Thursday, December 16, 2010

Have we past the piont of no return?

Photobucket
Kant


Garbage on CARM. 12/16/10

I laid out a nice little overview of some major reason for belief, in answer to another thread that was too long. Three categories, origins, ethics, and existentialism. Cosmological argument, the need to ground axioms in something not relative and the need for meaning. These are the kind inane mock carp the ignorant denizens of the hate group spit back. These answers really demonstrate the bankruptcy of atheism, out education system, and the barbarism tat is overtaking civilization.

Ben The Biased.
don't agree that it actually means anything to "ground moral axioms," or that the categories of "necessary" and "contingent" are meaningful in any way, or that "self actualization" is a meaningful or measurable quality, so I don't find any of your arguments or challenges meaningful or useful in any way.
This is just extremely stupid stuff. Grounding ethics axioms means nothing more or less than showing the reasons why the axioms chosen are valid. Axioms can be grounded in logic, or tradition, or science (empirical data) or almost anything. One could ground them in supersition. It's really just another way of say "show a reason." To say they don't need to be grounded is to say we don't reasons for doing things. Ethical axioms stem form values of cousre. Values are not easily pinned down. Yet most would agree that we chose our ethical values for more important reasons than mere taste or out of anger or for reason more valid than mere bigotry. So what he's actually saying is we don't need ethics. We don't' need to worry about being ethical. Either or that or he's saying valuing a choice based upon hatred, bigorty, superstion, stupidity, or indifference is just as good as having a valid reason.

Atheist usually ground their ethical axioms in one of three things (or all three):

(1) feelings

(2) genetics

(3) social constract

These are the three reasons usually given for an action to be ethical according to most atheists. Atheists tend to use teleological reasoning, so they think it's the out come that makes it ethical. Outcome, however, requires a value to choose the outcome that suits us. That is not an excuse to get away from grounding. These three aspects are problematic:

(1) feelings:

Not that they aren't valid but they don't furnish a grounding. They work better as indications of some deeper justification such as innate ideas, divine origin, or genetics some such idea. The reason is because feelings change, there are competing feelings, people who don't have the feelings, and if you are a materialist you can't really demonstrable why feelings matter. These guys are willing to throw away a thousand year long tradition in ethical theory and just we don't need reasons.

(2) genetics

Genes can't be moral. The moral dimension is decision making, it requires free will. So we can't have a situation where what one should do is based upon genetic structure, because that's not Dennison making. This is a violation of what is called "Hume's fork." Hume said you can't derive an out from an is. Just saying there's a genetic tendency doesn't tell us why it's moral. If we discord the moral category we are just throwing away a rational harmonious peaceful society and clearing the way for might makes right.

(3) social contract

That was great as a counter to divine right of kings. What do you when the society is racist? Or what do you are in Nazi German or some such place where the social contract requires doing thing that in other contexts are extremely unethical? What seems liberating in one context can be oppressive in another. That's the flaw of relativism.

More wisdom from Ben the idiot:

However, let's assume that you are entirely correct on all three of these points. The question then would be, what difference does it make? What is all of this supposed to convince me of? None of it works in any way as evidence that God exists.

Of cousre it does, he's just ignoring how it works. I did say at the outset, as I always do, that I'm not offer proof (in fact the original thread didn't ask for proof but for 'reasons to believe') I am presenting rational warrant for belief.


That people find God best "grounds" their moral axioms doesn't mean he exists.
It's a good reason to assume so. There's also more to it than that. There's a dilemma. We feel deeply about certain actions that they are right or wrong, laudable or outrages against humanity, but there's no way to ground the choice in the feeling. The feeling works better as an indication of a higher truth. That higher truth points to the divine.



That he is the only explanation their limited minds can imagine for the origin of the universe doesn't mean he exists. That belief in him makes them "self-actualized" doesn't mean he exists.
It's a good reason t think he does since it's the content of the experience and it's Demosthenes emphatically in the outcome. That he is the only expatiation is a fine reason to believe. What kind of statement is that? that shows me that he doesn't care what's true and what is not. He's not searching for reasons he's just stuck on refusing. He wants to ask "why do people believe"then when you tell him the can't stand the fact that we do have reasons. If the explanation, God being the only one that works, is not a good enough reason then why have scinece? That's the basis of scientific belief isn't it?

I challenged them in my post to provide an alternative and they didn't brother. They just assert that they have one, but what is it? Then he's asserting that I'm stupid because I don't automatically assume that there is alternative but showing me one is his job, because that was my challenge.


So...what exactly are these arguments accomplishing? Is it just to say that I'd have a more coherent belief system and better well-being if I believed in God?
They are answering the original thread.



Even if I agreed with that (which I don't), I can't just choose to believe in God. I don't find the evidence of God's existence remotely persuasive, so I can't choose to believe in him any more than I could choose to believe that I have a million dollars in my bank account. I must be persuaded to believe. I can't make it happen. No matter how much you say my life would be better if I believed there was a million dollars in my bank account, I just can't believe it. Same goes for God.

what has he actually said here? he's actuality agreed with an observation I made once about the demand of atheist to be conquered. They don't' rational thinking, they don't want to deliberate, they are lazy. they want to be forced. that's a pretty unfair burden. They don't up in any effort to disprove God all they do is make people feel insutled and ridiculed for believing. They never actually try. Well some do there are argumetns against God but they are usualy piss poor. I've seen one that's any good except as a reason move on form fundamentalism to liberal theology.

What he's really saying is "I refuse to reason." What I have said on this blog before about the only argument atheists have? when you boil it down all they really have is the refusal to believe. What he's saying is no matter how good a reason to believe he will not give it any credence until it produce absolute proof that he can't argue with. He said :" No matter how much you say my life would be better if I believed there was a million dollars in my bank account, I just can't believe it. Same goes for God. " Translation: I refuse to believe so that proves it's not true. That is what I have called their one and only argument. After all if there's no valid origin we have to one or we wouldn't be here, if God is the only one that's a fine reason to think there's a God. A fine reason is not good enough for him. That would be ok with me if he was willing to just let those who accept it be. He is not. He is one of the cruelest mocking ridicule artists on CARM> so he's really saying Unless you have absolute proof you are an idiot to believe something. Of course he has no absolute proof. He has nothing more than refusal.

Here's what more of them said.


Bust Na
I am interested in this one:


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
B. infinite causal regress Quote this is a problem in logic becuase it's basically circular reasoning. Another problem with it fits into the next argument.

It's not circular, it's clearly linear and un-bounded.

challenge: the atheist cant' produce a suitable origin theory that is not based upon arbitrary necessity.

What's wrong with just saying origin is based upon contingencies?
What he' saying here is so stupid it could be a feature attraction on a hypothetical tv show called "stupid atheist tricks." He is confussing the nature of the chian of cause and effect in the ICR (infinite causal regress) with the logic that is used to support it. Just the concept of the ICR is that of a linear prgression of cause and effect doesn' mean the logic used to put it over is linear. I contend it's put in place by circular reasoning becuase you just attempt to explain each couplet of c=>e with itself as the basis for the next one. With no beginning there's never a point where you have a cause for the causes. I also argue that this is arbitrary necessity it's just putting a string of contingencies in place of necessity for no other reason than to avoid a God argument. That's what really get's me about it. there is no good reason for assuming ICR other than that one doesn't want to believe in final cause, since final cause = God. It's like cheating. It's saying "I refuse to believe so that proves it's not true, and if it is true I will still pretend it's not." see my arguments against ICR.


Super Genyus says:Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about mystical experiences from you, so I didn't continue. I think we've exhausted that debate. I'm just going to say that they are completely compatible with a naturalistic framework. And, before you comment on that, look up the definition of compatible.


This guy is usually one of the brightest of the carm atheist. He's probably is just sick of me always talking about 200 studies and mystical experiencing. It's the answer it proves it. I really should start using Lofuts' approach and just say "read my book." I have to get the book out there first. This is as very alarming thing to see becasue one of the bright actually refusing to look at the evidence. That just reinforces the whole notion of dumder heads refusing to think, I wont look through the telescope becuase it's a trick and so on.

This next guy is not one of the bright ones:



Originally Posted by Magritte View Post
His categorical imperative is categorically retarded. Who can come up with a practical moral system? Immanuel can't.\

Brilliant hu? He's putting down Kant to slap me in the face. Not a helpful attitude to discussion. That's the point. The atheists aer really through with the time for intellectual discussion. They not past the point where they are wiling to consider ideas. They lost every time they tired. They are hyped on hate and ready to hurt Christians and so they are not going to try to reason anymore.



Originally Posted by Magritte View Post
Then no amount of screeching and obfuscation will change the fact that we are ultimately responsible for choosing, preferring, judging. We cannot shrug off responsibility onto God, or Nature, or "a system". We have to man up and face the fact that we are the creators of our tables of values.


He's willing sweep aside one of the most brilliant minds in human history. He's clearly no student of ethics to believe it's impossible to make an ethical system, so he's probably never even read Kant.. What about the fact that they say that? Because they can't make it work without God it's impossible to make it work at all! That's a new one. It's very dangerous beause it's just saying "let's give up on morality.

Look at his little childish "man up" crap. First of all his argument is insane because to pretend that belief in God is putting responsibility on God for morality is stupid. Nothing could be more idiotic. Its' putting responsibility on us. God is not the moral actor we are! God requires the responsibility of us. Without no God we have no reason to act responsibly. He's really making the ultimate excuse to not have to be moral.

It appears we have passed the point of no return Atheists are no longer willing to reason or discussion in a civilized manner. They couldn't care less about truth, they refuse to believe that's all there is. They are also wiling to mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with their arbitrarily predilections and they going to continue to undermine the social fabric. I am hoping this only applies to an extreme end, maybe the Dawkamentalists. I can't imagine hermit saying he's done with trying to be moral.

BTW my brother and I thought "Kant can't" was cleaver in seventh grade.I remember Madyline Murry O'airhead syaing that Kant was the best proof of atheism.

29 comments:

a-hermit said...

"This guy is usually one of the brightest of the carm atheist. He's probably is just sick of me always talking about 200 studies and mystical experiencing. It's the answer it proves it. I really should start using Lofuts' approach and just say "read my book." I have to get the book out there first. This is as very alarming thing to see becasue one of the bright actually refusing to look at the evidence..."

No it's a case of having looked at the evidence and come to a different, equally valid, conclusion. Your interpretation of the data is NOT the onlt possible, or even the most likely (in some opinions). You need to stop pretending it's so black and white and accept that intelligent, thoughtful people might legitimately disagree with you, and that dismissing their objections with insults and abuse makes YOU look bad.

Metacrock said...

NO he did not look at the evdience, you din't either. that's my point.

what does he say? He says "we don't need grounding for axioms." what does that mean? it means we don't need evdience, becuase we don't reasons for what we believe. So how the hell can you he looked at the evidence? Besides he doesn' sight any evdience. the only thing he appeals to his ignorance of ethical theory.

they are imbeciles. they don't know fucking shit about a topic and they are pontificating about it' their views are just proved facts. anyone who taken ethics in college knows hey are merely full of shit. they don't even Bundestag the basics.

saying we don't need to ground axioms is the very same as saying we don't need to do sums to work math.

a-hermit said...

"NO he did not look at the evdience, you din't either. that's my point.

what does he say? He says "we don't need grounding for axioms."


I was referring to the mysticism business, not the ethical argument. You didn't look at my comment very closely I guess...;-)

And for the record I ground my ethical axioms in a informed concern for human welfare. Much more objective than the imagined requirements of some ineffable deity, if you ask me.

Metacrock said...

I was referring to the mysticism business, not the ethical argument. You didn't look at my comment very closely I guess...;-)

you were talking about what I aid to him which which was on the ethics.

And for the record I ground my ethical axioms in a informed concern for human welfare. Much more objective than the imagined requirements of some ineffable deity, if you ask me.

bull shit! that's nothing more than a platting not even a principle of grounding.

Metacrock said...

you concern is the axiom. you have to ground your concern in something.

a-hermit said...

"you concern is the axiom. you have to ground your concern in something."

Humanity (and human welfare) is something. And unlike your God it's a something which is observable and accessible to all, therefore a more objective, more universal ground for concern.

Metacrock said...

Humanity (and human welfare) is something. And unlike your God it's a something which is observable and accessible to all, therefore a more objective, more universal ground for concern.

that is an emotive knee jerk reaction. you think that your feeling guarontee the urge to be nice nice. You can say the mean evil things you want about Gdo taht don't make them so.


God is love. you would not feel love if God did not make to feel it. you cannot prove just by your feelings what is right or wrong. This is a bit of atheist hypocrisy because if I said my feeling proves God you would say "that's subjective." but then you expect me to accept your motion premise as a feeling even though that is subjective.

IF I say God is love, therefore, love is good. that proves that love is good as long as I have a justifiable reason for belief in God.
God not a big meaning, doesn't want us to hate, God is love.

But you can't prove that love is the deal unless you pin it on God or the truth or soemthing higher. Because other people feel differently from you. You may not always feel that way.

stop being a hypocrite, ether accept the validity of the feeling of utter dependence as a proof of God or find a provable basis for ethics.

a-hermit said...

Love is a human emotion, it only has meaning in the context of human relationships.

Electric said...

stop being a hypocrite, ether accept the validity of the feeling of utter dependence as a proof of God or find a provable basis for ethics.

I'm having trouble believing your serious with this comment. You demand others provide a "provable basis for ethics", but your basis is a god that you can't prove?

You need to understand that whatever basis anyone claims for ethis, it is not demonstrable. To say that empathy, an evolved trait, is the basis is no more or less demonstrable than to claim that God is the basis.

Metacrock said...

you don't know that. That's your little cynical crap based upon sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the vast evidence for God.

Metacrock said...

Elecric:I'm having trouble believing your serious with this comment. You demand others provide a "provable basis for ethics", but your basis is a god that you can't prove?


If you stop believing the ideology into you were brain washed and think clealry for a change you will see that there are far better reasons to believe in God than there are to doubt God. There's a huge stick of evidence that atheists can't answer.

atheist are stupid they can't follow a logical argument. Moreover,they don't want to know the truth.

I have proved the validity of my ethical without proving God exists. The fact is as I've already shown Kant's notion of God as the regulatory concept for ethics proved both at the same time.


You need to understand that whatever basis anyone claims for ethics, it is not demonstrable. To say that empathy, an evolved trait, is the basis is no more or less demonstrable than to claim that God is the basis.


that is not an excuse to forgo grounding axioms. They have to be grounded in something. The stronger the grounding the Better. That God is the best grounding is a dandy reason to believe in God.

Electric said...

I have proved the validity of my ethical without proving God exists. The fact is as I've already shown Kant's notion of God as the regulatory concept for ethics proved both at the same time.

No, you haven't proved any such thing (and I don't know how you could possibly prove the validity of your ethical grounding without proving God's existence). All you have done is say "I have this as the grounding of my ethics and anybody who has any other grounding is wrong and stupid."

that is not an excuse to forgo grounding axioms. They have to be grounded in something. The stronger the grounding the Better.

I have not suggested forgoing grounding axioms. All that I have done is note that they can be reasonably grounded in ourselves, rather than a deity. That is something you have done nothing to refute (except insult and attack, of course).

That God is the best grounding is a dandy reason to believe in God.

That God (or any god) is the best grounding has not remotely been demonstrated, nor (I believe) can it be. And even if it could be, that's a lousy reason to believe in God. The only good reason(s) to believe in God is because of evidence. Even if you could demonstrate that God is the best grounding (and you can't), you would need to demonstrate that that is evidence for his existence - and you haven't.

Metacrock said...

No, you haven't proved any such thing (and I don't know how you could possibly prove the validity of your ethical grounding without proving God's existence). All you have done is say "I have this as the grounding of my ethics and anybody who has any other grounding is wrong and stupid."

(1)human moral motions are undeniable as a diving force behind human value systems. We have to do ethics. It's part of who we are.

(2) there is no logical basis for moral dimension in genetics or nature, as the moral dimension is more than just behavior.

(3) Since morality is something we must heed, and there is no mundane rational explanation as to why it matters (all atheists attempt's fail) the the answer must be transcendent.

(4) therefore, from 3, we must accept as valid the most logically necessary transcendent concept in which we can ground moral axioms.

(5) that would be God, no other proposal offered works, in fact theist can't make such proposals without violating their ideology.


Meta (before):that is not an excuse to forgo grounding axioms. They have to be grounded in something. The stronger the grounding the Better.

I have not suggested forgoing grounding axioms. All that I have done is note that they can be reasonably grounded in ourselves, rather than a deity.

I've shown that doesn't work. Obviously they can't be because we are contingent, we have competing interests there's nothing about our feelings that makes them true or binding and we don't all feel the same way.

That is something you have done nothing to refute (except insult and attack, of course).

that's merely an assertion and you have no reason to assume it's true. IN fact I think you even said ti before, but I could be wrong about that.


That God is the best grounding is a dandy reason to believe in God.

That God (or any god) is the best grounding has not remotely been demonstrated, nor (I believe) can it be.

You are not reading carefully. I said the need for grounding axioms is itself a reason to believe in God. we know that the need form morality is strong enough we have to have it but the only way it works is with God so that's a good reason to believe.

It's the called the moral arguent it's a thousand years old.



And even if it could be, that's a lousy reason to believe in God.

why? that's stupid. If the need for axioms is great enough it has to be a good reason.

Metacrock said...

No, you haven't proved any such thing (and I don't know how you could possibly prove the validity of your ethical grounding without proving God's existence). All you have done is say "I have this as the grounding of my ethics and anybody who has any other grounding is wrong and stupid."

(1)human moral motions are undeniable as a diving force behind human value systems. We have to do ethics. It's part of who we are.

(2) there is no logical basis for moral dimension in genetics or nature, as the moral dimension is more than just behavior.

(3) Since morality is something we must heed, and there is no mundane rational explanation as to why it matters (all atheists attempt's fail) the the answer must be transcendent.

(4) therefore, from 3, we must accept as valid the most logically necessary transcendent concept in which we can ground moral axioms.

(5) that would be God, no other proposal offered works, in fact theist can't make such proposals without violating their ideology.

Metacrock said...

Meta (before):that is not an excuse to forgo grounding axioms. They have to be grounded in something. The stronger the grounding the Better.

I have not suggested forgoing grounding axioms. All that I have done is note that they can be reasonably grounded in ourselves, rather than a deity.

I've shown that doesn't work. Obviously they can't be because we are contingent, we have competing interests there's nothing about our feelings that makes them true or binding and we don't all feel the same way.

That is something you have done nothing to refute (except insult and attack, of course).

that's merely an assertion and you have no reason to assume it's true. IN fact I think you even said ti before, but I could be wrong about that.


That God is the best grounding is a dandy reason to believe in God.

That God (or any god) is the best grounding has not remotely been demonstrated, nor (I believe) can it be.

You are not reading carefully. I said the need for grounding axioms is itself a reason to believe in God. we know that the need form morality is strong enough we have to have it but the only way it works is with God so that's a good reason to believe.

It's the called the moral arguent it's a thousand years old.



And even if it could be, that's a lousy reason to believe in God.

why? that's stupid. If the need for axioms is great enough it has to be a good reason.


The only good reason(s) to believe in God is because of evidence.

NO! that's atheist ideological slogan ism trying bully it's why in and destroy the proper thinking about God.

you have been brain washed and you don't understated the nature of truth. they have hood winked you into think thing that the only truth is in the surface level existence of things.

that's self defeating because to say that you must assume a transcendent truth. But your discourse is aimed at denying transcendent truth so it's self contradictory.

Metacrock said...

Even if you could demonstrate that God is the best grounding (and you can't),

No you have things backwards. you can't prove any kind of grounding at all. God is obviously the best becasue that would write the moral truth into the universe at the foundation of it instead of just being relative to human needs. Obviously better because it would hold up over time.



you would need to demonstrate that that is evidence for his existence - and you haven't.

I don't need to that because the need for grounding in it iself ia reason. you are confussed by atheist slogans. atheists ideology cuts off thruth and tuancates reality to just that which they can controrl, emprical data. They are even very selective about which data they accept.

that's becasue there's a ton of scientific data for God. they cant' accept it.

if I show you this will give up atheism?



here's list of God arguments

anyone of them is good enough to justify belief.

The only good reason(s) to believe in God is because of evidence.

NO! that's atheist ideological slogan ism trying bully it's why in and destroy the proper thinking about God.

you have been brain washed and you don't understated the nature of truth. they have hood winked you into think thing that the only truth is in the surface level existence of things.

that's self defeating because to say that you must assume a transcendent truth. But your discourse is aimed at denying transcendent truth so it's self contradictory.



Even if you could demonstrate that God is the best grounding (and you can't),

No you have things backwards. you can't prove any kind of grounding at all. God is obviously the best becasue that would write the moral truth into the universe at the foundation of it instead of just being relative to human needs. Obviously better because it would hold up over time.



you would need to demonstrate that that is evidence for his existence - and you haven't.

I don't need to that because the need for grounding in it iself ia reason. you are confussed by atheist slogans. atheists ideology cuts off thruth and tuancates reality to just that which they can controrl, emprical data. They are even very selective about which data they accept.

that's becasue there's a ton of scientific data for God. they cant' accept it.

if I show you this will give up atheism?



here's list of God arguments

anyone of them is good enough to justify belief.

Electric said...

You are not reading carefully. I said the need for grounding axioms is itself a reason to believe in God. we know that the need form morality is strong enough we have to have it but the only way it works is with God so that's a good reason to believe.

Leave out the ad hominem (as usual). No, the only wait it works is not with God, so it’s not a good reason to believe in God.

It's the called the moral arguent it's a thousand years old.

Its age doesn’t matter – it’s a bad argument no matter how old it is.

NO! that's atheist ideological slogan ism trying bully it's why in and destroy the proper thinking about God.

There is no "atheist ideological sloganism". There is no ‘bullying’. If you think that evidence is not a good reason to believe in God (or anything) then good for you. I suspect even most theists would disagree with you and claim that God is evidenced, which is why they believe in him.

But again you resort to attack and insult and in this way avoid actually addressing the issue. I believe the vast majority of people (including theists) would say that it is a bad idea to believe anything without evidence – but, regarding God, you discard such a position by claiming that it’s "atheist ideological slogan ism trying bully" without even attempting to support your claim.


you have been brain washed and you don't understated the nature of truth. they have hood winked you into think thing that the only truth is in the surface level existence of things.

False, ad hominem, insult, yawn.

that's self defeating because to say that you must assume a transcendent truth. But your discourse is aimed at denying transcendent truth so it's self contradictory.

Nothing I’ve said assumes or needs a transcendent truth to support it.

And no, my discourse isn’t aimed at anything of the kind. As soon as you (or anyone else) can demonstrate transcendent truth I’ll be more than happy to accept it. At the moment you seem to be claiming transcendent truth without any evidence to support it.


No you have things backwards. you can't prove any kind of grounding at all.

Once again, nobody can prove any kind of grounding. To prove yours, you’d have to prove God’s existence, which isn’t going to happen any time soon.

God is obviously the best becasue that would write the moral truth into the universe at the foundation of it instead of just being relative to human needs. Obviously better because it would hold up over time.

Why is this obviously better? Why is it better at all? Morality is a purely human concern – why does it need to be written into the universe? And obviously it hasn’t held up over time – morality has changed significantly throughout human history, just as would be expected if its grounding is humanity itself, rather than some god.

Electric said...

You are not reading carefully. I said the need for grounding axioms is itself a reason to believe in God. we know that the need form morality is strong enough we have to have it but the only way it works is with God so that's a good reason to believe.

Leave out the ad hominem (as usual). No, the only wait it works is not with God, so it’s not a good reason to believe in God.

It's the called the moral arguent it's a thousand years old.

Its age doesn’t matter – it’s a bad argument no matter how old it is.

NO! that's atheist ideological slogan ism trying bully it's why in and destroy the proper thinking about God.

There is no "atheist ideological sloganism". There is no ‘bullying’. If you think that evidence is not a good reason to believe in God (or anything) then good for you. I suspect even most theists would disagree with you and claim that God is evidenced, which is why they believe in him.

But again you resort to attack and insult and in this way avoid actually addressing the issue. I believe the vast majority of people (including theists) would say that it is a bad idea to believe anything without evidence – but, regarding God, you discard such a position by claiming that it’s "atheist ideological slogan ism trying bully" without even attempting to support your claim.


you have been brain washed and you don't understated the nature of truth. they have hood winked you into think thing that the only truth is in the surface level existence of things.

False, ad hominem, insult, yawn.

that's self defeating because to say that you must assume a transcendent truth. But your discourse is aimed at denying transcendent truth so it's self contradictory.

Nothing I’ve said assumes or needs a transcendent truth to support it.

And no, my discourse isn’t aimed at anything of the kind. As soon as you (or anyone else) can demonstrate transcendent truth I’ll be more than happy to accept it. At the moment you seem to be claiming transcendent truth without any evidence to support it.


No you have things backwards. you can't prove any kind of grounding at all.

Once again, nobody can prove any kind of grounding. To prove yours, you’d have to prove God’s existence, which isn’t going to happen any time soon.

Electric said...

God is obviously the best becasue that would write the moral truth into the universe at the foundation of it instead of just being relative to human needs. Obviously better because it would hold up over time.

Why is this obviously better? Why is it better at all? Morality is a purely human concern – why does it need to be written into the universe? And obviously it hasn’t held up over time – morality has changed significantly throughout human history, just as would be expected if its grounding is humanity itself, rather than some god.

I don't need to that because the need for grounding in it iself ia reason.

No, it’s not. You’ve been shown how a grounding entirely within humanity is at least possible, which means that the need for grounding in and of itself is no evidence of a god.

you are confussed by atheist slogans. atheists ideology cuts off thruth and tuancates reality to just that which they can controrl, emprical data. They are even very selective about which data they accept.

Ad hominem and nonsense. There are no "atheist slogans"; there is no "atheist ideology". Everything you state in the above paragraph is simply false.

that's becasue there's a ton of scientific data for God. they cant' accept it.

There exists no scientific data for any god (I should qualify that – there exists no scientific data for God of which I know. But such a thing, if it existed, would be eagerly trumpeted by billions of theists, so it’s reasonable to assume that if any did exist, a person interested in the issue would have heard of it). And why do you care since, apparently, you don’t need evidence to believe in God?

if I show you this will give up atheism?

Atheism isn’t a belief. It’s not something to "give up". If someone showed me sufficient evidence for the existence of a god, like all atheists, I would happily become a theist.

here's list of God arguments

anyone of them is good enough to justify belief.


I eagerly clicked that link…only to find that it’s the same tired list of arguments you’ve been giving for ages. Not one of them is evidence for the existence of any gods.

Metacrock said...

Meta:God is obviously the best becasue that would write the moral truth into the universe at the foundation of it instead of just being relative to human needs. Obviously better because it would hold up over time.

Why is this obviously better? Why is it better at all?

I just said, see above.


Morality is a purely human concern – why does it need to be written into the universe?

You are begging the question. how do you know it's a purely human concern? If it's inductive of God's concerns then it's also a divine concern. I just gave you a reason to think that, because the depth of our moral motions tells it's universal and binding.


And obviously it hasn’t held up over time – morality has changed significantly throughout human history, just as would be expected if its grounding is humanity itself, rather than some god.


you are making an unfounded assertion.k You are asserting that morality has to always be the same if it's from a higher source. Not necessarily true. It could be that our understanding of it grows as we evolve. There's a second unfounded assertion you make as well. you are assuming that changes in morality are not degradation.

Meta:I don't need to that because the need for grounding in it iself ia reason.

No, it’s not. You’ve been shown how a grounding entirely within humanity is at least possible, which means that the need for grounding in and of itself is no evidence of a god.

No you are confused. you said nothing at all to prove anything. you asserted it without a reason I showed you how all three of the major atheist groundings collapse. They are relative and they compete with other views.

Metacrock said...

Metayou are confused by atheist slogans. atheists ideology cuts off truth and truncates reality to just that which they can control, empirical data. They are even very selective about which data they accept.

Ad hominem and nonsense. There are no "atheist slogans"; there is no "atheist ideology". Everything you state in the above paragraph is simply false.


Meta: just saying that is the party line! read over the back posts of Atheist watch I've proved it a hundred times. They have a huge organizations, an aganeda,they say the same things it's obvious! you just can't see it because you are brain washed.

Meta:that's becasue there's a ton of scientific data for God. they cant' accept it.

There exists no scientific data for any god (I should qualify that – there exists no scientific data for God of which I know. But such a thing, if it existed, would be eagerly trumpeted by billions of theists, so it’s reasonable to assume that if any did exist, a person interested in the issue would have heard of it). And why do you care since, apparently, you don’t need evidence to believe in God?

atheists use that to rationalize so they don't have to look at the evidence. Its' stupid to claim that if there was evidence of God then theists all over would really excited that's just garbage. Most people bleieve God is real obvious. saying you prove God to most people is like saying yuo prove it's nice to have freinds or that the it's sunny when the clouds aren't in the way.

Meta:if I show you this will give up atheism?

Atheism isn’t a belief. It’s not something to "give up". If someone showed me sufficient evidence for the existence of a god, like all atheists, I would happily become a theist.

sure you would. I will show you . I will predict wha tyou are will do. in a minute.

here's list of God arguments

anyone of them is good enough to justify belief.

I eagerly clicked that link…only to find that it’s the same tired list of arguments you’ve been giving for ages. Not one of them is evidence for the existence of any gods.

You can't beat them. you can't handle them. you don't undersatnd them if I explain them to you you can't beat them.

Electric said...

I just said, see above.

You said that it would write the moral truth into the universe and that is better because it would hold up over time. Why is either writing the moral truth into the universe or holding up over time 'better'?

You are begging the question. how do you know it's a purely human concern?

You are correct – I do not know it’s a purely human concern. I do know that it is a human concern, and I see no evidence that it is of concern to any deity.

If it's inductive of God's concerns then it's also a divine concern.

Yes, if. So far there’s no indication it is.

I just gave you a reason to think that, because the depth of our moral motions tells it's universal and binding.

Nothing you’ve said has given me reason to think that. The naturalistic idea of morality having evolved accounts for it being both universal and binding just as well as the idea that a deity had something to do with it.

No you are confused. you said nothing at all to prove anything. you asserted it without a reason

I didn’t prove anything and wasn’t try to do so – just as you haven’t proved anything. And I asserted it for precisely the same reason you have asserted your position – because I believe it best explains morality.

I showed you how all three of the major atheist groundings collapse. They are relative and they compete with other views.

You didn’t show me anything of the kind. If you have shown others or shown it in general, could you please point me where you have done so?

And why does their being relative or competing with other views make them collapse?


just saying that is the party line! read over the back posts of Atheist watch I've proved it a hundred times. They have a huge organizations, an aganeda,they say the same things it's obvious! you just can't see it because you are brain washed.

There is no party line. I’ve read over the back posts, I’ve seen much of your writing and you’ve never proved it even once. There is no agenda, no "huge organisations", no brainwashing. Although I note yet another ad hominem from you. You would really do better to discuss issues rather than this nonsensical atheist conspiracy.

atheists use that to rationalize so they don't have to look at the evidence. Its' stupid to claim that if there was evidence of God then theists all over would really excited that's just garbage.

Of course if there was scientific evidence of God then theists all over would be excited. They’d be shouting it from the rooftops. If you don’t agree with that I really don’t know what to say to you.

Electric said...

I just said, see above.

You said that it would write the moral truth into the universe and that is better because it would hold up over time. Why is either writing the moral truth into the universe or holding up over time 'better'?

You are begging the question. how do you know it's a purely human concern?

You are correct – I do not know it’s a purely human concern. I do know that it is a human concern, and I see no evidence that it is of concern to any deity.

If it's inductive of God's concerns then it's also a divine concern.

Yes, if. So far there’s no indication it is.

I just gave you a reason to think that, because the depth of our moral motions tells it's universal and binding.

Nothing you’ve said has given me reason to think that. The naturalistic idea of morality having evolved accounts for it being both universal and binding just as well as the idea that a deity had something to do with it.

No you are confused. you said nothing at all to prove anything. you asserted it without a reason

I didn’t prove anything and wasn’t try to do so – just as you haven’t proved anything. And I asserted it for precisely the same reason you have asserted your position – because I believe it best explains morality.

I showed you how all three of the major atheist groundings collapse. They are relative and they compete with other views.

You didn’t show me anything of the kind. If you have shown others or shown it in general, could you please point me where you have done so?

And why does their being relative or competing with other views make them collapse?


just saying that is the party line! read over the back posts of Atheist watch I've proved it a hundred times. They have a huge organizations, an aganeda,they say the same things it's obvious! you just can't see it because you are brain washed.

There is no party line. I’ve read over the back posts, I’ve seen much of your writing and you’ve never proved it even once. There is no agenda, no "huge organisations", no brainwashing. Although I note yet another ad hominem from you. You would really do better to discuss issues rather than this nonsensical atheist conspiracy.

Electric said...

atheists use that to rationalize so they don't have to look at the evidence. Its' stupid to claim that if there was evidence of God then theists all over would really excited that's just garbage.

Of course if there was scientific evidence of God then theists all over would be excited. They’d be shouting it from the rooftops. If you don’t agree with that I really don’t know what to say to you.

Most people bleieve God is real obvious. saying you prove God to most people is like saying yuo prove it's nice to have freinds or that the it's sunny when the clouds aren't in the way.

That is obvious nonsense. Consider how much effort has been put into proving God over the millenia. Consider your own efforts on that front. Theists all over the place would be elated if it was suddenly possible to prove their deity, and you can bet they would be trumpeting it everywhere.

sure you would. I will show you .

Ah, so now I’m a liar? Charming. Whatever your notions, I can tell you that I, just like every other atheist I have ever encountered, would convert to theism in an instant upon being supplied with sufficient evidence.

I know you don’t want to believe that. It’s important to you that atheists wilfully disbelieve out of spite or something – but that’s simply not the case. Every atheist to whom I have ever spoken disbelieve due to the lack of sufficient evidence. You need to learn to accept that.


You can't beat [my evidence].

Wrong.

you can't handle [my evidence].

Wrong.

you don't undersatnd [my evidence]

Wrong.

if I explain [my evidence] to you

I don’t need you to explain them.

you can't beat [my evidence].

Wrong (again).

Metacrock said...

I'll give my answer in main blog section in a couple of days.

Metacrock said...

It's really silly to think that scientific evidence for God would be a big occasion for Christains.

that is atheist brain washing at work why? becuse your atheist masters who brain washed you told you that scinece is the only form of knowledge. people aren't brain washed don't believe that. Christians around the world are not sitting about sweating it out hoping for some proof.

most people 90% believe in God. most of them are not worried about it.

there also biases in scinece that will not allow the scientific evidence that dose exist to be formulated in such a way as to make it apolitical.

there are tons of scientifically derived facts used in God arguments that atheist ignore and pretend don't matter.

atheists have a huge propaganda machine that is dedicated to keeping the reader diverted from those facts.

fine tuning argument for example is proved. It's solid and for a deace major atheist scientist such as Andre Lynd worked feverishly to answer it whining and bemoaning the fact that he couldn't do it. NO one published that in the scientific world as "head gee guess what. God must exits." They just took it in stride ho hum so what."

In the 80s Big Bang evidence was such that major scientists converted to God. Paul Davies was one. That's when Lynde and others started working on inflationary theory.

Inflation was developed specifically to answer God arguments.It didn't do it because it couldn't get rid of the singularity. The fact is the evidence was so strong the atheists in scinece felt they had to work overtime to answer it.

the way the eventually deal with it was by changing the theory enough and and using enough ridicule that they diverted attention but they actually beat the argument.

Observe the fact that two things came after th eBB evidence got real God oriented and several major scientists converted, even Hoyle for a short time, Jastraw and Davies (Alan Sandage and Polkinghorne already had).

(1) inflationary theory and anthropic principle

(2) rise of new atheism complete with its nasty mocking and ridicule.

The lesson is there is scientific evidence for God and when atheists can't disprove it they respond with nasty little emotional tirades and bullying. meaning, they have no interest in truth.

Electric said...

It's really silly to think that scientific evidence for God would be a big occasion for Christains.

that is atheist brain washing at work why? becuse your atheist masters who brain washed you told you that scinece is the only form of knowledge. people aren't brain washed don't believe that. Christians around the world are not sitting about sweating it out hoping for some proof.

most people 90% believe in God. most of them are not worried about it.

there also biases in scinece that will not allow the scientific evidence that dose exist to be formulated in such a way as to make it apolitical.

there are tons of scientifically derived facts used in God arguments that atheist ignore and pretend don't matter.

atheists have a huge propaganda machine that is dedicated to keeping the reader diverted from those facts.

fine tuning argument for example is proved. It's solid and for a deace major atheist scientist such as Andre Lynd worked feverishly to answer it whining and bemoaning the fact that he couldn't do it. NO one published that in the scientific world as "head gee guess what. God must exits." They just took it in stride ho hum so what."

In the 80s Big Bang evidence was such that major scientists converted to God. Paul Davies was one. That's when Lynde and others started working on inflationary theory.

Inflation was developed specifically to answer God arguments.It didn't do it because it couldn't get rid of the singularity. The fact is the evidence was so strong the atheists in scinece felt they had to work overtime to answer it.

the way the eventually deal with it was by changing the theory enough and and using enough ridicule that they diverted attention but they actually beat the argument.

Observe the fact that two things came after th eBB evidence got real God oriented and several major scientists converted, even Hoyle for a short time, Jastraw and Davies (Alan Sandage and Polkinghorne already had).

(1) inflationary theory and anthropic principle

(2) rise of new atheism complete with its nasty mocking and ridicule.

The lesson is there is scientific evidence for God and when atheists can't disprove it they respond with nasty little emotional tirades and bullying. meaning, they have no interest in truth.


Virtually every statement in the above is simply false. I'm not interested in your usual attacks and insults. And since we're going to be having a formal debate soon, I'll just content myself with direct refutations of your more obvious falsehoods:

- Of course scientific evidence for God would be a huge occassion for Christians. We can see that by the way they so eagerly seize anything that might possibly be considered such and trumpet it all over the place. If real scientific evidence for God were actually found, atheists would never hear the end of it.

- There are no "atheist masters". There is no "atheist brainwashing". And no, nobody taught me that "science is the only form of knowledge".

- Atheists do not have a "huge propaganda machine". That is simply nonsense without a shred of supporting evidence.

- Inflation was not developed specifically to answer "God arguments". Again, that's nonsense without any support whatsoever.

- The only nasty little tirades and bullying are coming from you, as usual. And your insults that atheists aren't interested in truth are manifestly false and, quite frankly, boring.

Electric said...

It's really silly to think that scientific evidence for God would be a big occasion for Christains.

...lots of stuff deleted here for space...

The lesson is there is scientific evidence for God and when atheists can't disprove it they respond with nasty little emotional tirades and bullying. meaning, they have no interest in truth.


Virtually every statement in the above is simply false. I'm not interested in your usual attacks and insults. And since we're going to be having a formal debate soon, I'll just content myself with direct refutations of your more obvious falsehoods:

- Of course scientific evidence for God would be a huge occassion for Christians. We can see that by the way they so eagerly seize anything that might possibly be considered such and trumpet it all over the place. If real scientific evidence for God were actually found, atheists would never hear the end of it.

- There are no "atheist masters". There is no "atheist brainwashing". And no, nobody taught me that "science is the only form of knowledge".

- Atheists do not have a "huge propaganda machine". That is simply nonsense without a shred of supporting evidence.

- Inflation was not developed specifically to answer "God arguments". Again, that's nonsense without any support whatsoever.

- The only nasty little tirades and bullying are coming from you, as usual. And your insults that atheists aren't interested in truth are manifestly false and, quite frankly, boring.

Metacrock said...

I'll be answering all of these unanswered comments in the main blog spot latter.