Thought Experiment

[Whatsisface]

Rape is part on the natural process and there is no right and wrong about rape in the animal kingdom which would include humans by your metric. The fact you believe it is wrong means you have a moral compass. It makes humans distinct from animals. What is the source of that moral compass?

Our ability for abstract thought, allied with empathy. The concepts of fairness, right and wrong are easy to understand to creatures with the ability to think in the abstract, as are understanding when things are generally right or wrong.

Are you programmed by some outside source or is it simply the result of activity in your brain? There is historical precedent for rape as spoils of war which was legal. Rape was part of slavery since the male owned either females or boys who existed for the sexual gratification of their masters. All legal. Still happens today.

There needs to be an explanation, a source. Why is it there in the first place? Do math equations transcend space, time and matter? What about truth? Transcend space time and matter? That would mean things, concepts exist extrinsic of space time and matter which would beg the question, what else exists outside of space time and matter? How about an objective multiplication giver, a moral programmer for humans? If you have a better explanation, we are all ears.

Math's, the idea of truth etc are concepts that couldn't be any other way than the way they are. For example, the idea of the number one can only be what it is, a representative of a single object or value. If we have two objects, we can't call that pair one because it doesn't fit the defined idea of one. It's the same sort of thing for the idea of right and wrong.

Believe is subjective and i gave you the Rachel Levine example which was cut out. Why should we all be compelled to go along with it at all times in all places? What is the penalty if we do not if legal? If we are to understand your position, you are supposing rape is wrong under a Godless model even if legalized by human rulers. The contradiction here would be in your head and not in your Godless reality. If rape is legal why would your beliefs about rape transcend the rule of men? It would not. You are assuming facts not in evidence nor have you made a case.

Rape is wrong because of the harm it causes, no matter what selfish man might legislate for.

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

It doesnt disprove them but it shows that their gods did not create this universe.

I do not see how you proved that the creation stories in Islam and Hinduism are not true. And when you say 'all experts agree' it is meaningless - actually its a logic error called Appeal to Authority.

Many experts used to think the world was flat. Did not make it true.

No, ask parents even infants can be selfish, which is a sin.

There is no such thing as sin until you can prove that God exists.

And given that we all deserve to die at birth for our sin, some actually got to live for awhile longer.

This may be the single worst and sickest world view I have seen. Makes nihilism look peppy.

But since infants dont intentionally sin, when they die they go to heaven. Also, given that their parents were some of the most evil people on the planet, they would have probably produced evil children as well so by killing them as children God reduced much evil in the future.

How did you prove this to be true? How did you prove heaven even exists? How did you prove the rules for babies after death?

Well we do have evidence that Jesus created the universe while the Hindu god did not as I demonstrated above.

Where can I see and evalute the evidence that Jesus created trillions of galaxies for a single species of primate on one planet?

I must have missed that

Well the problem morally with Buddhism and Jainism is that they dont have an objective moral foundation.

Morality is not objective by definition so this is nonsensical.

They may have good moral principles though Jainism believes in pacifism which is problematic morally,

Wow. Just....wow.

but even if their principles are good, they dont have an objectively rational basis for doing good.

Can you show me where I can find your objective morality that the other religions do not have?

I never heard of an agnostic that doesnt believe that reality is knowable and can never be known.

Then they are not agnostic by definition. You are using that word wrong.

You cant prove with absolute certainty that even your wife exists. I cant prove that Jesus rose from the dead but there is historical evidence that He did.

May I see the historical evidence from the time of Jesus?

But a materialistic atheist believes that at the origin of the universe there was only energy and matter, ie objects. So the above follows from that.

An atheist does not believe in gods. That's all. Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe.

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

So you admit that you have no explanation for the subject-object correlation or the existence of an objective reality?

I admit that I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. What are you asking me to prove or explain?

 

[Harry Leggs]

If there are some "things" (and I don't think the multiplication table is a "thing" like mountains or atoms or earthquakes, but put that aside for the moment) which are not made of matter and do not "reside" in space and time, it does not at all follow that there must therefore be an all-powerful, immaterial intelligence which exists outside of space and time.

Math equations exist and do not consist of matter. Math equations exist independent of time, space matter and human minds. The are abstracts and you offer no explanation of why they exist. Certainly, none that would beat a mind. The problem here is not a matter of reason or logic but of will. You choose not to believe in an independent mind as causal of all these things and the facts be damned. Anyways this is a dead end.

"If Christ was resurrected, then everything taught by Christianity must be true"? Why would that follow?

Yup. In part because of trust and identity. Better than man who was not there and really does not know. Part of the problem here is your imposition of near impossible standards and ignoring those same standards apply to anything you are saying. That is what triggered my response and the only thing surprising to me is why other Theists did not.

 

[Komodo]

I can see why you don't see the point even though it should be obvious by the total of my post.

That would only be true if you were making a clear point about how "modern-day Israel doesn't persecute homosexuals" somehow undermines the claim that "modern-day Christianity worships a God who once did command the execution of homosexuals." I don't think you are. Is it the kind of point which can't possibly be clarified any further?

Also ignoring other facts like not knowing the whole situation of an ancient Theocracy and how it affected their culture.

You could try to argue "the command to persecute homosexuals was not an immoral one, because of the situation of ancient Israel," but you aren't making that argument here, so I can't respond to it.

Am sure homosexuals had surrounding cultures where that sort of thing was permitted.

Obviously, the claim that a law from one time and place was an immoral one is not refuted by pointing out that other places didn't have that law at that time.

Also, are you saying you believe the Exodus from Egypt is actual history? Because most, on your side believe the Exodus is fiction yet quote from sections of that part as real. Which comes across as two faced.

Saying that a fictional character is immoral is something that basically everybody does, all the time, without anybody having any problem with the concept. It goes back at least as far as ancient Greeks who didn't think Zeus was real, but who thought the stories of him raping mortal women made him an immoral character. It just means "it would be wrong of anybody in real life actually to do those things."

 

[Komodo]

Math equations exist and do not consist of matter. Math equations exist independent of time, space matter and human minds. The are abstracts and you offer no explanation of why they exist.

Again, the fact that the equations could not possibly be otherwise is all the explanation we need for them. We don't need to reify them and ponder "where" they "came from" like we do for things like atoms or mountains.

Certainly, none that would beat a mind.

And, again, even if I'm wrong in saying "the fact that the equations could not possibly be otherwise is all the explanation we need for them," that doesn't mean "they are products of God's mind" even makes sense; how can a fact like "two times two equals four" be something that was "made" or "produced"? And if an "explanation" doesn't make sense, it isn't really an explanation, and I don't have any obligation to offer a competing explanation.

The problem here is not a matter of reason or logic but of will. You choose not to believe in an independent mind as causal of all these things and the facts be damned.

An alternative explanation is that you haven't actually presented any relevant facts here, and so I don't need to damn them.

Yup. In part because of trust and identity. Better than man who was not there and really does not know.

I don't see how my question, "Why does it follow that if the resurrection happened, Christian morality must be perfect?" is answered by "because of trust and identity."

Part of the problem here is your imposition of near impossible standards and ignoring those same standards apply to anything you are saying.

What standards was I setting, and where was I ignoring their application to my own claims? (Or is this another one of those things that's just "obvious" and can't possibly be elucidated?)

Anyway, my basic claim was, and continues to be, "if you think the teachings of Islam are morally indefensible, you should reject Islam; and if you think the teachings of Christianity are morally indefensible, you should reject Christianity." And I haven't seen anything you've said which would make me question that claim, or make me think I'm employing some sort of double standard in making it.

 

[Five Solas]

if you think the teachings of Christianity are morally indefensible, you should reject Christianity." And I haven't seen anything you've said which would make me question that claim, or make me think I'm employing some sort of double standard in making it.

Hey Komodo,

I get we write fast and loose on forums, but I don't think this claim follows as stated. I can give at least three reasons quickly.

- You should not reject anything only because you think its teachings are morally indefensible, you should first be correct in your assessment.
- The threshold of moral indefensibility is important. Is it the core or base teaching that underlies all others? Fine. Is it an isolated teaching(s)? If so, it's only specific doctrine(s) you'd be rejecting.
- Why all Christianity? There's such difference that unless it's a base teaching common to all sects, I'd have trouble seeing how you'd reason from the particular to the whole here.

 

[El Cid]

If they do some open minded research, they may be able to do it.

Example?

Give a scenario whereby somebody does research that convinces them that Yahweh is the one that's morally correct.

You could research on how all nations that were founded on Christian principles and actually try to follow them are the best places to live.

El Cid said:
No, a God is not telling you that you are not dreaming, you are reasoning it out yourself. You start with "I think therefore I am."

Atheists do this as well.
Next?

Ok, what is your next step in reasoning after discovering that you exist? How do you determine if what you are observing around you is really there?

 

[Eightcrackers]

You could research on how all nations that were founded on Christian principles and actually try to follow them are the best places to live.

How would this serve to convince me it was moral for Yahweh to kill all but eight people with a flood, or to command a man to kill his firstborn son?

Ok, what is your next step in reasoning after discovering that you exist? How do you determine if what you are observing around you is really there?

I can't, because I can't tell the difference between reality and my perception of reality.

And, as far as I'm concerned, neither can anybody else, because their perceptions are how they judge between real and not-real.

 

[El Cid]

I am open minded and humble.

You dont come across that way.

I just don't believe Christianity.

For reasons that are utterly and completely rational, not emotional.
And certainly no hubristic.

Ever watch the original Star Trek? Sometimes Spock came to the wrong conclusions by just relying on rationality. In order to discover the truth, you need to use all your faculties both logic and emotion or intuition. For an example, to determine whether your wife loves you, rationality doesnt fully answer the question. You have to have faith and believe she loves, you cannot prove it using logic. Right?

 

[Harry Leggs]

Again, the fact that the equations could not possibly be otherwise is all the explanation we need for them.

There are two possibilities for the abstract existence of math equations.... a mind or no mind and it appears you are opting for the latter because of a fixed bias as opposed to detached and analytical. A mind has the most explanatory power as opposed to your no mind postulate. As far as could not be other wise. It could be otherwise or it should be otherwise in a mindless universe. There is no reason for math equations to exist in a mindless universe. Also there is no independent corroboration to demonstrate mindlessness is the source of such elaborate abstracts. The existence of math equations, discovered not invented, is a fingerprint of a mind and any other postulate is inferior.

We don't need to reify them

Yeah you do. They exist, don't they? Otherwise your postulate has no standing. A mind wins by default. Game set and match. Of course we all agree atheism or nonTheism never really explains anything and is therefore of no value.

And, again, even if I'm wrong in saying "the fact that the equations could not possibly be otherwise is all the explanation we need for them," that doesn't mean "they are products of God's mind" even makes sense; how can a fact like "two times two equals four" be something that was "made" or "produced"?

Why is it there in the first place in a mindless universe? Why is it nonphysical and independent of time space matter and humans minds, discovered not invented? What has the most explanatory power, mind or mindless?

And if an "explanation" doesn't make sense, it isn't really an explanation, and I don't have any obligation to offer a competing explanation.

Atheism is like an infant in many ways all noise at one end and no responsibility at the other.

Anyway, my basic claim was, and continues to be, "if you think the teachings of Islam are morally indefensible, you should reject Islam;

Atheism is rejected because it explains nothing and its prerequisite is irresponsibility.

and if you think the teachings of Christianity are morally indefensible, you should reject Christianity.

I have no basis for thinking Christianity is morally indefensible and it makes no difference because that is not how Christianity is falsified. It is falsified if Jesus did not bodily resurrect from the dead. This thing about morally indefensible from an nonTheist is laughable since you have not demonstrated an objective moral basis for anything in the first place!

" And I haven't seen anything you've said which would make me question that claim, or make me think I'm employing some sort of double standard in making it.

What ever you hold dear in this life will be gone. Including your life. So whatever it is you are holding onto will have no lasting value. You either get it or you don't. Your double standard is you require explanations for counter proposal of a mind and yet claim you have no obligation to offer any competing explanations.

It is stacked deck on your part. If you wish to be consistent then you would need to demonstrate why mindlessness better explains the abstract existence of math equations in a mindless universe. How could a mindless universe produce math equations in the first place? And you cannot do it. If the existence of math equations is the effect then what is the cause? They deduce mind or mindless causation all the time in death investigations. If death is the effect then what is the cause? Mind or mindless? Natural like heart attack or killed by another person? Or suicide? It boils down to two competing causes. Mind or mindless.

 

[Komodo]

Hey Komodo,

I get we write fast and loose on forums, but I don't think this claim follows as stated. I can give at least three reasons quickly.

- You should not reject anything only because you think its teachings are morally indefensible, you should first be correct in your assessment.

Part of what I would mean by "I have come to the assessment that this religion's teachings are morally indefensible" is that it's a considered assessment, not a whimsical one, and that I have already considered and listened to objections to that assessment.

Now if "you should first be correct in your assessment" means "it is only reasonable for you to reject that religion if its teachings are in fact indefensible, not just if you believe them to be indefensible," then I disagree. Or maybe we're just referring to different meanings of "reasonable." If I'm a juror and, after carefully considering the evidence, I believe the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, I would say I'm acting reasonably by voting for conviction. My decision to cast that vote wouldn't become a retroactively unreasonable one if it were later discovered that the defendant was innocent. We can only act on the facts as we see them, not on an ultimate truth which may not be accessible to us.

I don't think is some original or eccentric definition of what it means for it to be reasonable for people to act the way they do. People say things all the time like "well, if he's really convinced that this route is dangerous, he's being reasonable in taking a different route," even if the route is not in fact dangerous, and even if the thought process by which he reached that false conclusion was not entirely rational; all "he's being reasonable" means here (and in my formulation) is that acting in accordance with your beliefs is more reasonable than not acting in accordance with your beliefs, acting in a way that's inconsistent with your beliefs.

- The threshold of moral indefensibility is important. Is it the core or base teaching that underlies all others? Fine. Is it an isolated teaching(s)? If so, it's only specific doctrine(s) you'd be rejecting.
- Why all Christianity? There's such difference that unless it's a base teaching common to all sects, I'd have trouble seeing how you'd reason from the particular to the whole here.

I am speaking, basically, of Christian teachings about salvation and damnation; I'm sure you're familiar with typical objections along those lines. Those seem to be core or base teachings, or at least they are core or base teachings of the kind of Christianity subscribed to by the proprietors of this site and most of the regular Christian contributors here. Yes, it would have been more precise if I had said "if you believe the teachings of [the kind of] Christianity [subscribed to by most Christians on this site] to be indefensible, then you should reject [that kind of] Christianity," but I was responding to somebody who did subscribe to that, so the precision didn't seem to me necessary.

To be clear[er], I'm also not saying that if one rejects [certain kinds of] Christian doctrine, then one must reject all Christianity in the sense of rejecting everything ever said about love and forgiveness by Jesus or Paul.

 

[Komodo]

There are two possibilities for the abstract existence of math equations.... a mind or no mind...

Here's another possibility: the quest for an "explanation" of the fact that the multiplication table works is basically misguided, for the reason I've already offered: that once you've established that something cannot be other than the way it is, it is futile to seek any further explanation for why it is that way.

Now you say, just below, that it isn't the case that the multiplication table couldn't be otherwise, that in fact "it could be otherwise or should be otherwise in a mindless universe," but I can't imagine what you mean when you say this. If it really makes sense to you to say that two times two "could be and should be" something other than four, then I'm afraid I just don't believe in even the hypothetical possibility of this bizarre universe, and I certainly can't follow you into it.

So I propose we leave things at this: if two times two could be equal to something other than four, then the fact that they do equal four in our universe is something that requires an explanation; if they couldn't be equal to anything else, than no further explanation is required for the abstract existence of math equations. Does that sound reasonable to you? Why not?

A mind has the most explanatory power as opposed to your no mind postulate.

Maybe it's worth backing up here and going over what's your basis, generally, for saying that one hypothesis has more explanatory power than another one. How would you fill in the sentence, "one hypothesis has more explanatory power than another if it can..."? Because I genuinely cannot say how "a mind made it come out that way" is an "explanation" for why two times two equals four. Let me try to say why:

Nobody has ever seen any person create anything from nothing. But we do know that people with minds do make physical objects from other things. So maybe it's not entirely unreasonable to claim that the right explanation for the existence of the sun and moon and earth is that they were created, from nothing, by an infinitely powerful person with an infinitely powerful mind. It's quite a stretch, but OK.

However, not only has nobody ever seen any person create a mathematical or logical truth or rule from nothing, nobody has ever seen a mathematical or logical truth or rule created at all. It isn't like saying "well, maybe we couldn't put this mountain into orbit, but if we were as strong as Superman we could do it"; we do know about how force can be used to accelerate mass, and we could calculate how much force would achieve this goal. But we don't have the slightest inkling how even to begin using a mind to make something true which wouldn't otherwise be true, e.g. how to use mind-power to make the square root of two a rational number, or make two times two something other than four.

So we really don't have any reason at all to believe that producing mathematical rules is the sort of thing that can be done by any mind, no matter how powerful. And that being the case, it makes no sense to say that "the existence of math equations is a fingerprint of a mind and any other postulate is inferior."

A mind wins by default.

No; not only for the reasons given above, but because it generally makes no sense to talk of explanations "winning by default." If we were living in 2000 B.C. and I told you that the reason the earth didn't fall down was because it rested on a turtle, and you then proceeded to show how unreasonable this was (what did the turtle rest on?), it would be absurd for me to say "I see you have no explanations, so mine wins by default." A silly or empty "explanation" is not really an explanation at all, and it doesn't win anything. Or maybe, more precisely, if it does win anything, it just wins a game that accomplishes nothing and is not really worth playing.

Your double standard is you require explanations for counter proposal of a mind and yet claim you have no obligation to offer any competing explanations.

Of course I did (repeatedly) offer an explanation for why the multiplication table worked: because it couldn't possibly not work. I went on from there to say that even if that wasn't a good explanation, there is no obligation for anybody (me or you) to give a "competing explanation" if the only "explanation" on the board was one that didn't make sense, and I didn't think yours did make sense. That's my single standard for all.

 

[Eightcrackers]

You dont come across that way.

Of course I don't - I reject Chrisitianity.
The Bible tells you that I am closed-minded, so I have no chance of coming across otherwise.

Ever watch the original Star Trek? Sometimes Spock came to the wrong conclusions by just relying on rationality.

Never on matters of objective fact.

For an example, to determine whether your wife loves you, rationality doesnt fully answer the question.

I'm not talking about whether my wife/your god loves me; I'm talking about whether or not she (he) exists.

Please give an example where Mr Spock - or anybody else, for that matter - needed emotion to settle a question of the objective existence of a person, place, or thing.

 

[El Cid]

Why open minded and humble? Why would God reward these traits over cautiously sceptical and humble?

Is it a coincidence that your recommended approach is the one that would more likely lead someone to finding what they want to find?

I think Eightcrackers explained your error quite well in his posts to you.

 

[Whatsisface]

I think Eightcrackers explained your error quite well in his posts to you.

He didn't address the point I made to you, he addressed a different point.

 

[El Cid]

If you believe you are an ape, your wife is an ape and your children are apes and i find that both fictional and preposterous then why should i respect it? Why should i go along with, it is science, mantra when none of it can be fact-checked against what actually happened? At best, it is lame speculation about the past.

Because as a Christian we should always treat others with kindness and respect even when we disagree with them. You should just respectfully explain to them the evidence that they are not apes.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Because as a Christian we should always treat others with kindness and respect even when we disagree with them. ''treat different beliefs with respect generally.''

In the first place. Disagree presupposes equal preferences like apples and oranges as opposed to truth and fiction which are unequal. Besides what triggered my response was your point of respecting beliefs distinct from persons. We can respect apples and oranges whereas we do not have to respect delusions. Rachel Levine is an example. Thinks he is female while biologically male (married divorced and fathered two children) and we are culturally and legally expected to go along with Rachel's delusions.

You should just respectfully explain to them the evidence that they are not apes.

Evidence will not matter to many. Although it should. They, including the majority, have all the evidence they need and still hold to fiction and myths with rock-solid convictions.

 

[Eightcrackers]

In the first place. Disagree presupposes equal preferences like apples and oranges as opposed to truth and fiction which are unequal.

We don't think that what we believe is fictional, just as you don't.
It's as though you think we think it's false, but go with it anyway...

Evidence will not matter to many. Although it should. They, including the majority, have all the evidence they need and still hold to fiction and myths.

And who decides what evidence we need?

 

[Harry Leggs]

We don't think that what we believe is fictional, just as you don't.

Exactly

It's as though you think we think it's false, but go with it anyway...

Exactly. Fictions floating around in your head and applied. Like walking off a cliff not believing in gravity.

So - do you consider yourself to be a mammal, or not?

It depends on the metric. Animal classification is fluid. Not concrete. For example, humans are upright and bipedal and others are quadrupedal. It is a schoolboy question. It is apples and oranges, not truth and fiction.

And who decides what evidence we need?

Evidence has little thing to do with your convictions