becomes foolish attempts to explain existence by logic, yet without logical absolutes nothing can ever be either proved or disproved."
This has been answered very well by other atheists in debates with theists when the so-called absolute laws of logic are thrown into the mix. One theist evens decides to talk gibberish as if making a point that the absence of absolute laws of logic means that there no laws of logic NOW, within our own paradigm.
Logic has changed and developed over the centuries, and will continue to do so.
Consider how many degrees there are in a triangle. Would you say 180 ?
Would you say that that was a mathmatical absolute ? Even on a curved surface ?
Theists need absolutes. They make the world much simpler than it really is.
Paul Baird
ReplyDelete"...1 in 10^164."
This is an estimate based on the research of Robert Sauer, Murray Eden, Douglas Axe, etc., and presented in Meyers "Signature in the Cell"
Source ?
Several:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012749/evolution_vs_probability_origin_of_life_math_prof_john_walton/
Douglas Axe (PhD in Chemical Engineering) also, experimentally not theoretically (with site directed mutagenesis experiments on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme) estimated that the probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 10^77.
If the universe is indeed some 13.7 billion years and since using the Plank length (smallest possible distance) which is 10^-33 centimeters, and the Plank time (number of possible events per sec.) which is 10^43 and then the number of elementary particles in the universe which is estimated to be 10^80 - calculating the number of possible events in the universe since the BB gives ~10^139. That's using Dembski's very conservative calculation.
Other scientists have given much smaller results like University of Pittsburgh physicist Bret van der Sande's estimate of the probabilistic resources available in the universe at 10^92 - a much less favorable number for the supposed evolutionary time frame than Dembski's. Worse of course is that this is the number that applies since the beginning of the universe - not the beginning of Earth!
MIT computer scientist Seth Lloyd has calculated that the most bit operations the universe could have performed in its history (assuming the entire universe were given over to this single-minded task) is 10^120, meaning that a specific bit operation with an improbability significantly greater than 1 chance in 10^120 will likely never occur by chance. None of these probabilistic resources is sufficient to render the chance hypothesis plausible. Dembski’s calculation is the most conservative and gives chance its "best chance" to succeed. But even his calculation confirms the implausibility of the chance hypothesis, whether chance is invoked to explain the information necessary to build a single protein or the information necessary to build the suite of proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell.
The probability of producing a single 150-amino-acid functional protein by chance stands at about 1 in about 10^164 (when including P for the requirements for having only peptide bonds and only L-amino acids) - "L-amino acids" dominate on earth, etc. "If you mix up chirality, a protein's properties change enormously. Life couldn't operate with just random mixtures of stuff," - Ronald Breslow, Ph.D., University Professor, Columbia University).
Chirality: The term chiral is used to describe an object that is non-superposable on its mirror image.
For each functional sequence of 150 amino acids, there are at least 10^164 other possible nonfunctional sequences of the same length. Therefore, to have a good (i.e., better than 50-50) chance of producing a single functional protein of this length by chance, a random process would have to generate (or sample) more than half of the 10^164 nonfunctional sequences corresponding to each functional sequence of that length.
Notice that to have a better than 50-50 chance of generating a functional protein by chance, more than half of the 10^164 sequences would have to be produced. Now compare that number (0.5 x l0^164) to the maximum number of opportunities – 10^139 – for that event to occur in the history of the universe.
PaulB
ReplyDeleteTheists need absolutes. They make the world much simpler than it really is.
Wrong, theists recognize the existence of absolutes. Atheists merely deny them - as you do here - and that all while assuming they exist!
*You've take the habitual atheist route of mixing evasion & assertion
*You're points on morality miss the point.
We are debating based on our notions of relative truth
No, we are actually debating on whether or not debate is possible without logical absolutes.
And about your implied assertion that you're absolutely sure no absolutes exist!
GH "If no absolute morality exists, then nothing is ever morally right or wrong. There is no evil and no good under this idea."
PB This is a terrible strawman.
No it isn't and you either know this or are playing word games. Read Provine's statement below. It's ubiquitous.
Logic has changed and developed over the centuries, and will continue to do so.
That is poor logic in itself.
Logic has never changed. Our understanding of it has.
1+1 = 2 According to your view this could change any time.
Do you plan on proving the contrary all while assuming logic is changeless?
Thus far this is what you're doing!
What is your foundation for reasoning? You didn't answer that.
Where do you get your "rightness" from? Upon what basis do you claim there is no Real basis?
By what rule do you measure right and wrong? Under atheism there is none but subjective opinion.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine
PB Is the practice [of circumcision] absolutely morally wrong ...?
Is getting a tattoo morally wrong or right? How about a haircut?
Bad question that misses the point, but I'll answer:
Circumcision of men changes nothing in their lives -it was a mere sign or symbol given to ancient Hebrews- not the whole world.
Circumcision of females has dire consequences on their subsequent sexuality. (urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility etc.)
Measuring rightness or wrongness therein is a matter of context, but the underlying Moral Rule does not change.
Your question merely avoids the issue of an transcendent Moral Law.
Does the motivation ...matter?
Again, you're evading the underlying issue of ultimate foundations for any morals at all.
To answer your questions -based on the logical implications of atheism- no, there is no right or wrong involved in any act whatsoever. Be it rape, murder or mere circumcision.
Would necessity make an act which was otherwise morally wrong - right ?
Another side step from the fundamental issue. The rest follows suit.
The point about absolute morality is that people quote it's existance because it makes judgements very easy
Generally no it doesn't. Only in the identification of some wrongs.
Conversely, under atheist "logic", no judgment at all is possible for there is no objective rule whatsoever upon which to base one!
however the reality is that humanity is a far more complex entity than absolutism would allow.
You have it backwards. Atheism is mere denial and preaches emptiness and universal origins that are so pathetically simplistic as to be both ludicrous & impossible.
"Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow's ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys....."
James M. Gillis
It is the very specified complexity of the universe that warrants a design inference.
Paul Baird
ReplyDelete"...1 in 10^164."
This is an estimate based on the research of Robert Sauer, Murray Eden, Douglas Axe, etc., and presented in Meyers "Signature in the Cell"
Source ?
Several:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012749/evolution_vs_probability_origin_of_life_math_prof_john_walton/
Douglas Axe (PhD in Chemical Engineering) also, experimentally not theoretically (with site directed mutagenesis experiments on a 150-residue protein-folding domain within a B-lactamase enzyme) estimated that the probability of finding a functional protein among the possible amino acid sequences corresponding to a 150-residue protein is similarly 1 in 10^77.
If the universe is indeed some 13.7 billion years and since using the Plank length (smallest possible distance) which is 10^-33 centimeters, and the Plank time (number of possible events per sec.) which is 10^43 and then the number of elementary particles in the universe which is estimated to be 10^80 - calculating the number of possible events in the universe since the BB gives ~10^139. That's using Dembski's very conservative calculation.
Other scientists have given much smaller results like University of Pittsburgh physicist Bret van der Sande's estimate of the probabilistic resources available in the universe at 10^92 - a much less favorable number for the supposed evolutionary time frame than Dembski's. Worse of course is that this is the number that applies since the beginning of the universe - not the beginning of Earth!
MIT computer scientist Seth Lloyd has calculated that the most bit operations the universe could have performed in its history (assuming the entire universe were given over to this single-minded task) is 10^120, meaning that a specific bit operation with an improbability significantly greater than 1 chance in 10^120 will likely never occur by chance. None of these probabilistic resources is sufficient to render the chance hypothesis plausible. Dembski’s calculation is the most conservative and gives chance its "best chance" to succeed. But even his calculation confirms the implausibility of the chance hypothesis, whether chance is invoked to explain the information necessary to build a single protein or the information necessary to build the suite of proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell.
The probability of producing a single 150-amino-acid functional protein by chance stands at about 1 in about 10^164 (when including P for the requirements for having only peptide bonds and only L-amino acids) - "L-amino acids" dominate on earth, etc. "If you mix up chirality, a protein's properties change enormously. Life couldn't operate with just random mixtures of stuff," - Ronald Breslow, Ph.D., University Professor, Columbia University).
Chirality: The term chiral is used to describe an object that is non-superposable on its mirror image. The concept of handedness - right, left
Look up "Chirality"
Thus, for each functional sequence of 150 amino acids, there are at least 10^164 other possible nonfunctional sequences of the same length. Therefore, to have a good (i.e., better than 50-50) chance of producing a single functional protein of this length by chance, a random process would have to generate (or sample) more than half of the 10^164 nonfunctional sequences corresponding to each functional sequence of that length. Unfortunately, that number vastly exceeds the most optimistic estimate of the probabilistic resources of the entire universe - that is the number of events that could have occurred since the beginning of its existence.
To see this, notice that to have a better than 50-50 chance of generating a functional protein by chance, more than half of the 10^164 sequences would have to be produced. Compare that (0.5 x l0^164) to the maximum number of opportunities – 10^139 – for that event to occur in the history of the universe.
Atheists merely deny them - as you do here - and that all while assuming they exist!
ReplyDeleteTrollin trollin trollin
Keep those ad homs rollin
The projection on Gary's part is huge.
ReplyDeleteGary,
ReplyDelete"If someone were to attempt rape and murder upon your family you'd be the first to think that was absolutely wrong, and very quickly indeed.
If such persons succeeded in their desires, you could never even say it was wrong in any sense at all."
Morals are RELITIVE,
The person doing the raping feels it morally ok, the other people don't!
You would say it's ok however to rape if done in the name of your God see Numbers (31:7-18 NLT)
however everyone else thinks it wrong...
So how the fuck are morals absolute?
OH
"Atheism is mere denial and preaches emptiness and universal origins that are so pathetically simplistic as to be both ludicrous & impossible." said the hypocritical fucking idiot.
Those of you interested in morals may be interested in Dan's latest thread where he argues drinking and premarital sex is wrong but genocide can be right.
ReplyDeleteMoral are situational, that is - the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the situation.
ReplyDeleteYup. When the situation involves God's will, they're right. Always. Otherwise it's a crap shoot...
ReplyDelete"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later." - CS Lewis
ReplyDeleteThis has been abundantly illustrated here already in this single thread by those who deny it's truth. Uncanny isn't it?!
I should rest my case for absolutes since any intelligent jury would see this is true by merely observing reactions, but I'll respond to PB when he gets back.
The rest of you are like ignorant little brats cursing and whining in a school yard while the prof is busy elsewhere. You will be ignored as you deserve.
Notice how he can't seem to ignore us? i think he likes the attention...
ReplyDelete"I should rest my case for absolutes since any intelligent jury would see this is true by merely observing reactions..."
ReplyDeleteAnd here we see what Gary apparently means when he says he wins debates. Basically he is defining anyone who does not fall all over him as "not intelligent." Well, so far, Gary has not made a case. He has played word games.
I think calling it "word games" is giving him too much credit.
ReplyDeleteOk, the temptation is to get sidetracked into the myriad of side trail arguments that Gary is throwing about.
ReplyDeleteInstead I'd like to stay focussed on the main three lines of argument and therefore please do not do me the disservice of accusing me of being unable to answer a side argument when, instead, I'm ignoring it.
I'll post four BRIEF responses.
Ok, firstly the argument from probability.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for posting a source for your information.
Secondly, I'm always going to be a sceptic when it comes to very large probability numbers.
Thirdly - it's Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute stuff - which pretty much condemns it.
Now if you had the Welcome Foundation or Hoffman La Roche publishing a similar paper then I might take it seriously.
In both cases their work is predicated on an Intelligent Design worldview. They then conduct research to fit.
Has the high probability number been validated by anyone other than a worker at either institute ?
Ok, firstly the argument from probability.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for posting a source for your information.
Secondly, I'm always going to be a sceptic when it comes to very large probability numbers.
Thirdly - it's Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute stuff - which pretty much condemns it.
Now if you had the Welcome Foundation or Hoffman La Roche publishing a similar paper then I might take it seriously.
In both cases their work is predicated on an Intelligent Design worldview. They then conduct research to fit.
Has the high probability number been validated by anyone other than a worker at either institute ?
Ok, next the argument from morality.
ReplyDeleteGary wrote:
"PB Is the practice [of circumcision] absolutely morally wrong ...?
Is getting a tattoo morally wrong or right? How about a haircut?
Bad question that misses the point, but I'll answer:
Circumcision of men changes nothing in their lives -it was a mere sign or symbol given to ancient Hebrews- not the whole world.
Circumcision of females has dire consequences on their subsequent sexuality. (urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility etc.)"
Ok, so what you're saying then is that it is absolutely morally right for a person to be forced against their will to undergo a medically unnecessary surgical procedure on their genitalia in persuance of their cultural norms, but only where the gender is male ?
see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1670590.stm
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/11/doctors-urge-circumcision-on-nhs
Would you like to reconsider ?
Ok, now absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteCan you specify a truth that you can state to be absolutely certain, without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such ?
Ok, now finally absolute laws of logic.
ReplyDeleteOops, gotta go - Corrie is on - I'll continue this tomorrow night.
Apologies guys, but some things are more important than Life the Universe and Everything.
:-)
The probability of a "chance" + the laws of physics and chemistry, building even a single small protein are approx. 1 in 10^164.
ReplyDelete"Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way."
Now read the rest at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Paul
ReplyDeleteThirdly - it's Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute stuff - which pretty much condemns it.
Shrug offs based on metaphysical prejudice pretty much condemn this kind of attitude.
I'd have to shrug off nearly every piece literature coming from Darwinist sources because its about 95% (I'm being kind) pure materialism (methodological naturalism disguised as science) and the research is done, with equal bias, to fit the data to the theory.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us.
Now if you had the Welcome Foundation ...then I might take it seriously.
vide supra
I would also say that I can't take this comment seriously -not given the history of "consensus science".
In both cases their work is predicated on an Intelligent Design worldview. They then conduct research to fit.
Again vide supra - mere prejudice and the same applies to materialists.
R. Sternberg for ex., (double P.h.Ds is evol. biology), accepted his post at biologic upon condition that he would be allowed to research without having to fit it to any preferred view at all.
A scientist can't even get a job in anything remotely related to biology in the US if he doesn't tow the Darwinist party line full pitch.
Has the high probability number been validated by anyone other than ...?
If you'd have looked up the names I gave you'd know that some have nothing to do with the DI.
Many have proposed P values to life origins and evol. - none of them are encouraging for materialists.
Atheist Hoyle was an ardent anti-Darwinist and put the P value at 1 in 10^40000 for an OOL on earth. Far worse than anyone else!
Indeed Hoyle treated Darwinists as mentally ill.
Research, contrary to what you imply, does not stand on whether the author is atheist or creationist but on whether it is good or not.
Would you have joined the consensus gang in Galileo's day?
As an informatics specialist myself I could go on for days on why the information content of DNA/RNA etc. -all by itself, with no creationist premises involved- spells doom for Darwinism.
----
So, you wish to stick to your 3 fundamental statements on absolutes?
That's ok with me.
People ask for evidence, there are "mountains of overwhelming evidence" for the existence of a supreme being.
Citing DNA as evidence is just barely scratching the surface.
Paul
ReplyDeleteCuriously enough, there is zero evidence for atheism.
Atheism is thus a position held by blind faith alone.
You already know you cannot prove there is no God. So all atheist can do is attempt to dismiss, disdain and debunk all the evidence presented for God.
Logically, atheism is thus not a strong position at all.
Disproving some piece of evidence for God does not prove there is no God.
Everything that exists can used as proof of God. Nothing can be used as proof against.
Atheists are always shirking their own part of the burden of proof and redefining terms of reference to get out of having to prove anything.
You will say, "Can't prove a negative."
Not quite true since you can prove negatives in many cases.
But then you go to forums and blogs, write books, make videos etc. all in an attempt to prove there is no God!
Worse, according "not prove a negative" rule, the atheist is admitting that his position is held by faith alone.
If you can't prove there is no God how can you logically say or believe there is no God?
Thus, agnosticism is the only logically consistent position for an "unbeliever". And even that is not entirely logical!
Paul
ReplyDeleteThirdly - it's Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute stuff - which pretty much condemns it.
Shrug offs based on metaphysical prejudice pretty much condemn this kind of attitude.
When high level scientists are involved you can do so if you please but you just lot a ton of credibility in my book.
I'd have to shrug off every piece literature coming from Darwinist sources because its about 95% (I'm being kind) pure materialism (methodological naturalism disguised as science) and the research is done, with equal bias, to fit the data to the theory.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us.
There is no such thing as pure objectivity in science.
Now if you had the Welcome Foundation or Hoffman La Roche publishing a similar paper then I might take it seriously.
vide supra
I would also say that I can't take this comment seriously -not given the history of "consensus science" -an oxymoron, btw.
In both cases their work is predicated on an Intelligent Design worldview. They then conduct research to fit.
Again vide supra - mere prejudice.
R. Sternberg for ex., (double P.h.Ds is evol. biology), accepted his post at biologic upon condition that he would be allowed to research without having to fit it to any preferred view at all.
A scientist won't even get a job in anything remotely related to biology in the US if he doesn't tow the Darwinistas party line full pitch.
Has the high probability number been validated by anyone other than a worker at either institute ?
If you'd have looked up the names I gave you'd know that some have nothing to do with the DI.
Indeed many have proposed P values to life origins and evol. - none of them are encouraging for Darwinism.
Atheist Hoyle was an ardent anti-Darwinist and put the P at 1 in 10^40000 for an OOL on earth.
Indeed Hoyle treated Darwinists as mentally ill.
Research, contrary to your implications, does not stand on whether the author is an atheist or a creationist but on whether the science is good or not.
By your rules no one would ever be able to trust a single Darwinist since their research is the most prejudiced, metaphysically imposed and biased on earth.
Tow the line or be ostracized and risk the end of your career.
That's the reality so why should anyone trust what comes out of any materialism based research at all?
Would you have joined the consensus gang in Galileo's day?
As an informatics specialist myself I could go on for days on why the information content of DNA/RNA etc. -all by itself, with no creationist premises involved- spells doom for Darwinism.
And indeed, that's exactly what we're seeing.
So, you wish to stick to your 3 fundamental statements on absolutes?
That's ok with me.
People ask for evidence, there are "mountains of overwhelming evidence" for the existence of a supreme being.
Citing DNA as evidence is just barely scratching the surface.
Curiously enough, there is zero evidence to the contrary!
Atheism is thus a position held by blind faith alone.
You already know you cannot prove there is no God. So all atheist can do is attempt to dismiss, disdain and debunk all the evidence for God.
Logically, not a strong position at all.
Paul
ReplyDeleteThirdly - it's Discovery Institute and Biologic Institute stuff - which pretty much condemns it.
Shrug offs based on metaphysical prejudice pretty much condemn this kind of attitude.
When high level scientists are involved you can do so if you please but you just lot a ton of credibility in my book.
I'd have to shrug off every piece literature coming from Darwinist sources because its about 95% (I'm being kind) pure materialism (methodological naturalism disguised as science) and the research is done, with equal bias, to fit the data to the theory.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us.
There is no such thing as pure objectivity in science.
Now if you had the Welcome Foundation or Hoffman La Roche publishing a similar paper then I might take it seriously.
vide supra
I would also say that I can't take this comment seriously -not given the history of "consensus science" -an oxymoron, btw.
In both cases their work is predicated on an Intelligent Design worldview. They then conduct research to fit.
Again vide supra - mere prejudice.
R. Sternberg for ex., (double P.h.Ds is evol. biology), accepted his post at biologic upon condition that he would be allowed to research without having to fit it to any preferred view at all.
A scientist won't even get a job in anything remotely related to biology in the US if he doesn't tow the Darwinistas party line full pitch.
Has the high probability number been validated by anyone other than a worker at either institute ?
If you'd have looked up the names I gave you'd know that some have nothing to do with the DI.
Indeed many have proposed P values to life origins and evol. - none of them are encouraging for Darwinism.
Atheist Hoyle was an ardent anti-Darwinist and put the P at 1 in 10^40000 for an OOL on earth.
Indeed Hoyle treated Darwinists as mentally ill.
Research, contrary to your implications, does not stand on whether the author is an atheist or a creationist but on whether the science is good or not.
By your rules no one would ever be able to trust a single Darwinist since their research is the most prejudiced, metaphysically imposed and biased on earth.
Tow the line or be ostracized and risk the end of your career.
That's the reality so why should anyone trust what comes out of any materialism based research at all?
Would you have joined the consensus gang in Galileo's day?
As an informatics specialist myself I could go on for days on why the information content of DNA/RNA etc. -all by itself, with no creationist premises involved- spells doom for Darwinism.
And indeed, that's exactly what we're seeing.
So, you wish to stick to your 3 fundamental statements on absolutes?
That's ok with me.
People ask for evidence, there are "mountains of overwhelming evidence" for the existence of a supreme being.
Citing DNA as evidence is just barely scratching the surface.
Paul Baird
ReplyDeleteOk, so what you're saying then is that it is absolutely morally right for a person to be forced against their will ...?
How on earth you derived that from what I actually said is baffling.
Can you specify a truth that you can state to be absolutely certain, without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such ?
I would call such a question "elephant hurling". A common debate tactic that most of us fall unwittingly into at times.
Can you tell me with absolute certainty that there are no absolutes?
That is the real question here.
Of course you cannot and you know it.
Now, given your own stance on forced circumcision, is it your opinion that it is morally wrong?
If so, upon what foundation do you claim this (or anything else) to be wrong?
Q: Is it relatively wrong or absolutely wrong, "without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such", to rape and murder children?
That's all for tonight folks. ;-)
Gary is obviously a raving loon,
ReplyDeleteWho is he talking(typing) to?
His posts start by addressing Paul then go on about something abstract
nothing remotely to do with what is being discussed.
Oh and course he's a genius who knows the in and outs of biochemistry, just couldn't be bothered to prove it just state it.
Oh and his vast wealth of knowledge, but his own admittance doesn't come from "secular" sources.
What is it they study at the ID institute? poems, word puzzles, circular debate contests?
Q: Is it relatively wrong or absolutely wrong, "without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such", to rape and murder children?
ReplyDeleteIT"S RELATIVELY WRONG!
the people doing it thinks it right!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell let me tell you Paul, I have 3 dogs and their names are,
ReplyDeleteabsolute truth, absolute morality and absolute laws of logic... they all absolutely exist and I have their poop on my lawn to prove it!!! You are more then welcome to inspect a steaming pile anytime you like Mr. Baird. And while you're at it... cut my lawn.
Gary, what does PB stand for... Pea Brain?
And there's another reason why terms must be defined.
Paul,
ReplyDelete>>Can you specify a truth that you can state to be absolutely certain, without any condition or time limits, (forwards and backwards in time) that everyone in the whole world would recognise as such ?
Erm...tell me one thing that you know absent certainty?
Carry on.
Trying to muddle 'statements that are true' and 'knowledge'?
ReplyDeleteMy dogs name is 'Supernatual'
ReplyDeleteWhy won't James Randi pay me my $1,000,000? after all I sent him a picture of my dog, proving supernatual definitly exsists.
The "complexity" of life is often cited as an argument for the existence of gods. I can't agree. I find the complexity of biology (and cosmology, and physics, etc) to be evidence AGAINST the existence of gods. Gods have no need of such complexity. Their will be done, and all by magic. Simplicity would be their signature. The presence of complexity shows that it is far more likely NATURE, hard at work eons, that has slowly crafted this complex, messy, frail, striving, thriving force called life.
ReplyDeleteGary wrote:
ReplyDelete"Curiously enough, there is zero evidence for atheism.
Atheism is thus a position held by blind faith alone.
You already know you cannot prove there is no God. So all atheist can do is attempt to dismiss, disdain and debunk all the evidence presented for God."
What has this or anything else in that particular post got to do with the subjects under discussion ?
I have tried, and will continue to try, to keep the thread focussed, and I'd appreciate any assistance you can provide too.
David wrote:
ReplyDelete"Well let me tell you Paul, I have 3 dogs and their names are,
absolute truth, absolute morality and absolute laws of logic... they all absolutely exist and I have their poop on my lawn to prove it!!! You are more then welcome to inspect a steaming pile anytime you like Mr. Baird. And while you're at it... cut my lawn.
Gary, what does PB stand for... Pea Brain?"
and which part of that lot actually addresses any of the points that I made ?
I might even have considered it if it was funny - but you need to watch far more Monty Python first.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"I'd have to shrug off every piece literature coming from Darwinist sources because its about 95% (I'm being kind) pure materialism (methodological naturalism disguised as science) and the research is done, with equal bias, to fit the data to the theory.
Scientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us.
There is no such thing as pure objectivity in science."
Well, perhaps that is why we have peer review ?
All that I'm asking for is - who has peer reviewed the research that you are quoting ?
If you are simply going to state that the researcher has a Phd and that that should be enough then why do we not have cold fusion (discovered by two scientists with Phds).
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"Erm...tell me one thing that you know absent certainty?
Carry on."
Welcome Dan - is that your response - a question ?
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"As an informatics specialist myself I could go on for days on why the information content of DNA/RNA etc. -all by itself, with no creationist premises involved- spells doom for Darwinism.
And indeed, that's exactly what we're seeing."
Do you have that available for download as a pdf ?
I would be genuinely interested in reading it.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"How on earth you derived that from what I actually said is baffling."
Quite easily.
You said
"Circumcision of men changes nothing in their lives -it was a mere sign or symbol given to ancient Hebrews- not the whole world."
I actually wrote
"1) I've raised the issue of Brit Milah with a number of Christians. It's a practice that I find morally objectionable. It involves the use of a sharp knife on the male genitalia of a baby of 6 days of age as part of a Jewish religious ritual."
So the inferrence is clear. I specified babies under 6 days old and you responded that it changes nothing in their lives.
I posted two news articles detailing the medical issues of botched religious circumcisions.
So therefore
1) the practice is not harmless and can change the life of the boy being circumcised
2) you don't seem to have a problem with the lack of consent for such a procedure, and remember that if you are going to cite parental consent as over-riding the consent that the baby obviously cannot give - then the same applies to female circumcision where that is carried out.
I think it's worth pointing out that in a previous series of exchanges with Sye Tenbruggencate about these subjects we went over 2,500 posts.
I'm more than happy to repeat that in order that we can fully explore our points of view.
There is a point to the title of my blog :-)
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"The late Fred Hoyle stated, Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Hoyle was an atheist, yet he recognized that the design inference was the only possible viable answer."
Poor old Fred.
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm
Gives a good run-down on the use and abuse of Fred.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteScientists are no less subject to prejudice than the rest of us.
There is no such thing as pure objectivity in science."
>>Well, perhaps that is why we have peer review ?
Bzzztt!! Not reliable.
"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." (http://bit.ly/3gUcsN)
Carry on
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete""The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." (http://bit.ly/3gUcsN)"
Sorry, but is that the sum of your rebuttal of peer review ?
Dan, have you read http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/authorinstructions ?
You are presenting one paper from a journal that specialises in left field theoretical journalism as a mainstream critique.
I think Stehbens may have a point in his criticism (particularly with regard to pharmaceuticals) but is it a valid denounciation of the whole practice of peer review ?
You seem to think it is and you're treating it like a magic bullet to kill the mighty beats that is peer review.
It isn't, but it is a useful demonstration of the problem with absolutes.
You found one article. You use that one article to characterise an entire process. Absolutely.
It's very illustrative, Dan, and perhaps something you should give more thought to.
Dan, there is also this critique of the journal itself.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aidstruth.org/sites/aidstruth.org/files/NLMLetter-2009.08.05.pdf
and
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/elsevier-to-editor-change-contro.html
Interestingly, the journal does not itself practice peer review
"In June 2010, Elseview announced that Mehar Manku is the new editor, and also that "Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor and external reviewers to ensure their scientific merit. All reviewers will be fully aware of the Aims and Scope of the journal and will be judging the premise, originality and plausibility of the hypotheses submitted."
Did you read http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2809%2900047-4/abstract
Deep, very deep. :-)
Isn't it interesting, too, that Dan validates the concept of the peer review process by typing idiocy into a text box and making it visible to people around the world. Hard drives, network cards, keyboards, USB ports, the internet - all the result of its use.
ReplyDeleteWhat gets me is how neatly his foot fits in his mouth. It's almost as if it's used to being there...
Paul,
ReplyDeleteWell, perhaps that is why we have peer review ?
Peer review is fine but today's version is hardly bullet proof.
Indeed, it's full of holes and corruption.
And that especially where origins are concerned.
Why? Because scientists really aren't very objective and the subject more than most others is laden with high levels of emotion and the fear of losing the security one may feel in his world-view, -of losing ones job, reputation, friends etc..
Darwinist reviewers generally will not allow the passage of anything that goes against the "consensus science".
Some papers do get through depending on who is doing the reviewing and to what journal the paper is submitted.
The hypocritical thing is that then the Darwinists claim there are no ID peer-reviewed papers when they themselves are prejudicially inhibiting their publication.
All that I'm asking for is - who has peer reviewed the research that you are quoting ?
The research papers of Douglas Axe, Robert Sauer, R. Sternberg, etc. are peer-reviewed and the P values for various genetic structures (while they vary) are published are widely known and all of them give near to impossible odds against the Darwinian scenario.
PaulB,
ReplyDeleteJust to continue on the P factors.
It isn't hard to do a approx. calculation on P values for many bio structures.
The now infamous E.Coli flagellum, for ex., is made up of about 50 genes (parts).
They all have to fit together and be assembled in the correct order for it to function.
Assuming that all the parts already exist (a ludicrous assumption btw) that gives the simple formula of P = 1/50! (factorial) which is 1/3.04 × 10^64
I wouldn't bet any money on that every occurring - even with billions of years and millions of mutation/selection events.
Now if we add in the following facts :
- we cannot assume the 50 genes already exist
- nature "knows" nothing of and is not trying to build an outboard motor
- nature must merely chance upon the the correct proteins within the sample space of all possible proteins (at least billions)
- nature must gradually & accidentally find the correct assembly order while weeding out failures
- etc. etc.
...you're pretty much looking at a probabilistic impossibility.
Indeed, Behe has been vindicated in this even recently- here
Now, back to absolutes.
PaulB,
ReplyDeleteDo you have that available for download as a pdf ?
I would be genuinely interested in reading it.
Not at this time.
I could give you a point form summary if you like.
But I would rather suggest you look up and read the work of Dr. David Abel which can be found here
This is a rich mine of solid information on the nature of biosemiotics and why no chance/necessity hypothesis can ever explain life origins.
The home page itself contains links to many articles (I think most are PR'ed).
I really encourage you to read each article in order to get a basic understanding of what we're talking about on this.
Abel basically shreds the Darwinian scenario to pieces -though he barely mentions it.
His work should be obligatory reading for biologists and information specialists imo.
In short it is the nature of the information found in DNA/RNA that excludes any Darwinian process from the realm of probabilities.
That information can be evaluated using Shannon infor. theory yet Shannon info. is insufficient.
The bio information in the living cell is in fact algorithmic and formally described - syntax, semantics and all.
There is also - as I already stated - meta-info. in the genome.
Meta-info being info on other info or data about data. By very definition, it excludes any origin but that of intelligence.
See here for metadata
A File Allocation Table, for ex, for any disk Operating System is metadata.
Oops, ok ok, back to absolutes - I'm responding sequentially! ;-)
Whateverman:
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with reproducible result. I would hope that Dan doesn't either -- though I don't have a great deal of confidence in that. But computers and internet connections are not dependent on universal common descent being true in order to function. The fact is that preconceived notions can bias a peer review process.
It looks, even to me, that the experiments are set up such that nothing can be a disconfirmation of evolution, and then later, any result that is consistently shown not to happen becomes a "potential falsifier." A peer review process can be quite useful. But it will reinforce any consistent bias. It's the same situation where existing members of a group control who gets in. People are people.
Incidentally, I thought the topic of discussion was the existence/non-existence of "absolute truth," "absolute morality," and "absolute logic." The review process among scientists seems unrelated.
Incidentally, I thought the topic of discussion was the existence/non-existence of "absolute truth," "absolute morality," and "absolute logic." The review process among scientists seems unrelated.
ReplyDeleteAs is evolution. I'm trying to stay away from the discussion this thread was meant for, to give Gary and Paul lots of room. If I should happen to post a knee-jerk response to the Jerk who's trying to hijack it, my apologies.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"The research papers of Douglas Axe, Robert Sauer, R. Sternberg, etc. are peer-reviewed and the P values for various genetic structures (while they vary) are published are widely known and all of them give near to impossible odds against the Darwinian scenario."
Sources ?
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"Why? Because scientists really aren't very objective and the subject more than most others is laden with high levels of emotion and the fear of losing the security one may feel in his world-view, -of losing ones job, reputation, friends etc..
Darwinist reviewers generally will not allow the passage of anything that goes against the "consensus science"."
That's pretty emotive stuff - do you have any evidence to substantiate the specific charges that you are laying, as opposed to some other benign explanation ?
PaulB,
ReplyDeleteOk back to your circumcision ex.
First, you just introduced the word "forced".
Next, this is all beside the point.
The real issue is can atheism give a foundation for any ethics at all?
The real question is not any specific event implying morality, but is morality itself sustainable under the atheist paradigm and the answer is no.
All values under atheism are subjective, not objective.
This means that you can never call any action whatsoever truly right or truly wrong.
It is mere opinion in ALL cases.
So, upon what base rule does anyone, anywhere at any time claim that one action is good or evil?
A subjective cultural convention cannot be the answer.
Why? Because such a basis cannot rule out any other opposing moral!
The Nazis, for ex, deemed it perfectly "good" and "right" to slaughter both Jews and the mentally ill (on a Darwinian basis).
The Allies deemed that morally wrong.
Who was right?
The winner of the war?
Hardly matters.
Right and Wrong are NOT determined by a cock fight.
Upon what basis did we deem their actions "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" and atrocities?
Under atheism there can be no such thing as a moral atrocity because there is no ultimate Rule by which to measure such.
Now see how the atheist paradigm self-contradicts:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." R. Dawkins
compared to :
"there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". - Richard Dawkins
Do you see the contradiction?
He says you might be "wicked" for X state of mind, then says elsewhere that there is no such thing as wickedness.
Worse he says we're all just dancing to our DNA, which of course means, as so many other high level atheists claim, that free will is non-existent!!
This gets sublimely hilarious when after stating such the atheist high priests call themselves "Free" thinkers!!
It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism.
But this is all we see and this very thread proves it for we have the younger "mind-on-hold" atheists persistently bitching over "insults" and such (all while insulting others!).
So upon what moral foundation do they deem insulting others to be objectively wrong?
And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!
Yet during all the atheist paradigm is still insisted upon as being absolutely true!!!
Such cognitive dissonance beggars the imagination.
I think the explanation lies partly here: For if the gospel we preach is hidden, it is hidden only from those who are being lost.
They will not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"This is a rich mine of solid information on the nature of biosemiotics and why no chance/necessity hypothesis can ever explain life origins."
well, there's absolutes and certainties everywhere in that statement.
The page you linked to doesn't seem to have the plethora of links - maybe I'm not looking in the right place ?
http://lifeorigin.info/
I know what meta-information is by the way.
Nonetheless I was hoping to read what you think, and in a more easily digestible form than following a myriad of links.
So unless and until, I'll park that one.
PaulB,
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty emotive stuff - do you have any evidence to substantiate the specific charges that you are laying, as opposed to some other benign explanation ?
There are literally 100s of cases on record.
You might want to look up those recorded and discussed in the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents"
I would have thought it hardly in need of more evidence that what we already see publicly in cases like Behe, Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker, etc.; and I know personally one anthropologist who was hindered for years by the ruling Darwinistas.
He may in fact show up here. He's written a very large, in depth book on the postmodernist world's "flight from Absolutes" (Fuite de l'Absolu) in French.
Here is an online article he wrote.
Q: Would you agree with the Marquis de Sade's assessment of male-female relationships?
If not what is your BASIS for disagreeing?
PaulB.
ReplyDelete"This is a rich mine of solid information on the nature of biosemiotics and why no chance/necessity hypothesis can ever explain life origins."
well, there's absolutes and certainties everywhere in that statement.
Indeed. And some in "1+1=2" as well.
Read and hopefully you'll know why.
"Park that one for now"?
Well at least read this
You might not understand half of what I would write myself unless you grasp what Abel et al. are saying.
In an article of my own I would quote Abel and Trevor a lot.
You know what meta-info is, good, so how do you explain its enormous presence in the genome?
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"Ok back to your circumcision ex.
First, you just introduced the word "forced".
Next, this is all beside the point."
Actually no it's not, it's very pertinent to the topic of absolute v relative morality.
The key to the moral exercise is revealed by the remainder of your post, which I'll go through to show you how it applies...
"The real issue is can atheism give a foundation for any ethics at all?"
Erm, yes. I'm an atheist and I'm applying my atheistic ethics to the issues at hand.
"The real question is not any specific event implying morality, but is morality itself sustainable under the atheist paradigm and the answer is no."
Making an unsupported assertion does make that assertion a fact. You need to provide some substantiation. I have not seen any so far. Perhaps it is to follow ?
"All values under atheism are subjective, not objective."
Really ? Do you have any support for that statement either ?
"This means that you can never call any action whatsoever truly right or truly wrong."
You need to first define some terms such as truly right and truly wrong, then we can move forward.
"A subjective cultural convention cannot be the answer.
Why? Because such a basis cannot rule out any other opposing moral!"
Excellent, we have some progress, albeit based on a misunderstanding.
Let's go back to the moral exercise.
Consider my viewpoint as a non-Jew (or non-Muslim for that matter).
In my opinion the non-medically necessary surgical procedure performed without the consent of the patient is child abuse.
Consider the viewpoint of a Jew or a Muslim who does decide to have their baby son circumcised.
- continued
continued
ReplyDeleteAre they doing so in the knowledge that what they are doing is morally wrong for the reasons that I have provided, or in the knowledge that it is morally right based on the rites and mores of their culture ?
Eventhough I can take the view that I believe that it is morally wrong from my perspective I can also accept that it is not morally wrong from theirs.
In terms of the more controversial female circumcision that acceptance would not preclude me from acting to prevent such a surgical precedure if I was aware that a girl was likely to undergo such a precedure.
"The Nazis, for ex, deemed it perfectly "good" and "right" to slaughter both Jews and the mentally ill (on a Darwinian basis).
The Allies deemed that morally wrong.
Who was right?
The winner of the war?
Hardly matters.
Right and Wrong are NOT determined by a cock fight."
Well, firstly you need to define what you mean by 'right'.
The Second World War is full of alot of interesting moral issues, from the Wansee Conference, the Bombing of Dresden, the return of the Cossacks, and of course Katyn Forest.
Bomber Harris was never prosecuted ofr war crimes, but there is a substantial body of opinion that would suggest that if the standards applied to the Nazis were applied to the Allies then he should have been.
Anyone reading about the Normandy Campaign can quickly come across actions by the Allies that would be classed as war crimes if they had been carried out by the Nazis eg shooting unarmed prisoners.
"Upon what basis did we deem their actions "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" and atrocities?"
The law.
Under atheism there can be no such thing as a moral atrocity because there is no ultimate Rule by which to measure such."
That's a strawman.
""It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." R. Dawkins
compared to :
"there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". - Richard Dawkins"
Without citations I couldn't comment, I was an atheist before Richard Dawkins became famous so I'm not word perfect on his works.
"It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism."
Pot, meet kettle.
"And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!"
Ok, now have a think about that sentence Gary, a really good think.
"Yet during all the atheist paradigm is still insisted upon as being absolutely true!!!"
at the very least I'll need a source for that.
"I think the explanation lies partly here: For if the gospel we preach is hidden, it is hidden only from those who are being lost.
They will not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."
As an ex-Pagan you'll have to excuse my guffawing.
Not only do you insist that there must be a God, but that it is the Christian God, the Western view of the Christian, and I'd even guess, based on our exchanges, the Protestant view of the Christian God. I'm tempted to go out on a limb and say the Calvinist Protestant Christian God.
That's the problem with absolutes, the world must be so simple for them all to apply.
continued
ReplyDeleteAre they doing so in the knowledge that what they are doing is morally wrong for the reasons that I have provided, or in the knowledge that it is morally right based on the rites and mores of their culture ?
Eventhough I can take the view that I believe that it is morally wrong from my perspective I can also accept that it is not morally wrong from theirs.
In terms of the more controversial female circumcision that acceptance would not preclude me from acting to prevent such a surgical precedure if I was aware that a girl was likely to undergo such a precedure.
"The Nazis, for ex, deemed it perfectly "good" and "right" to slaughter both Jews and the mentally ill (on a Darwinian basis).
The Allies deemed that morally wrong.
Who was right?
The winner of the war?
Hardly matters.
Right and Wrong are NOT determined by a cock fight."
Well, firstly you need to define what you mean by 'right'.
The Second World War is full of alot of interesting moral issues, from the Wansee Conference, the Bombing of Dresden, the return of the Cossacks, and of course Katyn Forest.
Bomber Harris was never prosecuted ofr war crimes, but there is a substantial body of opinion that would suggest that if the standards applied to the Nazis were applied to the Allies then he should have been.
Anyone reading about the Normandy Campaign can quickly come across actions by the Allies that would be classed as war crimes if they had been carried out by the Nazis eg shooting unarmed prisoners.
"Upon what basis did we deem their actions "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" and atrocities?"
The law.
Under atheism there can be no such thing as a moral atrocity because there is no ultimate Rule by which to measure such."
That's a strawman.
- continued
continued
ReplyDelete""It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." R. Dawkins
compared to :
"there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". - Richard Dawkins"
Without citations I couldn't comment, I was an atheist before Richard Dawkins became famous so I'm not word perfect on his works.
"It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism."
Pot, meet kettle.
"And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!"
Ok, now have a think about that sentence Gary, a really good think.
"Yet during all the atheist paradigm is still insisted upon as being absolutely true!!!"
at the very least I'll need a source for that.
"I think the explanation lies partly here: For if the gospel we preach is hidden, it is hidden only from those who are being lost.
They will not believe, because their minds have been kept in the dark by the evil god of this world. He keeps them from seeing the light shining on them, the light that comes from the Good News about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God."
As an ex-Pagan you'll have to excuse my guffawing.
Not only do you insist that there must be a God, but that it is the Christian God, the Western view of the Christian, and I'd even guess, based on our exchanges, the Protestant view of the Christian God. I'm tempted to go out on a limb and say the Calvinist Protestant Christian God.
That's the problem with absolutes, the world must be so simple for them all to apply.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"There are literally 100s of cases on record."
Please don't tell me I should watch "Expelled"
"I would have thought it hardly in need of more evidence that what we already see publicly in cases like Behe, Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker, etc.; and I know personally one anthropologist who was hindered for years by the ruling Darwinistas."
Oh, you are.
"Q: Would you agree with the Marquis de Sade's assessment of male-female relationships?"
Marquis de Sade ? Beats me.
I'll get my coat. :-)
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"You might not understand half of what I would write myself unless you grasp what Abel et al. are saying."
It is becoming a massive digression and beyond what was the scope of the discussion and I'm now at the stage of asking how it relates to the three statements that I made in my opening post ?
http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/11/discussion.html?showComment=1290884709284#c8215973108977870615
ReplyDeleteGary's comment here show an hilarious misunderstanding of how nature works.
I suggest everyone re-read it and LOL.
PaulB,
ReplyDelete"The real issue is can atheism give a foundation for any ethics at all?"
Erm, yes. I'm an atheist and I'm applying my atheistic ethics to the issues at hand.
The issue is not whether an atheist has some foundation whether it is logical that he has.
Without an objective foundation, all others are not really "foundations" at all, merely personal opinion based on some ones else's personal opinion and so on.
You need to first define some terms such as truly right and truly wrong, then we can move forward.
Are you wanting to play a word game?
Excellent, we have some progress, albeit based on a misunderstanding.
I think the misunderstanding is yours. You deny any absolute morals but still clearly assume them in all your own morals.
In my opinion the ...is child abuse.
Why?
What's "wrong" with doing what ever one wants wishes to children?
I can take the view that I believe that it is morally wrong from my perspective I can also accept that it is not morally wrong from theirs.
This is the point. Is it wrong or right?
All you've said is that it is in fact neither.
PaulB
ReplyDelete"Upon what basis did we deem their actions "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" and atrocities?"
The law.
You've only moved the question back a step.
So whence comes the right to make law? Is that law right or wrong?
"Under atheism there can be no such thing as a moral atrocity because there is no ultimate Rule by which to measure such."
That's a strawman.
No, that's a fact, as the quotes I gave of well known atheists demonstrate.
strawman- "misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
No misrepresentation at all. Its plain and simple logic.
I honestly don't think you even grasp the logical implications of atheism.
I'm beginning to think I've read far more of the atheist philosophers and their arguments than you have!
No absolutes = no atrocities.
The term atrocity is a moral one and needs to be defined on something more than subjective human ideas to have any ultimate meaning at all.
You're idea of atrocity vs someones else's isn't even worth arguing over if there is in fact nothing more than subjectivity involved.
Indeed the very idea of arguing requires an external rule by which to measure rightness and wrongness.
Every argument you deploy here contains an underlying assumption that there is an ultimate rule by which propositions can be measured as true or false objectively.
This is where most atheists go wrong.
I find it very strange that amateur atheist debaters perpetually deny the logical consequences of their position, all while the other atheists publicly speak them out.
You don't like Dawkins' or Provine's bold statements that there are no ultimate foundations for ethics, no good, no evil?
That isn't the problem.
The problem is that they are right if atheism is true.
Do you deny this?
PaulB
ReplyDelete"there is no such thing as good and bad, we are all just dancing to our DNA". -Richard Dawkins"
Without citations ...
Do you mean references?
The statements are simple and clear enough.
Provine's statement was in a public debate against a theist.
Dawkins' is in "Out of Eden" pg 133
GH "It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism."
PB Pot, meet kettle.
Show me exactly where I contradict myself? And give me your rule by which you measure so.
"And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!"
Ok, now have a think about that sentence Gary, a really good think.
Why don't you answer the question instead and I'll think about your answer.
As an ex-Pagan you'll have to excuse my guffawing.
I know many ex-pagans that would guffaw right back at you and shake their heads in shame of what they once were.
Not only do you insist that there must be a God, but that it is the Christian God, ...
You conflate my quote with an insistence or an argument for a specific God.
The quote is not part of any argument.
Its 1 of several reasons for why I believe atheists to be so blind to many obvious facts.
That's the problem with absolutes, the world must be so simple for them all to apply.
You repeat yourself as though you'd never read my previous answer to this statement.
Again, it is the atheist view that requires utterly unrealistic simplicity to swallow.
As ex-atheist CS Lewis states,
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
Thus far you have not provided a single piece of evidence for any of your 3 main points.
All you've done thus far is assert them, then merely deny arguments against them without giving any valid reasons.
Where is your proof that there are no absolutes? Moral, logical or other.
Paul Baird said...
ReplyDeleteGH "You might not understand half of what I would write myself unless you grasp what Abel et al. are saying."
It is becoming a massive digression and beyond what was the scope of the discussion and I'm now at the stage of asking how it relates to the three statements that I made in my opening post ?
It relates because information sciences are involved in the whole.
Logic, reason, information.
It also relates in that I presented that point as a part of my own world-view foundations.
If you want to ignore evidence for God in biology fine. I have no problem sticking to absolutes and such. But that is just barely touching the surface of the multitude of problems with atheism.
I will however introduce tangents to the subject to illustrate points, add other pieces of evidence etc.
Hey its a free internet. ;-)
"I will however introduce tangents to the subject [in order to claim victory; it would be far too time-consuming to give a comprehensive rebuttal to thousands of irrelevant issues that can be raised in short order.]"
ReplyDeleteI fixed it for you. No need to thank me. Mr. Baird seems to want to focus on the original topic of debate so that he has time to present an adequate case. I agree that he would not have appropriate time to chase down thousands of little rabbit trails.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"I think the misunderstanding is yours. You deny any absolute morals but still clearly assume them in all your own morals."
On what basis do you make that statement ?
"This is the point. Is it wrong or right?
All you've said is that it is in fact neither."
Again, you need to define terms.
When you say 'wrong' do you mean absolutely wrong ? Ditto right. In these sorts of exchanges we both need to be clear what we mean when we use certain terms. You might construe such a request for clarity as playing word games but I think I've already provided good grounds to show that that is not what I'm doing.
continued -
- continued
ReplyDeleteGary also wrote:
"In my opinion the ...is child abuse.
Why?
What's "wrong" with doing what ever one wants wishes to children?"
Great question.
This is the crux of the issue of relative morality - how do I determine what is right and what is wrong, and then extend that to the concepts of kin, group, and society.
I begin by asking a simple question
"How would I feel if that action or inaction were directly applied to me ?"
Then I extend the question
"How would I feel if that action or inaction were applied to my kinfolk (starting with my immediate family) ?"
from that I have a sense of ethics and morality relating to myself and my immediate family.
I can then extend the question to my social group, and to my wider culture and society.
Thus I can make ethical and moral judgements, and also accept that those ethics and morals can change.
continued -
- continued
ReplyDeleteThus in respect of the practice of male circumcision my own ethics takes the view that medically unnecessary surgical procedures performed without explicit consent are abusive because if they were perfomed on me then I would consider the act to be one of assault on my person.
I would continue to hold that ethical view in respect of Jewish or Muslim religious practices.
I would object, strongly object, to the provison of any such services being made available on the NHS.
That all said, I do not believe that anyone involved in the practice is doing so as a deliberate and knowing act of child abuse - thus I am able to examine the practice from their perspective and accept that the pratice is considered as being morally right within their paradigm.
continued -
- continued
ReplyDeleteIn respect of female circumcision the same applies.
Thus your comment
"This is the point. Is it wrong or right?"
is dreadfully simplistic but in accordance with the ethics of an advocate of absolute morality.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"You've only moved the question back a step.
So whence comes the right to make law? Is that law right or wrong?"
Again, a very good question.
There is a debate to be had about whether or not the laws hould reflect morality, particularly as relative morality can be fluid over a period of several centuries.
I would argue that the law reflects the state of morality within the legislature at the time that the law was made, which is not necessarily the same as that of the wider society at that time.
The right to make laws is based on many factors - you would need to look at the constitutional history of the relevant country, and also look at the constitutional history of a larger group of nations to get a better overview.
If you are going to state that the right to make laws is dependent on moral authority then you need to look at the UK nationally now (coalition - university fees is a really good example), Scotland now (minority administration), even Zimbabwe or Burma now (executive and legislative authority being held by persons who did not legitimately win the popular vote which was the methodology set down in that countrys constitution).
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"Do you mean references?"
Yes please.
GH "It is truly unfathomable to witness such inherent self-contradicting in atheism."
PB Pot, meet kettle.
Show me exactly where I contradict myself? And give me your rule by which you measure so.
Christianity, which you are advocating, is full of contradictions. Would you like a list ?
A contradiction is where A is held to be true in one part of a statement and not true in another.
continued -
- continued
ReplyDelete"And if it is only subjectively wrong then why in the world should anyone else give a damn?!"
Ok, now have a think about that sentence Gary, a really good think.
Why don't you answer the question instead and I'll think about your answer.
I've explained in a prior post how my knwledge of what is right and what is wrong is built from a sense of personal experience.
You seem to be advocating that without absolute morality that worldwide society would be uncaring about the plight of anyone else.
The evidence does not support that contention.
What the evidence does support is a correlation between distance in miles and distance in relationship in empathetic responses.
ie we are more likely to respond positively to those physically closest and relationally closest to us compared to those more physically distant and relationally distant.
If absolute morality were true then there (generally) should be no such distinction in our empathetic responses - we should generally respond in equal measure to all.
continued -
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"As an ex-Pagan you'll have to excuse my guffawing.
I know many ex-pagans that would guffaw right back at you and shake their heads in shame of what they once were"
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Christianity stole a great deal of it's rites, rituals, festivals and customs from earlier faiths.
Please ask for a list (Mrs Doyle impression - "Ach, go on, go on, go on, go on") and has consistantly denied the role of any earlier faiths in modern morality (again - please ask for a list - Mrs Doyle impression applies)
Mrs Doyle - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQiLm2gPb-Y
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"Not only do you insist that there must be a God, but that it is the Christian God, ...
You conflate my quote with an insistence or an argument for a specific God."
So you're arguing for a non-sepcific deity ?
Really ?
Gary wrote:
ReplyDelete"Thus far you have not provided a single piece of evidence for any of your 3 main points.
All you've done thus far is assert them, then merely deny arguments against them without giving any valid reasons.
Where is your proof that there are no absolutes? Moral, logical or other."
Is this how you 'win' your arguments ?
I've provided quite detailed lines of argument against absolute morality.
Oh well, we're not even over the first 100 posts so lots of time to go.
Sorry - Mrs Doyle
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w0ZyfkukUs&feature=related
OK, just as a side note on the absolute laws of logic - how the absolute laws of logic deal with an out of body or near death experience ?
ReplyDeleteI was going back through some oldd discussions and I came across an old link to Dr Sam Parnia's work - http://vimeo.com/11302423
There are several issues, not least with logic (all three laws have issues with the phenomenon), but also with the issue of Christian exclusivity.
It is a fundamental part of Christianity that the only way to heaven is via Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, OOBs and NDEs have been experienced by both Christians and non-Christians.
So, is Christianity exclusively correct ?
these laws are absolute... but they can be changed by MAGIC.
ReplyDelete"In the beginning was the Word."
ReplyDeleteILMFAO
Don't you know about the Word?
ReplyDeleteEveryone talking about the Word.
The bird is the word.
ReplyDeletePaul Baird
ReplyDelete"...You deny any absolute morals but still clearly assume them in all your own morals."
On what basis do you make that statement ?
Because, logically, without an ultimate foundation you cannot provide any reason, beyond subjectivity, for any morals at all.
Again, you need to define terms.
Again, all along you've been making statements about rightness and wrongness without having defined them!
So you require definitions when its convenient for you?
Very well.
Truly Right vs Wrong means that values or rules of logic are valid independently of our apprehension of them. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.
----
Indeed Paul, this whole thread is you and I trying to prove something is really right while something else is really wrong.
Under atheism neither can ever be proven. It will forever remain a cock fight of mere opinions which are in fact not freely chosen because we're all just "dancing to our DNA".
Proof itself is impossible without logical absolutes.
You deny the existence of logical absolutes among which is the law of non contradiction.
This law you attempt to apply everywhere here - yet all the time you deny it even exists!
And even denying it exists requires its use!
PailB
ReplyDeleteGH - What's "wrong" with doing what ever one wants wishes to children?"
PB - This is the crux of the issue of relative morality - how do I determine what is right and what is wrong, and then extend that to the concepts of kin, group, and society.
I begin by asking a simple question
"How would I feel if that action or inaction were directly applied to me ?"
Then I extend the question
...
from that I have a sense of ethics and morality relating to myself and my immediate family.
I can then extend ...
Paul, don't you see that your whole moral system is based on mere feelings?
PB - Thus I can make ethical and moral judgements, and also accept that those ethics and morals can change.
So tell me, how does the moral value "no child rape" change over time?
Upon your system, it is all feelings and whims and perhaps the weather I don't know. Certainly nothing independent.
You said, "...I have a sense of ethics and morality"
Where did you get this idea that some things are right and others are wrong in the first place?
Paul Baird
ReplyDelete...male circumcision my own ethics takes the view that ...are abusive because if they were perfomed on me then I would consider the act to be one of assault on my person.
This begs the question, Why should you have any right to think that no one should assault you?
Where did you get that idea from?
...accept that the pratice is considered as being morally right within their paradigm.
Back to the bottom. You pass by the real issue - is it morally right or wrong in reality? Or is it all just subjective?
Would you say the same about the Nazis?
Would you "accept the practice [of holocaust] is considered as being morally right within their paradigm"?
PaulB,
ReplyDeleteGH - "This is the point. Is it wrong or right?"
is dreadfully simplistic but in accordance with the ethics of an advocate of absolute morality.
And that is dreadfully evasive.
Paul Baird
ReplyDeleteGH - "You've only moved the question back a step.
So whence comes the right to make law? Is that law right or wrong?"
The right to make laws is based on many factors
What are those factors really?
GH - "Show me exactly where I contradict myself? And give me your rule by which you measure so."
ReplyDeleteChristianity, which you are advocating, is full of contradictions. Would you like a list ?
This is not an answer to my question.
And no, this isn't about Xianity.
The debate is over the existence of absolutes and an ultimate foundation for them - God.
It is there that the atheist is obliged to contradict himself.
A contradiction is where A is held to be true in one part of a statement and not true in another.
Unless the law of non contradiction is absolute, there is no such thing as a contradiction.
Without it nothing can ever be proved.
Here I quote one time atheist CS Lewis,
"Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; ... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought-laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory, in other words, unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming.
Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare's nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it."
PB: I've explained in a prior post how my knwledge of what is right and what is wrong is built from a sense of personal experience.
ReplyDeleteFine but this means that your knowledge itself is pure subjectivity and nothing more than your personal opinion. A very fleeting foundation indeed.
You seem to be advocating that without absolute morality that worldwide society would be uncaring about the plight of anyone else.
Again you miss my point. I'm not advocating any such thing.
Open your mind "free thinker". ;-)
I'm saying that if there is no absolute basis for morality, logic and thus truth, then there is no reason but personal feelings (i.e. mostly selfishness) and no real obligation for anyone to care for anyone else at all.
You're confusing results or actual practice with logical foundations for such.
Again, where does this pesky moral sense come from in the first place?
It is a law that we all know the basics of yet do not in fact obey.
If it were, as atheism requires, mere cultural imbibing and moralizing from parents to progeny, it would be easy to get rid of it and there would be far less consensus to what is truly right and wrong than there is.
If mere evolutionary adaptation to make us want to get along and be caring for mere survival's sake then the question "why should I care whether you survive or not" is begged.
Again, atheist evolutionists claim quite clearly that "morals are an illusion".
If absolute morality were true then there (generally) should be no such distinction in our empathetic responses - we should generally respond in equal measure to all.
I don't know where you get that from but I think its simply false.
See here
So many orgs could never survive if your view were true. And more crop up every year.
(most founded by religious groups and most of them are Xian btw.
Very very few are founded by atheists. Wonder why)
Yet 100s of billions of currency per year pass through these orgs coming from ordinary people, corporations, governments etc. destined to help people of other races, languages, religions, colors etc., 1000s of miles away from them.
Paul Baird
ReplyDeleteChristianity stole a great deal of it's rites, rituals, festivals and customs from earlier faiths.
If you mean things like "Easter", "Christmas" etc, there is truth in that - especially where Roman Catholicism is concerned but other branches as well.
Unfortunately most atheists I meet mean far more than just holidays and such.
And fortunately they are quite wrong and generally have it backwards.
I usually have no problem showing them the real facts of history vs the invented and reversed modern ones which quite often are outright manipulations.
That's another topic.
---------------------------
So you're arguing for a non-sepcific deity ?
Really ?
Like I said, at this point I'm arguing for no specific deity.
I'm arguing for a deity that's all.
Whether I myself believe in the only one that is feasible is a different subject.
All you've done thus far is assert them, then merely deny arguments against them without giving any valid reasons.
ReplyDeleteWhere is your proof that there are no absolutes? Moral, logical or other."
Is this how you 'win' your arguments ?
I've seen nothing more than appeal to emotions in your "detailed lines" -all while you continue assuming the existence of logical absolutes.
Nothing you've said constitutes evidence let alone proof that there are no absolutes.
Do I need to repeat it again? Very well, without assuming logical absolutes no one can prove or disprove anything at all.
I've provided quite detailed lines of argument against absolute morality.
No you haven't.
I'm in fact very surprised you think you have! I was hoping to finally see your "proof" soon.
You've merely explained what your own morality is based on and asserted (absolutely) that there are no absolutes.
Your "detailed lines" are seriously lacking in substance as thus far you've assumed the law of non contradiction everywhere in everything you've written!
Your morality appears to be based solely on personal experience and feelings extended to the universe.
I.e. utterly subjective and thus useless to the rest, unless valid independently of what anyone thinks.
But the very point is "why should anyone care about anyone's personal experience and feelings if there is no good or evil".
"You're nothing but a pack of neurons" returns to mind.
So why should I care what one pack of neurons is doing?
Thus atheism preaches highly superficial and frail as the wind morality.
Indeed atheism must borrow from religion whatever moral objectivity it uses!
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior. -Vox Day
Internal contradictions, thus undo atheism at every turn. It is fatally infected with internecine conflict.
Paul Baird
ReplyDelete...how the absolute laws of logic deal with an out of body or near death experience ?
Unfortunately, OOBs and NDEs have been experienced by both Christians and non-Christians.
So, is Christianity exclusively correct ?
OOBs and NDEs experienced by all imply that all humans are essentially spirit and that death is the separation of the spirit from its habitation the body.
So OOBs and NDEs according to Judeo/Christian and indeed many other religions should exist.
In fact there are now millions of documented NDEs and OOBs on record and while there are many differences they are all consistent in many ways.
Is Xianity exclusive?
Christ is exclusive.
Paul deals with some aspect of this in Romans 1 and 2. Peter addresses the issue very succinctly in Acts in the Cornelius event.
But again that's another very broad topic. You might want to read CS Lewis "Chronicles of Narnia" -specifically the 7th book, "The Last Battle" to see how one Xian viewed your question.
This somewhat disturbing real life OOB/NDE experience illustrates.
And this implies that spirit is what really endures not mere matter which is subject to entropy.
There seems to be some sort of "collapse" (as one scientifically knowledgeable now ex atheist described his own NDE experience) of the space/time continuum after the separation event - at least space and time as we know them here.
And here is one testimony from a former skeptical Pediatric Oncologist that absolutely raises real serious questions on death and the realities of the spiritual world:
"consider seven year old Anna who died of leukemia: "Before she died, she mustered the final energy to sit up in her hospital bed and say: 'The angels-they're so beautiful! Mommy, can you see them? Do you hear their singing? I've never heard such beautiful singing!' Then she laid back on her pillow and died."
Dr. Diane Komp is no longer a skeptic.
She is now a pediatric oncologist at Yale and has written several books on NDE's with children - including many children with zero religious upbringing who claim to have seen Jesus etc..
The above is from her book A Window to Heaven: When Children See Life in Death
Explain that in atheist terms please. Don't bother, I already know how atheists explain away these things.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteBecause, logically, without an ultimate foundation you cannot provide any reason, beyond subjectivity, for any morals at all.
I have provided an ultimate foundation, Gary, and yes it is both subjective and relative.
Again, all along you've been making statements about rightness and wrongness without having defined them!
But I have already Gary.
Truly Right vs Wrong means that values or rules of logic are valid independently of our apprehension of them. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.
Really ? You've already acknowledged that 'logic' has not changed but our understanding of what that logic is has.
So how can we be sure that the 'truth' we think is objectively true and is not instead the current subjective view of the 'truth' ?
continued -
- continued
ReplyDeleteIndeed Paul, this whole thread is you and I trying to prove something is really right while something else is really wrong.
Really ? What do you mean by 'really' ? Sounds like a synonym for truly or absolutely.
Under atheism neither can ever be proven.
Is that exclusively under atheism, Gary ? You seem to be employing a very broad brush there.
Proof itself is impossible without logical absolutes.
Source ?
You deny the existence of logical absolutes among which is the law of non contradiction.
Is the law of non-contradiction a descriptive law or a prescriptive law, and is it absolute ?
How would it deal with NDEs and OOBs ?
continued -
- continued
ReplyDeleteI'm replying to each of your posts as I read them by the way.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteThis begs the question, Why should you have any right to think that no one should assault you?
It is not a question of 'right'. It is a question of being able to resist persuant to my ability to preserve my own existance.
Sorry, Gary, but this is not rocket science.
Back to the bottom. You pass by the real issue - is it morally right or wrong in reality? Or is it all just subjective?
In 'reality' sounds like another synonym for 'absolutely' again.
continued -
- continued
ReplyDeleteWould you say the same about the Nazis?
Would you "accept the practice [of holocaust] is considered as being morally right within their paradigm"?
Now you're getting the point.
Instead of using the Nazis as an extreme example of evil it is far better to consider the Nazis as an example of how it is possible for a coherent moral paradigm to become so skewed relative to other moral paradigms that it is relatively abhorrent.
There is a very good argument to be made that the Nazis were building on a centuries old anti-semetic culture in Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, closer to home, after the war, even after having seen the photos of Belsen at an exhibition in London, several English people leaving the exhibition were overhead making anti-semetic comments.
There are also very good grounds for stating that had the Nazi invasion of Britain been successful then there would have been death camps here too - filled by Jews denounced by the British populace.
Would they all have been Nazis ?
continued -
- continued
ReplyDeleteThe lesson that the Nazis left for us was best expressed by Hannah Arendt in her book on the trial of Adolf Eichmann - wherein she stated that he was the embodiment of the banality of evil.
Have you seen the photographs of the female guards at Auschwitz ? They are all disturbingly normal looking.
We would like to believe that people carrying out horrific acts must be aware that what they are doing is absolutely evil, absolutely wrong.
It enables us to put up a barrier between the acts that they carried out and our own moral positions.
If they were so evil and the acts so absolutely wrong then there is no way that we can ever be in danger of doing anything similar.
Once again - it's not that simple, as the Milgram experiment amply demonstrated.
source for Hannah Arendt - http://www.iep.utm.edu/arendt/#H6
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe right to make laws is based on many factors
What are those factors really?
I'm sure that I provided you with a good starter list.
If you need more then try http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/resources_history.php
If you're trying to assert that the basis of the law is absolute morality then I'd like to see some specific examples.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteGH - "Show me exactly where I contradict myself? And give me your rule by which you measure so."
Christianity, which you are advocating, is full of contradictions. Would you like a list ?
This is not an answer to my question.
And no, this isn't about Xianity.
The debate is over the existence of absolutes and an ultimate foundation for them - God.
That would be the Christian God or any God ?
If it's the Christian God then you're arguing in circles.
If it's not then please let me know.
I have a whole shedload of definitions of God available. We can work out which one you're referring to.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteA contradiction is where A is held to be true in one part of a statement and not true in another.
Unless the law of non contradiction is absolute, there is no such thing as a contradiction.
Without it nothing can ever be proved.
Again is the law descriptive or prescriptive and how can you prove that is absolute.
I'm happy to accept that it's true within my own paragdigm. I can't say about whether it held a million years ago or will a million years in the future, perhaps our understanding of what 'logic' is may have changed by then.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteHere I quote one time atheist CS Lewis,
oh, so you've read "Mere Christianity" and youu think that that's the end of all philosophical discussion ?
It reminds me so much of H2G2.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteI usually have no problem showing them the real facts of history vs the invented and reversed modern ones which quite often are outright manipulations.
Really ? I'm very interested in seeing your "real facts".
We can also have a look at the real facts regarding Christian festivals.
I'm nonetheless gald that you acknowledge both Christmas and Easter - so what is the basis of your faith again ?
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteLike I said, at this point I'm arguing for no specific deity.
I'm arguing for a deity that's all.
Whether I myself believe in the only one that is feasible is a different subject.
Ok, let's go for the IPU as our example deity then ?
Or the FSM ?
Or Allah ?
Or Zeus ?
Or Odin ?
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteDo I need to repeat it again? Very well, without assuming logical absolutes no one can prove or disprove anything at all.
Mere assertion based on what you yourself concede is the current understanding of whatever constitutes true 'logic'.
I've given a definition of the logic that I'm happy to work with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGary wrote:
ReplyDeleteNo you haven't.
I'm in fact very surprised you think you have! I was hoping to finally see your "proof" soon.
You've merely explained what your own morality is based on and asserted (absolutely) that there are no absolutes.
another strawman.
Your morality appears to be based solely on personal experience and feelings extended to the universe.
I.e. utterly subjective and thus useless to the rest, unless valid independently of what anyone thinks.
and another one.
But the very point is "why should anyone care about anyone's personal experience and feelings if there is no good or evil".
Have you read anything about the historical development of morality ? You should, then you might not make such crass statements.
Thus atheism preaches highly superficial and frail as the wind morality.
Indeed atheism must borrow from religion whatever moral objectivity it uses!
and another strawman. Presuppositional too. What was it William Lane-Craig said about PA ? :-)
Internal contradictions, thus undo atheism at every turn. It is fatally infected with internecine conflict.
and another one, especially funny coming from a believer in a faith who admits that the two major festivals he celebrates are from earlier Pagan ones.
Fatally infected with internecine conflicts - Great Schism, or the massacre of the Huguenots in Paris by Catholics anyone ?
David wrote:
ReplyDeleteYo Paul, if you would be so kind as to define each of the following:
absolute truth = ?
absolute morality = ?
absolute laws of logic = ?
Yo David,
You need to define what you expect me to put in where the question mark is, otherwise look at my first post.
Basically I'm a relativist, particularly a moral relativist.
I struggle to see how it is possible, given the history of our knowledge of the field of logic, to state that the three laws are absolute and prescriptive.
I have real issues with absolute truth - what on earth is it and who defines which bit of information is absolutely true ?
My own worldview is thus summarised by saying that I think that life, the universe and everything is far more complex than a set of three absolute statements would imply.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteOOBs and NDEs experienced by all imply that all humans are essentially spirit and that death is the separation of the spirit from its habitation the body
Great.
So we have a breach of the First Absolute Law of Logic - The Law of Identity.
A human is essntially but not exclusively of the spirit.
So P=P and sometimes P sort of = P
and in death P = another sort of P, which is not the same as the first sort of P, and sometimes, during an OOB or NDE then P might = P in the first sense, and a bit like in the second sense, but it may be a unique halfway house third sense.
Yep, a really straightforward application of the First Absolute Law of Logic.
Perhaps you would like another go at explaining it to me.
Gary wrote:
ReplyDeleteSo OOBs and NDEs according to Judeo/Christian and indeed many other religions should exist.
In fact there are now millions of documented NDEs and OOBs on record and while there are many differences they are all consistent in many ways.
Is Xianity exclusive?
Christ is exclusive.
Sooooo, no I've read this bit several times and it still doesn't make sense.
Christ is exclusive. Ok
But NDEs and OOBs are not exclsuive, and you accept that the prevalence of both phenomena in both Christians and non-Christians.
And this is all consistant ?
But again that's another very broad topic. You might want to read CS Lewis "Chronicles of Narnia" -specifically the 7th book, "The Last Battle" to see how one Xian viewed your question.
ah, the Pevensey Children. Bless. Iread the whole series as a child. But what of poor old Susan ?
Oh well, nevermind. :-)
Gary,
ReplyDelete>>Like I said, at this point I'm arguing for no specific deity.
I'm arguing for a deity that's all.
Huge mistake.
It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is, to know anything, and to know absolutes. Without the Christian God, the arguments ends in the absurd. An infinite regress of "and how do you know that?"...
Those who deny God's existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
I suggest you name the only deity that is the precondition to intelligibility.
Any of these are acceptable:
EL, ELOAH, ELOHIM, EL SHADDAI, ADONAI, YHWH, YAHWEH, JEHOVAH, YAHWEH-JIREH, YAHWEH-RAPHA, YAHWEH-NISSI, YAHWEH-M'KADDESH, YAHWEH-SHALOM, YAHWEH-ELOHIM, YAHWEH-TSIDKENU, YAHWEH-ROHI, YAHWEH-SHAMMAH, YAHWEH-SABAOTH, EL ELYON, EL ROI, EL-OLAM, EL-GIBHOR
anything else is complete absurdity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStatements can be true, David, there no such thing as an absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo such thing. Statements can be true.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAre you asking "what statements are true?"?
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning was the Word. THE BIRD is the word.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as "absolute truth" in the same way that there is no such thing as "absolute red".
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a thing. Expressions can be described as true.
Do you understand now?
Ask yourself if you are mistaking concept for object.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteok- how about "abstract concept"?
ReplyDeleteCould you understand if I explained it like that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's an "abstract concept".
ReplyDeleteRED BIRD: Apples can be red, David, there no such thing as an absolute red.
ReplyDeleteRED DAVID: So what is absolute red to you BIRD?
RED BIRD: No such thing. Objects can be red.
RED DAVID: Come on BIRD, if it existed, what is absolute red to you?
RED BIRD: Are you asking "what objects are red?"?
RED DAVID: No BIRD, I asking "what is absolute red to you?"
Some people say Justice does not exist, but whether we do believe or do not believe we all know what Justice or know what it means to each of us.
This is not a trick question, I'm merely trying to understand what absolute red is to you and hopefully Paul will weigh in...
So far all I can't get from you is that "absolute red" doesn't exist and you don't know what it is that doesn't exist.
RED BIRD: There is no such thing as "absolute red" in the same way that there is no such thing as "absolute truth".
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a thing. Objects can be described as red.
Do you understand now?
RED DAVID: BIRD, ask yourself "what is absolute red?"... then write a post about your findings here
RED BIRD: ok- how about red is an "abstract concept"?
Could you understand if I explained it like that?
RED DAVID: I have no expectations as what your answer or explanation will be. But I do expect more then... "it doesn't exist".
Well, what doesn't exist? You must know what it is if know it doesn't exist.
ANDY: (Face palms)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo me, absolute truth is something which is true no matter the circumstance.
ReplyDeleteEvery single definition of Absolute Truth I've ever heard has turned out to be relative (re. valid only for a limited set of circumstances).
As such, I conclude Absolute Truth does not in fact exist.
Now, if we instead label absolute truth as being possible within a specific system, then I'll concede it exists. For example, 1+1=2 is an absolute truth within trinary (or better) number systems with symbols and operators we understand the meanings of.
However, this "absolute" truth is very limited in scope, which seems (to me) to contradict the intended usage of the term. I thus conclude that the word is either not useful or being misused.
re. absolute truth either does not exist, or is so limited in scope that labeling it as absolute it silly. OR, as a third option, is beyond my abilities to perceive.
Judicious application of Occam's razor thus suggests that the term be discarded.
Okay, David, do you think the noun "Truth" refers to a concept or not?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWem,
ReplyDelete>> To me, absolute truth is something which is true no matter the circumstance.
So the definition itself is relative?
>>Every single definition of Absolute Truth I've ever heard has turned out to be relative (re. valid only for a limited set of circumstances).
So this argument from ignorance is your evidence?
>>As such, I conclude Absolute Truth does not in fact exist.
And I am sure you are certain of this. Are you?
>>if we instead label absolute truth as being possible within a specific system, then I'll concede it exists.
Fine, then we can chuck the whole "I conclude Absolute Truth does not in fact exist." thingy?
>>Judicious application of Occam's razor thus suggests that the term be discarded.
Judicious application of Occam's razor thus suggests that your entire argument be discarded.
I wish you theist assholes would leave me out of your debate.
ReplyDeleteDavid.
ReplyDeleteI did give you an answer.
Maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted.
Maybe you just don't understand the concept of abstractum.
Read Andy's last two posts carefully and you might understand why.
:-)
Dan please enlighten us oh moral one.
ReplyDeletePlease prove an absolute truth!
just fucking ONE!
"Its ok to follow a book(bible) and then kill the babies of your enemies" won't be excepted.
Ant,
ReplyDelete>>Please prove an absolute truth!
Just one? OK, God's existence. All evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. God has indeed revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them like His existence.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
OK, FSM existence. All evidence is evidence of FSM, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. FSM has indeed revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them like His existence.
ReplyDelete"How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?"
Good question.
I don't know...or do I?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't claim/think to know anything for 100% certainity.
ReplyDeleteDan how is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
A magical superbeing told him. Of course, since Dan is not omnipotent, he can't know for sure.
ReplyDeleteIf the superbeing said He couldn't lie, how could Dan check?
David wrote:
ReplyDeleteabsolute truth: Paul's Definition Here
absolute morality: Paul's Definition Here
absolute laws of logic: Paul's Definition Here
which bit of my OP did you not understand ?
David wrote:
ReplyDeleteSome people say Ghosts do not exist, but whether we do believe or do not believe we all know what Ghosts are or know what it means to each of us.
Do we ?
It all comes back down to a presumption that everyone has the same understanding of quite specific terms.
Andy/David wrote:
ReplyDeleteSome people say Justice does not exist, but whether we do believe or do not believe we all know what Justice or know what it means to each of us.
Hmm, shades of the Winslow Boy I think.
CATHERINE
Was it cold, clear logic that made you weep today at the verdict?
SIR ROBERT
I wept today because right had been done.
CATHERINE
Not justice.
SIR ROBERT
No, not justice. Right. Easy to do justice, very hard to do right. Well, now I must leave the witness box.
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/winslow-boy-script.html
Dan wrote:
ReplyDeleteJust one? OK, God's existence. All evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
Two issues
- firstly your conclusion based on the 'evidence' is relative. Others have examined the same evidence and reached different conclusions.
- secondly your conclusion, although you have not specified it in this particular post, is that the God in question is the Christian God. You have no grounds for deciding that it is the Christian God and not some other deity, except for your very own relativism.
In the midst of all of these exchanges I just wanted to say thank-you to Dan for agreeing to host this debate.
ReplyDeletePaul, I didn't understand any bit of your OP... so again:
ReplyDeleteabsolute truth: Paul's Definition Here
absolute morality: Paul's Definition Here
absolute laws of logic: Paul's Definition Here
Ghosts... "it all comes back down to a presumption that everyone has the same understanding of quite specific terms".
ReplyDeleteThat's right Paul, thanks for re-wording what I already said.
If a person is going to decide whether they do not believe in Ghosts or believe; a theory, a definition or explanation is required.
So what is your understanding of...
David wrote:
ReplyDeleteabsolute truth: Paul's Definition Here
absolute morality: Paul's Definition Here
absolute laws of logic: Paul's Definition Here
from my OP
absolute truth does not exist
absolute morality does not exist
absolute laws of logic do not exist
However, to be fair to you your question is ambiguous.
What you MEANT to ask is
What is an absolute and why can't Truth, Morality and the Laws of Logic be absolutes ?
I use definition 4 from Merriam Webster - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute
I do not believe that Truth exists as an absolute because it is the human race who define what is true and what is not, and we can get it wrong, and we can display an inter-group bias.
I do not believe that Morality exists as an absolute for the same reasons.
Logic is great. It's like History. There is this concept of 'real' history, what actually happened, and then there is our understanding and knowledge of what actually happened. Are they the same ? Have we reached a point where they are close enough to be described as equivalent ?
People cite the absolute laws of logic as though human thought will never ever change them throughout the rest of eternity. They cite them as prescriptive rather than descriptive and then go on to say that they evidence God.
In such circumstances human enquiry and development of logic should stop now. We know all the relevant bits, and we can prove the existance of God by the absoluteness of e and Pi.
@ David
ReplyDeleteSorry but if you're going to go back through the thread deleting posts then I won't respond to anymore from you.
Go play silly buggers with someone else.
I deleted my conversations with BIRD... to spare others from wasting their time you big baby.
ReplyDeleteOh and thank you for finally explaining your view of absolute truth... now I will read and learn...
ReplyDeletePaul, I read your response and I am reflecting upon it... again, thanks for posting...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAh, crap, the fisrt part of my message did not make it...
ReplyDeletePaul Baird said :
Ok, my worldview is that
absolute truth does not exist
absolute morality does not exist
absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, here’s a link to a pertinent Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sade
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
Paul Baird said :
ReplyDeleteOk, my worldview is that
absolute truth does not exist
absolute morality does not exist
absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, try the pertinent Wiki article:
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
Have you ever noticed that some people want world-views to be 'consistent' more than 'true'.
ReplyDeleteCrap!, part 1 did not make it before part 2...
ReplyDeletePaul Baird said :
Ok, my worldview is that
absolute truth does not exist
absolute morality does not exist
absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, try the pertinent Wiki article:
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
Crap!, part 1 did not make it before part 2...
ReplyDeletePaul Baird said :
Ok, my worldview is that
absolute truth does not exist
absolute morality does not exist
absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
Now my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
part 1a...
ReplyDeleteIn a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, try the pertinent Wiki article:
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
part1
ReplyDeletePaul Baird said :
Ok, my worldview is that
absolute truth does not exist
absolute morality does not exist
absolute laws of logic do not exist
First off I’d say that this is a consistent position to adopt if one is a materialist or a Darwinist. If there is no Creator, to whom we have to account, then morals are inevitably an individual matter. If there is no Creator, it is entirely logical to state that absolute truth or morality does not exist. Of course coercive political leaders may impose their own morality on others, but that is just an expression of their political power, no more. Under Stalin, the Stalin personality-cult was a Big Thing, now that he’s gone, it’s just a curious footnote to the history of ideologies. Seeing your expressed position, I assume PB would agree with a statement by William B. Provine, an evolutionist and professor of biology at Cornell University on the social and philosophical impact of the theory of evolution (1990: 23):
"(...), when he [Darwin] deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, Darwin knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life. The immediate reactions to Darwin's On the Origin of Species exhibit, in addition to favourable and admiring responses from a relatively few scientists, an understandable fear and disgust that has never disappeared from Western culture."
part2
ReplyDeleteNow my interest here is to explore the implications of PB’s statements about his worldview. In my experience materialists behaviour and discourse are rarely consistent with their stated worldview, but there are a few exceptions. One of these exceptions is a cheerful fellow who lived a few hundred years ago called Donatien Alphonse François, the marquis de Sade.
In a previous note Gary briefly alluded to de Sade, but the critical issues about de Sade never got any serious attention. If the marquis de Sade is unknown to some here, try the pertinent Wiki article:
As pre-Darwinian materialist, de Sade considered that if the gods are dead, where do humans turn to for moral standards? His solution to this dilemma was simple, imitate nature. Here is how he worked out the implications of his moral system in regards to relationships between men and women. (Sade 1795/1972: 112, my comments in brackets)
"If it is undisputed that we [men] have received from nature the right to express our [sexual] desires indifferently to all women, it equally true that we have the right to require them to submit to our desires, not on an exclusive basis [Sade is thinking of marriage for life here], I should be contradicting myself, but on a temporary basis. It is undeniable that we have the right to establish laws requiring her [the woman] to submit to the passion of he who desires her. Violence is one of the implications of this right and we are entitled to use it legally. But why not !? Nature itself has proven that we have this right in that it has endowed us with superior strength with which we may submit them to our desires." (my translation)
part3
ReplyDeleteNow I have a question for PB, do you agree with the Marquis de Sade who basically states that because Nature has made men stronger than women, this justifies men doing absolutely ANYTHING they want with/to women? If you agree with de Sade, then I would say that you are being logical and consistent with your worldview. That said, I do NOT agree with Sade’s materialism, nor his view of male/female relationships, but I do agree he is at least being consistent within his worldview. However if you disagree with de Sade’s view of male/female relationships, then I would demand you to justify your disagreement and indicate to the other participants of this forum what the BASIS for your disagreement is.
Refs
Provine, William B. Response to Phillip Johnson. (Letter) pp. 23-24
in First Things mag. no. 6 (October 1990)
Sade, Marquis de; & Blanchot, Maurice (1795/1972) Français, encore un effort si vous voulez être républicains_. (extrait de La Philosophie dans le boudoir”) précédé de L'inconvenance majeure. Jean-Jacques Pauvert Paris (collection Libertés nouvelles; 23) 163 p. (has been translated, Philosophy in the Bedroom)
Dan:
ReplyDeleteIn order for anything to constitute evidence for a god, there must be an idea of what would constitute evidence against that god. Since you are claiming that everything is automatically evidence for your god, you violate the very concept of evidence. This tells me that you have no evidence.
and some people don't know the difference between description and prescription.
ReplyDeleteWow
ReplyDeleteYou really kicked the shit out me this time POGO.
OUCH !
Pogo/Gary
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that really pisses me off is the use of sock-puppets.
Maybe the term "strawman" should be changed to "scarecrow"
ReplyDeleteTheists have a great ability to scare themselfs with there own imagination.
"I'm scared of my imagination so that proves God exsists..."
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>In order for anything to constitute evidence for a god, there must be an idea of what would constitute evidence against that god.
So you are in the judge's seat again? You are the authority to determine the evidence? Because that is the problem in itself. God is the Authority, not us. If we are evaluating God to see if He is worthy of our following then we placing our authority over God's.
Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."
You see you have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is "self". You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judge's chair. What you don't realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God's Word then you begin to understand Him.
>>Since you are claiming that everything is automatically evidence for your god, you violate the very concept of evidence.
That is merely a byproduct since God's Word speaks of everything, either directly or by implication. The Bible stands or falls as an entire system. That is not violating anything. God, and His Word, is evidence, for reason and evidence itself.
>>This tells me that you have no evidence.
Again because you are the authority to evaluate the evidence? Wrong way to go.
Paul B
ReplyDeletePogo/Gary
The one thing that really pisses me off is the use of sock-puppets.
Maybe you should calm down and think straighter.
Believe it or not this forum is public and anyone can post with a google or wordpress account.
Did you really imagine that I am alone in the world in my disagreement with atheism and its illogical reasoning process or that I alone think atheism hasn't got a logical leg to stand on?
Come on PaulB get lucid here.
I am not pogo and pogo is not me.
Got it?
Good.
This going to take forever!
ReplyDeletePaul Baird said...
I have provided an ultimate foundation, Gary, and yes it is both subjective and relative.
And therefore unreliable and quite possibly -based on my world-view- false, but in yours it doesn't even matter. If emotions and neurons are the basis of all morality then there really is no morality at all.
Morality, as our Darwinist friends state, is an mere accidental evolutionary adaptation, an illusion.
Really ? You've already acknowledged that 'logic' has not changed but our understanding of what that logic is has.
Our understanding is nevertheless of a real thing. One may get his sums wrong in arithmetic. Does that mean math itself is relative and subjective? No.
Is there a real thin behind numbers? Of course. If there were not nothing would work.
That's the difference. If logic, like the atheist view of morals, were a mere Darwinian question of survival, it does not really exist at all; only as yet another accidental evol. adaptation - another illusion.
But if that be the case it is useless because it doesn't have existence outside the human brain.
So how can we be sure that the 'truth' we think is objectively true and is not instead the current subjective view of the 'truth' ?
That is truly possible.
But that is the very reason why we are obliged to assume that our powers of reason and absolute rules of logic really do exist!
Otherwise, vanity of vanities! All is in ruins - the whole sum of human thinking becomes nothing but a massive neurological phenomenon of matter and energy flowing through "3 pounds of meat", destined to vanity and oblivion with the physical universe itself.
"... or that I alone think atheism hasn't got a logical leg to stand on?"
ReplyDeleteGary how can you talk about logic when your worldview description starts off with,
"In the beginning was the Word...."
Straight away this indicates logic is not your strong point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favourite things to do is to pop into Garys head and loose debates with him.
ReplyDeleteShhhhh it's a sercret I'll never admit too.
Otherwise, vanity of vanities! All is in ruins - the whole sum of human thinking becomes nothing but a massive neurological phenomenon of matter and energy flowing through "3 pounds of meat", destined to vanity and oblivion with the physical universe itself.
ReplyDeleteYour appeal to (supposed) consequences shows how afraid of reality you are.