|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:20 pm
Rosa the White Wizard Scarlet_Teardrops Rosa the White Wizard Scarlet_Teardrops Rosa the White Wizard It's fine not to fear death. It's a natural part of life regardless of one's faith, so it's easy to accept it. At least, that's how I see it. I did have a dream once about heaven, but I wasn't restricted to my present feelings, restraints, or convictions. How I felt, could have gone on for eternity and would not likely have gotten old, but who knows. It was just a dream. And I wouldn't worry about picking the right religion really. With the thousands of faiths people can walk, if it was really important to any said true deity that we follow one and not another, it/he/she/them would surely have provided more than a thousand different pamphlet's saying, "do this, not that," that differ so greatly from one another. For that reason I can only conclude that scripture is man-made, but at best, perhaps influenced by the divine. On that level, it's easier to see how wisdom has reached into nearly all religions. We just clutter the truth with ritual and dogma until we can no longer see what we were intended to see, and then it's easy to get lost. At least, that's my take on it.
It is important to the true deity, who is the living Son of God Jesus Christ, that we follow only Him, because He is the truth. That is why He said that He is the only way. Well, that's part of it at least.
He also provided more for us than "pamphlets" saying "do this, not that". He provided us with salvation, through his atoning death on the cross, because we are sinners.
If Scripture is man-made, there's no reason to believe in it. Period. Since you're an atheist-agnostic, you are acting in accordance with what you believe. This is nice.
The best of my understanding is that I would require a personal experience to shed light on which way is truth for me, but since the experience and religion will vary for which choice I make, it makes it seems like the details are all too human after all.
I just wish it was somehow more obvious, that's all. But I appreciate any and all light you or anyone else has to shed on the matter.
You seem to have fallen under the misconception that we believe based on "blind faith". We don't. We have a whole system of reasonable and logical points for the proof of Christianity and its defense. It's known as Apologetics. You are not wrong to ask for proof. A believer should be able to give answers and defense for his/her faith. The Bible actually commands this in 1 Peter 3:14-16. So if a Christian ever tells you "don't ask for proof", that Christian is misguided OR hasn't studied enough to give you answers, which is a shame on him/her since we're commanded to study His Word.
There are proofs. I like to break them down into two categories: proof for God's existence, and proof that Christianity is true. The proofs for God are based in observable data and the like that lead to the logical deduction that God must exist. With Christianity, the proof is much more solid. In fact, in the end we believe in God not because of the observable information that led us to believe that God exists, but because Jesus Christ came, died, and rose.
I would argue that both sections of proof are solid, though. If you want, I can give you a run-down of evidences and proofs for God and for Christianity.
Forgive me for taking so long to reply. College keeps me busy. sweatdrop
Evidence is strong in favor of God, I believe. While no one can prove definitively 100% that God exists or does not, I believe the evidence is in favor of God.
I like the Cosmological Argument the most, myself. My primary foundation is the Big Bang Theory. While it is still considered a theory, I feel that it is much closer to a scientific law than Darwinistic evolution. Please note: I said Darwinistic evolution. That is a certain kind of evolution.
There is good reason to believe that the Big Bang did occur. The universe is expanding. That's the first point. The radiation echo (you can look this up on your own) also highly suggests that the "Big Bang" probably happened. That's the second point. The third point is this: the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Now, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is extremely important for multiple reasons. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of entropy (chaos/disorder/dying out of energy) is increasing. Basically, everything in the universe is breaking down. This strongly suggests, and I mean strongly, that the universe had a beginning, and the Big Bang fits the bill perfectly. Eventually, everything will break down and be no more. The universe is not eternal, so it could not have possibly existed infinitely in the past, nor can it exist infinitely in the future (unless God restores it, which He could do and I believe He will). Thus, I believe we can safely say that the universe had a beginning. And it will have an end.
This is important because it causes the Steady-State Theory to break down. The Steady-State Theory is an argument that the universe expands and then implodes on itself only to explode and expand again, repeating the process forever. No need for a beginning. Trouble is, that can't possibly be, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics shows us that the universe won't be around forever.
A beginning for the universe makes atheism difficult to stand with (though it can be and is done) because atheists must come up with a non-God explanation as to why the universe suddenly came into being randomly, somehow, because of nothing in particular. Keep in mind that atheists will simply say that we have not found the answer yet, but that God is not necessary. I believe, however, that God is necessary for explaining where the universe came from. Until they provide me with an argument that's better than the universe just coming into existence because of nothing, by nothing, from nothing--which is impossible--I will not be convinced otherwise.
Keep in mind that I said "coming into existence because of nothing, by nothing, from nothing". That IS impossible. But if a maximally powerful deity (theists refer to this as Omnipotence) were to cause the universe to come into being, I feel that it is completely possible. You see, God is the uncaused cause, the missing part of the equation of creation that people have lost sight of. That's why they're running around with theories like the Steady-State Theory and ex nihilo (out of nothing) universes without gods creating them ex nihilo.
There is also the Teleological Argument. Basically, everything has the imprint of design upon it. Therefore, logically, there must be a designer. Intelligent design scientists favor this argument. It makes sense. Things have very, very intricate designs. Take the eye, for example. Or the coding of DNA. These are all things that really point toward a designer of some sort. Chaos and disorder cannot make order and functioning.
There is also the Moral Argument. I really like this one too. Basically, we have morals. Therefore, God must exist. Now there is a lot of debate about this one. After all, morality is just something that our highly evolved brains have created. I won't go into evolution yet--but it is to come. And if evolution did do this, perhaps it could be argued. But there's a problem, and it's this: WHO CARES?!
Without God, there is no actual standard for morality. Some argue that society is the standard. The problem is that society is fallible (capable of error), changes morality (think about the 50s as compared to now), and differs depending on the country and region. So society cannot be a standard. A standard must be objective (unchanging and absolute, without opinion). It cannot be subjective (changeable, not absolute, different). Society is subjective, so it cannot be the standard. Some argue that everyone's personal morality is the standard (Existentialism, roughly). The problem with that is, again, that's not a standard! If anything, personal morality is worse than societal morality. It's even more fallible, subject to greater changes, and differs depending on the person. It also means that you can't criticize somebody for something you think is wrong. Why? Because your standard is no greater than theirs! It's all opinion.
Morality is not subjective. It's objective. It must be objective or it is not morality. It's an opinion.
"I like blue."
"I like green."
"Like blue more than green or I'll shoot you."
"No."
*Bang, bang.*
"You're dead."
Not even survival is an adequate standard, though many people will argue that it is. Why? Because survival is subjective too. My survival depends on A. Your survival depends on B. Well, B interferes with A, so I'm going to murder you. I'm also going to take your wife and do what I want with her, because you're dead and because I can. Then I'll continue doing A so I can survive.
If God doesn't exist, Hitler was not wrong. Stalin was not wrong. Ted Bundy was not wrong. Rapists and child molesters are not wrong. Do what you want. I believe it was the atheist Jean-Paul Sartre who said "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible." I could be wrong. Correct me on that if I am.
The Moral Argument goes beyond "we have morals, so God must exist". It goes to "God must exist, or we don't have morals". There's no reason to be kind to anyone. Maybe you feel like being kind. Okay. Great, I guess. But I don't. In fact, I find your kindness annoying, so I'm going to burn your house down. Cheerio!
Now then, evolution. More specifically, Darwinistic evolution. It's important to make that known. I'm not a scientist, and I don't have a Ph.D. But I have read a lot, and learned a lot, both from people who do have Ph.D.'s, scientists included.
Darwin made great points, and those who have followed in his footsteps have made great points. But there are some problems. First of all, the fact that complex organic systems exist. The eye, for example. If one part is messed up, it will not work. But the eye requires time for evolution to complete it. The problem is that evolution works to make species better, so an incomplete, non-working eye would be more of a nuisance than anything and evolution would get rid of it because it wasn't necessary for survival. Eyes shouldn't exist.
Second, the fossil record is severely lacking in transitional (that is, between one species and another) fossils. There really aren't any. Scientists try to pass off some fossils as being transitional, like Archeopteryx. Problem is, there isn't solid proof that it was a transitional species. And even if it happened to be--where the hell are the thousands and thousands of fossils of transitional species that would surely exist in the fossil record if Darwinistic evolution was true?
Third, if evolution is constantly making all species better, why are there fossils of creatures in the fossil record from millions of years ago that are, well, still the same creature? Cockroaches sure haven't changed. But if Darwinistic evolution was true, they would have! And why the heck aren't there any transitional species today? There should be tons of them.
Fourth, Darwinistic evolution defies the Law of Biogenesis. Life, and only life, creates life. Like creatures, and only like creatures, create like creatures. Lizards don't become mammals. Fish don't become rats. They stay what they are. Now maybe they adapt to their environment. Say wild dogs from the north with thick fur migrate south, for whatever reason, to a warmer climate. There would be those who would die, surely. But those who lived and continued would have young, and their genetics would begin to adapt to that environment. They wouldn't have near as much fur anymore, and their bone structures might change a little bit to suit the different terrain. But they're still wild dogs. They're still canines. Darwinistic evolution argues that species change into different species. It also argues that God is not necessary for life--and I will get into that in a moment.
Adaptation, or micro evolution as some say, is what exists. I will certainly give Darwin and his successors that. Most definitely. But God equipped creatures to be able to do that.
As a side note, you may also notice that even atheistic scientists talk of evolution and/or natural selection as though it has thought. The name natural selection implies thought by default. That's not possible. I just find that amusing. It's as though even when they try to they can't escape a divine creator.
Now, let's talk about life coming from chemicals. Not possible. Of course, you can always argue that science will eventually prove that. You can. In fact, some argue that science already has! The problem is that it defies the Law of Biogenesis, and every law of science (Thermodynamics, Biogenesis, Gravity) has been proven over and over and over and over and over again. That's why they're not theories but laws. They can be proven accurately and wonderfully again and again. You can observe gravity. You can observe the Law of Biogenesis. You can even observe the Law of Thermodynamics through history and in your own personal experiences. You die, for example. Your body decays. Machines break down. Rust destroys metal.
Some have argued that science has proven this, though. It's called the Miller-Urey Experiment. Basically, scientists, in a secure, controlled laboratory environment, managed to get amino acids, which are an important part of life (but not actually life themselves), through their experiment. And now people jump to the conclusion: "Science has proven that life can come out of chemicals!"
There are some major problems with this experiment. The first is that it didn't create life. The scientists got some amino acids. That's only part of the equation. You can't have the sum if you only have "x" and you're missing "y" and "z". The second is that it was a controlled environment. In other words, the scientists had to set up the environment and make sure it worked correctly (i.e. human interference) to get the amino acids. Earth, in its young stages, is theorized to have been very volatile and chaotic. Do you see that as being a controlled environment? I don't. It required human interference. They were there to control it.
The only way non-life could have come from chemicals is if God was actually there to interfere and control it. Then it's possible. But Darwinistic Evolution takes God out of the process. So it's not possible. Not without God.
So, here's a summary.
The universe had a beginning, evidenced by The Big Bang Theory, which is supported with points of evidence, and reasonable deduction based in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Furthermore, the universe is not eternal. This is shown by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. An ex nihilo universe is only possible if God is there to cause it. He is the Uncaused Cause.
Creation has obvious design, thus denoting a designer, i.e. a creator who is God. It cannot be aliens because something had to cause them. This goes on infinitely. God has to be the designer because He is infinite and maximally powerful. We have morality, which suggests a Creator with morality who expects us to follow that morality. Furthermore, without God our systems of morality break down and we shouldn't even bother with them.
And then there is Darwinistic evolution. Great points, but lacking in the fossil record, modern transitional species, defies the Law of Biogenesis, and thus far science has not proven that life can come from non-life, i.e. chemicals. This automatically makes Darwinistic evolution a theory because it hasn't been proven all the way. Even if they had tons of transitional fossils, scientists still haven't proven that life can come from chemicals, so it still cannot be a scientific law unless it is revised. But then it is no longer Darwinistic evolution.
*Takes a breath*
So there you have it. That is a not so brief argument for God's existence. There are other arguments out there too but I thought I'd cover some big and basic ones.
Questions and comments? Feel free to ask/make them! I can't guarantee I'll respond right away, but I will do my best. God bless. heart
If you'd still like to have an argument for the Bible and for Christianity I'd be happy to give that to you as well.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:41 am
First off, I am extremely grateful for your extensive reply and the information you provided. And as per the closing statement, anything you are willing to share, I am willing to take into account.
I would like to share my perspective on each of the points mentioned above.
First off, it's refreshing to see that your presentation coincides with laws, facts, and at minimum, a reasonable state of theory. It has been difficult having these discussions with people who want to help, but provide little more than the Bible tells them so.
You are correct. There is no evidence against God's existence. There are four sides to the correlation of God and science. There are those who remove God from science intentionally, or dismiss God's involvement with the purpose of doing so. I think this is not the right approach. There are those, who for lack of having found evidence of God's involvement, simply do not make mention of it. To people like that, when you have x and y of a 4 part equation, but no data for w and z, the data is unknown. The third perspective is the inclusion of God, which certainly fills in the blanks. To a logical theist, this explains a lot. Even an atheist must observe the theory of intelligent design, as there is nothing that disproves it. And that is how theories work. They are logical drawdowns of how things work provided the information available, inclusive of logical assumptions that fill in the gaps. Personally I find Intelligent Design to be a logical theory. I mean, let's face it, design is at minimum heavily implied. To deny the theory outright without a theory that present at least as many or more facts is unnustified. Then there's the fourth kind, which assumes God as the true and primary factor of consideration before all else, sizing up things to account for the truth as they know it.
Natural selection isn't so much a thought process as the default outcome of interaction. I know you cited this as chaos and disorder, but there is a certain amount of order in nature and in the periodic table, as well as to the very laws you mentioned. As you said, this does not explain life however, so we must still look at filling in w and z.
I know science is ever on the ball about proving the origins of life. It may be difficult, even if we can replicate life, to prove that how we replicated it, was the origin of its existence. For this, I worry that many scientists will attempt to throw out theistic theory, as in "I proved it x way" (as if it could never have happened any other way). I've long since learned science is just as much subject to ongoing rhetoric as religion can be. It's not that I like playing devil's advocate either. It's just that there's fair, and then there's unfair. And fair should always be with that which we know to be true or at least reasonable.
The issues with a self sustaining universe are very case and point. In it's current state, as such, it cannot go on forever. But again, this is based on what we presently know.
As humans, we have thus far proven that everything has a beginning. As such, it is fair and logical to assume all things begin and all things end. However, this is our human experience talking. I for one do not limit the universe to my own understanding. For that, I admit God may be real, and that there may be forces that simply are and always will be. But this is just personalized theory, based on the fact that we do not know everything. It provides room and understanding for the margin of error.
And not all atheists actively try to dismiss God. To those like myself, trying to replace an unproven variable with another unproven variable just doesn't seem to accomplish anything. Rational thought process dictates that without the data, we go with the best assumption available to us with the data we have. On this note, many scientists have drawn different conclusions. As long as there are unproven variables, this will continue to happen.
I get what you're saying about evolution. The bridges would have to make sense to validate it in it's entirety. As far as the eye, it wouldn't have to be an incomplete eye. It could have performed a basic eye-like function, even as a basic form of photoreceptor, or the like, and improved over time. However, you are definitely correct to demand that such creatures in these states be presented for review. This is perhaps one of the most exciting observances for me in my quest for knowledge. Exciting because here is this evolutionary theory... but where the specimens are concerned, we jump from one creature to the next without much of an intermediate model. This could suggest that extreme jumps in evolution were made in as little as a single generation. Problem is, we have no evidence to show that it could have happened over the course of a single generation. So there are holes in the evolutionary theory. At least in how it's often presented.
In terms of morality as you presented it, there is a bit of an issue with the conclusion that God must exist. Morals in society have historically been enforced by law. Those societies without law and order have often broken and fell to the flames of anarchy and chaos, as you point out would be the case without consistency. But as far back as history books have provided me, morals have been enforced by laws. These laws were in turn enforced by those in power and the people they applied to. The direct cause an effect is that people adhere to the teachings of any given set of morals as a result of law, and punishment where those laws are not abided by. If we say that there's more to it than that; that we have an innate sense of what is moral, regardless of law, then we open the table to things like divine influence or personal understanding. People share a frequent level of understanding with common morals for different reasons. To claim that without God, that there is no standard of morality is inaccurate, simply because the standard has existed and has been enforced by law. Now, the presentation that morals come from God is possible, whereas the source of these laws is religious, and that the source of these religious texts is influenced by the divine. But as far as the rules of observation go, the powers that be institute law and order. People obey that law and order to maintain good order, lest they fall into anarchy and chaos, which is less preferred by the average citizen. This also reflects when the laws of any given state are not agreed upon by the people. It leads to revolt and rebellion because the people view it as immoral.
The problem with objective morality as you present it, is that the laws themselves vary from religion to religion. This is difficult for me in searching for the truth. Yes, opinions will vary, and do not make a very sound template for objective morality. But when objective morality differs, based on a difference of law, it is just as subject to failure as any given opinion.
Muslims and Christians have been fighting and killing in God's name for years based on objective morality. The outcome is seldom different than would be the case of having a different opinion.
Where you are absolutely correct, is where a standard code of morality is lacking, chaos and disorder will ensure. But that is where the legal system, as it always has, comes into play. The law says x is right and z is wrong. If the people agree with the law, they abide by it, and treat is as moral. If they disagree then they fight to change it and address is as immoral. But here we will again come into the conflict of opinion.
If I digress, I must respectfully recognize that it is clear you recognize God's thruth and his involvement in the universe. You see his laws and know that the opinions of the people should not outweight them. I respect you for that. And I agree that a standard of morals is vital for our world to function in a healthy capacity. The difficulty becomes a matter of trust and investment. Which set of standards do people elect? There are many who will say we do not elect them, but that the divine have already provided them. But there are many sacred scripts from many different gods, and this is cause for disarray.
"If God doesn't exist, Hitler was not wrong. Stalin was not wrong. Ted Bundy was not wrong. Rapists and child molesters are not wrong. Do what you want. I believe it was the atheist Jean-Paul Sartre who said "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible." I could be wrong. Correct me on that if I am."
This above statement assumes that we base what we feel is right and wrong, on being told so by a form or sacred text. Many people, theists and atheists alike will tell you these people are wrong for what they did, not for what any sacred text told them to feel about it. No one wants those things to happen to them or the people they care for. As such, it is naturally agreeable that these people were wrong. They simply don't want it. And every manner of natural reason comes out with it. As a caveat to that, I'm not saying it disproves God's involvement. It's just hard to see God as the absolute reason for whether we agree or disagree with something being immoral.
My chief argument against needing God for a sense of morality is in efficiency. You said there's no reason to be kind to anyone without God. But I love people. And for that I wish to do well by them. I care for people and wish to respect them so that I too may be respected. I do not desire to burn people, hurt them, or lash out for no good reason. I treat others well, and they treat others well. The benefits become known and good order ensures. If I burn someone's house just because I feel like it, then they burn mine, then we get a blood fued on our hands. That is not efficient. Efficiency dictates that respect and law, along with good order and discipline is much preferred to chaos and disarray.
Now if I may ask a question. This is one I personally think about.
Is God really the reason for morality? Or is it law? People are often made to obey the law, but if the law allows them to act immoral, will they then be immoral? Biblically and historically, many people have taken kindly to oppotunities to be immoral, as long as they law was okay with it. For this, an absolute law, or God's law, must indeed be more important than our own laws. But since our laws will not reflect God's laws, how then are we to proceed? Are they just out-dated laws once made by the people, or are we soon to subject ourselves for God's wrath for dis-respecting them?
If by chance I came off at any point as disrespectful I apologize. Perhaps, if you'd like, we can tackle individual aspects of this discussion... when you have time of course. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:18 pm
To the point of natural selection: I understand that scientists do not think it literally means a thought process. However, by its very name "natural selection" there is an implied thought process. Therefore I would argue that natural "selection" is not an accurate term for what scientists claim it is. Something else needs to be put in its place.
I would agree that there is order. I will revise my statement earlier. I suppose I should say that the reason there is order is because God exists. God is orderly, and so He has created order. The universe operates under certain laws because God created those laws. I don't think that natural laws would be so precise without God.
I need you to define what you mean by "replicate life" in this context, so I can make sure that I give you the proper answer.
I know not all atheists try to dismiss God. Those who do are known as "hard atheists". Those who do not are known as "soft atheists". I often forget about this fact. I've had a lot of mean atheists in my life, so it's difficult for me to see atheists outside of the "hard atheist" definition. There are some, though. Like you. ^_^
I think we should continue to talk about evolutionary theory, but only as a theory. Unfortunately people are teaching it as a scientific law. I have a problem with this, because it's a theory. I don't have a problem with people not teaching the Bible in public school. However, I do have a problem with people teaching a Darwinian religion in public school, which is basically what is happening.
Morals have been enforced by laws. This is true. And they need to be. I do not believe that the claim that without God there is no real standard of morality is inaccurate. A standard must be objective. It works outside of humans, outside of society, and outside of whatever laws the society may have. I feel that you are arguing that society is the standard, when I argued that society cannot be the standard because of certain factors. The fact that people can change a society proves that it's not a real standard. Everything is a matter of perspective and there is no real morality. Perspective is not morality. It's perspective.
Objective morality is not based on religion. It's based in God and His perfect law, which is written on the hearts of all people, as the Scriptures say. That is why people often have, as you say, a level of understanding with common morals. And I would argue that with some wrongs there are not different reasons. Raping and then murdering children is wrong. Period. Perhaps there are some differences in reasons. But everyone has a base understanding of morality, and a conscience.
You see, you're arguing from the existentialistic point of view. That morality is decided by people: "the law says x is right and z is wrong. if the people agree with the law, they abide by it, and treat it as moral".
It doesn't matter what the people agree with. Morality is morality. It is a pure, objective code that transcends what people want and think. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with what the law says and they "treat" that law as "moral". They're only treating it as moral. That doesn't make it moral. Existentialistic thinking has taken over a lot of concepts regarding morality. This is a problem, because Existentialistic thinking by its very nature throws out morality, because it's not based in the objective. It's not based on a standard. A real standard must be unchangeable, or it's just perspective. It's not a standard--at all. Nihilists also recognize this, which is partly why they're nihilists.
This is where the truth of Christianity, and Jesus as the only way comes in. If it can be shown that Christianity has a high likelihood of being true above the other religions, then we should scrap the others. I would argue that this is the case, and part of my defense of Christianity is breaking down other religions, some of which are more difficult than others. But I believe they do not measure up as Christianity does.
Even then, God's law transcends people and religious systems. Christianity is a religious system based on Christ's sacrifice and God's Word. His law is written on everyone's hearts. But our sinful nature comes into play and rebels against the law written on our hearts. Thus, God's law is not based in religion. It's based in Him, His truth and His very existence.
As to your argument about my "above statement": I'm not arguing that atheists feel that they are wrong. What I'm saying is this: if God doesn't exist, there's no REASON to believe that they are wrong. Because there is no real standard, you see. From your argument earlier "if people agree with it", Hitler was completely moral. Stalin was completely moral. Why? Because there are some people who agree with it. You see, morality cannot actually exist if there is no standard.
I'm not saying that atheists won't say that these people are wrong. I'm saying that they don't actually have a reason outside of their own personal opinion. And their personal opinion, or even society's opinion, doesn't make them right. Because other societies think differently. So which society is right? Which people are right? The majority? Well what if the majority thinks that what Hitler did was alright? Does that make it alright?
Let me ask you: who gets to make the laws? You said the people in power. Well--they're people. Why the people in power? What makes them right? They obviously aren't necessarily right because people can overthrow them. But then--perhaps they are right and the people are wrong, but the people view their rightness as immoral.
And...the people in power have surely acted immorally. What gives them the right to come up with morals? If people can change so-called "morality", which it's not, then it's not consistent. It's not stable. You can overthrow the law. So you still have no basis for morality. You don't have any real morality. As I said in my first post--you have opinion. Nothing more.
There must be a standard. This is where God comes in. He is the standard. His morality is the real morality.
True, efficiency may dictate that. But what if people don't want efficiency? You're not anymore morally sound than anyone else. I don't care if you love people. I hate them. So I'll kill you and them. Boohoo. I don't care if it's efficient, and there are many other people who don't care if it's efficient. We need God for our foundation, or people can just say "******** you" and blow your brains out, and you really can't honestly condemn them. You will, because you feel a certain way, but that doesn't make you right. You're no more right than they are because there is no standard. So there is no condemnation.
Please note: this is an example not based in how I feel. I'm glad you love people. You should. Not because you feel like you should, though that is good, but because God said you should.
The reason people have taken kindly to being immoral is because they're inherently sinful. This is one of the major truths from Christianity. I would argue that our laws need to reflect God's laws.
You did not come off as disrespectful at all. I've debated with a lot of people, and you're a cuddly bunny compared to most of them. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:41 pm
Scarlet_Teardrops
To the point of natural selection: I understand that scientists do not think it literally means a thought process. However, by its very name "natural selection" there is an implied thought process. Therefore I would argue that natural "selection" is not an accurate term for what scientists claim it is. Something else needs to be put in its place.
I would agree that there is order. I will revise my statement earlier. I suppose I should say that the reason there is order is because God exists. God is orderly, and so He has created order. The universe operates under certain laws because God created those laws. I don't think that natural laws would be so precise without God.
I need you to define what you mean by "replicate life" in this context, so I can make sure that I give you the proper answer.
I know not all atheists try to dismiss God. Those who do are known as "hard atheists". Those who do not are known as "soft atheists". I often forget about this fact. I've had a lot of mean atheists in my life, so it's difficult for me to see atheists outside of the "hard atheist" definition. There are some, though. Like you. ^_^
I think we should continue to talk about evolutionary theory, but only as a theory. Unfortunately people are teaching it as a scientific law. I have a problem with this, because it's a theory. I don't have a problem with people not teaching the Bible in public school. However, I do have a problem with people teaching a Darwinian religion in public school, which is basically what is happening.
Morals have been enforced by laws. This is true. And they need to be. I do not believe that the claim that without God there is no real standard of morality is inaccurate. A standard must be objective. It works outside of humans, outside of society, and outside of whatever laws the society may have. I feel that you are arguing that society is the standard, when I argued that society cannot be the standard because of certain factors. The fact that people can change a society proves that it's not a real standard. Everything is a matter of perspective and there is no real morality. Perspective is not morality. It's perspective.
Objective morality is not based on religion. It's based in God and His perfect law, which is written on the hearts of all people, as the Scriptures say. That is why people often have, as you say, a level of understanding with common morals. And I would argue that with some wrongs there are not different reasons. Raping and then murdering children is wrong. Period. Perhaps there are some differences in reasons. But everyone has a base understanding of morality, and a conscience.
You see, you're arguing from the existentialistic point of view. That morality is decided by people: "the law says x is right and z is wrong. if the people agree with the law, they abide by it, and treat it as moral".
It doesn't matter what the people agree with. Morality is morality. It is a pure, objective code that transcends what people want and think. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with what the law says and they "treat" that law as "moral". They're only treating it as moral. That doesn't make it moral. Existentialistic thinking has taken over a lot of concepts regarding morality. This is a problem, because Existentialistic thinking by its very nature throws out morality, because it's not based in the objective. It's not based on a standard. A real standard must be unchangeable, or it's just perspective. It's not a standard--at all. Nihilists also recognize this, which is partly why they're nihilists.
This is where the truth of Christianity, and Jesus as the only way comes in. If it can be shown that Christianity has a high likelihood of being true above the other religions, then we should scrap the others. I would argue that this is the case, and part of my defense of Christianity is breaking down other religions, some of which are more difficult than others. But I believe they do not measure up as Christianity does.
Even then, God's law transcends people and religious systems. Christianity is a religious system based on Christ's sacrifice and God's Word. His law is written on everyone's hearts. But our sinful nature comes into play and rebels against the law written on our hearts. Thus, God's law is not based in religion. It's based in Him, His truth and His very existence.
As to your argument about my "above statement": I'm not arguing that atheists feel that they are wrong. What I'm saying is this: if God doesn't exist, there's no REASON to believe that they are wrong. Because there is no real standard, you see. From your argument earlier "if people agree with it", Hitler was completely moral. Stalin was completely moral. Why? Because there are some people who agree with it. You see, morality cannot actually exist if there is no standard.
I'm not saying that atheists won't say that these people are wrong. I'm saying that they don't actually have a reason outside of their own personal opinion. And their personal opinion, or even society's opinion, doesn't make them right. Because other societies think differently. So which society is right? Which people are right? The majority? Well what if the majority thinks that what Hitler did was alright? Does that make it alright?
Let me ask you: who gets to make the laws? You said the people in power. Well--they're people. Why the people in power? What makes them right? They obviously aren't necessarily right because people can overthrow them. But then--perhaps they are right and the people are wrong, but the people view their rightness as immoral.
And...the people in power have surely acted immorally. What gives them the right to come up with morals? If people can change so-called "morality", which it's not, then it's not consistent. It's not stable. You can overthrow the law. So you still have no basis for morality. You don't have any real morality. As I said in my first post--you have opinion. Nothing more.
There must be a standard. This is where God comes in. He is the standard. His morality is the real morality.
True, efficiency may dictate that. But what if people don't want efficiency? You're not anymore morally sound than anyone else. I don't care if you love people. I hate them. So I'll kill you and them. Boohoo. I don't care if it's efficient, and there are many other people who don't care if it's efficient. We need God for our foundation, or people can just say "******** you" and blow your brains out, and you really can't honestly condemn them. You will, because you feel a certain way, but that doesn't make you right. You're no more right than they are because there is no standard. So there is no condemnation.
If something is truly right, it will ALWAYS be right. If something is truly wrong, it will ALWAYS be wrong.
Please note: this is an example not based in how I feel. I'm glad you love people. You should. Not because you feel like you should, though that is good, but because God said you should.
The reason people have taken kindly to being immoral is because they're inherently sinful. This is one of the major truths from Christianity. I would argue that our laws need to reflect God's laws.
You did not come off as disrespectful at all. I've debated with a lot of people, and you're a cuddly bunny compared to most of them. ^_^
This is my edited after-post copy. There are some additions. I posted this in case you were in the middle of posting a response. If you are seeing this and you have not yet posted, then my original post is correct as it stands now.
Again, this is ONLY if you are responding soon after I posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
