Final Response – By Godless Teen

December 25, 2012 in Evidences for God, General

For me, every online “debate” is a learning experience. It’s a learning experience to see if my arguments actually hold some ground, if there are any arguments that I may have never seen before that I need to consider, if I actually have some minute clue as to what I am saying. After a good few hours worth of arguing with Chris, I am certain that, at least, as far as I have been able to tell, I have defended my position quite well.

To begin: Chris decided to use three main arguments that virtually every theist uses:

1. The Argument From a First Cause

2. The Argument From Morality

3. The Argument From Formation of Sentient Life

All three of these arguments have had their thirty seconds in the spotlight amon theists, before quickly being sputtered out by rationality. Many atheists who study arguments for a God know of these three arguments particularly well, considering that, to my experience, they are virtually the only (or at least the main) three arguments used to try and “prove” the existence of a god.

I will address each of these three arguments, go back a little in the argument between Chris and I and respond to a few other things, and then I will conclude this “debate” completely.

I’ll start with the Sentient Life argument, as this one will be the shortest to dissect:

Sentient Life

You are confusing two issues.

1) life supporting universe and 2) life happening

that is where you invoke chance twice.

1) that the universe just happened to support life – chance number one. 2) that life arose from non-life – chance number two.

So, yes, now TWICE you invoke chance for your answer.

Not to mention, you still have the life from non-life hurdle…

But at least you finally have planted your flag – Chance.

Now if you could for the universe: began to exist, or always existed?

The entire point to my last comment was to show that “invoking chance twice” is no big deal. Of course, a certain somebody missed that part, so I will clarify.

So, yes, now TWICE you invoke chance for your answer.

Ok, kiddo, I have absolutely no idea why the hell you’re even trying to use this for your argument. What I’m going to assume is that you somehow believe that invoking chance twice makes an event highly unlikely, and I’ll broaden out a little bit just in case that was not your argument.

So, two events, Event A and Event B, are both probabilistic events; they are both chance occurences. Now, would we say that the chance of both Event A and Event B occuring is near zero?

No, of course not.

First, we have to know what the probabilities of the two events occuring are. If Event A has a probability of 1%, and B has a 1% probability as well, then the probability of both A and B occuring is very small- .01%.  However, let’s say that A and B each have 99% probabilities of occuring. This would mean that the probability of both A and B occuring is 98.01%- a very high likelihood. So, just “invoking chance twice” means nothing; first, you have to know the probability of both events occuring.

Of course, then Chris could argue, “what are the probabilities that A) a life-supporting universe appeared and B) life formed in that universe?” Of course, with the first event (life-supporting univere), you have to consider multiple factors:

  • In a different universe, life could appear in a different form, unlike current life, but still be considered “life”.
  • Multiple universes could very well have formed; an infinite amount, for that matter. If an infinite amount of universes did form, then that would mean that, mathematically speaking, the probability of not one life supporting universe forming (assuming that the variables of all of these alternate universe were assigned randomly) is virtually 0 (more accurately, I believe, it would be 1/(Infinity), which is… Well… 0).
  • Another factor to consider is that the universe could only have formed a single way, or multiple ways all very similar to a single way. If that’s the case, then this universe was already predestined to form the way it did, regardless of a god.
  • Although I could think about multiple other factors, the last one I’d like to consider is the idea that the variables in the universe are not independent (Kane et al. 2000). If this is the case, then that would mean that we would only be looking at a select few variables that would be randomly assigned value, which would mean that the probability of the constants of the universe forming as they have done becomes much, much higher.

That’s good enough for now. At the very least, Chris had better concede that he really has no clue as to the probability that the universe formed the way it did. If he doesn’t, well, I’d urge the reader to think he’s completely insane.

As for the next event (life forming), I’ve already provided multiple ways in which the chance of life forming is almost certainly very, very high. There are trillions of stars and planets throughout the universe. The probability that a single randomly selected planet has life is near zero. However, given trillions and trillions of trials, eventually, you are likely to get at least one planet that has life on it. We are given trillions and trillions of trials, and, thus, the probability that at least one of them was able and did support life is quite high.

Chris whines…

Not to mention, you still have the life from non-life hurdle…

I’ll quote myself from my previous post on this one…

…You neglect the idea that life could have started off in a form very similar to viruses, with a self-replicating RNA molecule, which viruses happen to be composed of. We’re talking about a near infinite number of chemical reactions on planets all across the universe; that you would believe that a self-replicating RNA molecule or self-replicating nucleic acid could not be created on at least one planet, a single planet, in the universe, is rather odd.

‘Nuff said.

So, now, leaving that argument behind, I’ll go to the argument from morality…

Again, you fail to understand objective morality, which I’ll show AGAIN… however, let’s look at a couple things.

Whine whine whine, gloat gloat gloat, let’s see what Chris has to say.

“Again, in your morality, we ought to do actions or ought not do them regardless of benefit, yet give no reason why we should thus follow those morals, thus rendering at least part of your morality pointless because there isn’t any motivation to follow the morality”

Something is either right/wrong REGARDLESS of our motivation or benefit.  You seem not to get that point of objectivity.

Many things that I wish to do WOULD benefit me personally – yet they are not moral to do.  So REGARDLESS of the benefit to me, it would be immoral to do certain actions.

Why would we want to do them?

Not necessary to the point that ONLY through a moral authority can there be objective morals.  Objective right/wrong.  No matter the amount of words you use to further defend your morals, they don’t objectively do this.

We can get to the “whys” later – main point – without a moral giver – God – there are no objective morals.

Actually, you seem to not get the definition of objectivity:

Objective (adj): (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: “historians try to be objective and impartial.” (The New Oxford American English Dictionary)

You act as if, somehow, by some fairytale magic, the word “benefit” suddenly is the same thing as “personal feelings or opinions”.

Ever heard of the economic concept of “rational self-interest“?

It’s the idea that a rational person will act in the way that benefits them.

And it’s a logical concept, too. But yet, you say that “…Something is either right/wrong REGARDLESS of our motivation or benefit.”. Which is stupid. If there is no benefit nor drawback, then an action is meaningless. If there is no meaning to doing that action, there is no reason to do or not to do that action. If there is no reason to/not to do an action, then your morality is just stupid, because it wants us to do things that we have absolutely no need to do whatsoever. It’s like if I asserted that, according to my morality, not throwing rocks in a pool five times a day was immoral. My moral law dictates that not doing this is immoral. Yet, there is no punishment nor benefit to throwing or not throwing the rocks in the pool; we just slap the label “immoral” on not throwing the rocks in the pool. If that’s the case, why the hell would you want to throw the rocks in the pool?! It’s completely and utterly meaningless! Yet, morality deals with actions that we ought and ought not do. Your morality asserts that we ought to do an action, and ought not do another action. Yet, as I have just shown (and you have just reaffirmed), some of these actions may have no inherent punishment or benefit to doing them. So why would you do them?! I might as well go around saying “such-and-such is moral, that’s immoral, you’re immoral, that’s moral”, which is practically what you are trying to say your god does. Yet, there is no reason to do them or not to do them. There is no rationality behind completing the action; if there isn’t anything rational behind doing the action, then “ought” and “ought not” are completely irrational concepts as they have no meaning yet assert that there is a benefit to doing an action even when there is none.

So, rationally, a person will act in their best interest. That’s not opinion or personal feelings, that’s just rational behavior.

Many things that I wish to do WOULD benefit me personally – yet they are not moral to do.  So REGARDLESS of the benefit to me, it would be immoral to do certain actions.

Benefit to an individual does not equal benefit to a population. I’ve said that before; I’ve used that as my basis for the establishment of government. I’m not arguing that all actions that benefit an individual are moral, I’m arguing that all actions that are moral provide an overall benefit in net happiness to the entire population, not just Chris.

Why would we want to do them?

Not necessary to the point that ONLY through a moral authority can there be objective morals.  Objective right/wrong.  No matter the amount of words you use to further defend your morals, they don’t objectively do this.

I just showed that an action can only rationally be an “ought” or an “ought not” with the presence of a benefit or a punishment. Just slapping “moral” and “immoral” on different actions (as your god seems to do) is insane; I might as well tell you that living is an immoral action, so we should all kill ourselves. There’s no rationale behind it, no benefit, but, according to you, since it’s immoral to live, we ought to kill ourselves anyways, in spite of the fact that there is no benefit to killing ourselves nor any punishment to staying alive.

And you continue to use the word “objective” in a very odd manner. Again, “benefit”, as I showed earlier through rational self-interest, is not the same as “opinion” or “personal feelings” as doing things that are beneficial is rational and that’s a fact, as the result of rational self-interest. Benefit isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact, and that’s where you’re wrong, Chris.

So, if “benefit” fits the criteria for being objective, then my law does stand. I’ve shown happiness to be the ultimate benefit (which you’ve had no real response to), and I’ve shown that it’s rational, in everybody’s best interest, for us all to promote overall happiness (which is the cause of the formation of government). Because my original starting point, “benefit”, is a perfectly objective one to use, there’s every reason to believe that my moral law is indeed objective.

You, on the other hand; you state that the opinions and personal feelings of your god dictate what is moral and immoral. If your god says something is immoral, such as homosexuality, then it’s immoral. Yet, if he says that it’s perfectly moral the next day, then it’s moral. That is not objectivity. That’s the opinion and personal feelings of your God, that have no established basis in morality.

Ever wonder why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible? Why there are so many people that committ evil in the name of your god? It’s because there isn’t any established, simple law to prove that something is or is not moral. It’s because it’s all based on opinion- your God’s opinion, written in a single book that has to be translated, rewritten, and interpreted in many different ways. There is no single, individual concept like that which I have described that is easy to understand, simple to pass along, and makes sense; it’s all based on the opinion of your God.

QUOTE:You say happiness isn’t an authority, but “authority” is defined as

Noun The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.END QUOTE

This just shows that happiness ISN’T and authority.  1) it doesn’t have power or right to give orders.  It’s either a commodity or emotion.  NEITHER have power/rights to GIVE orders. 2) make decisions.  Happiness can’t do that as well.  It can INFORM or INFLUENCE but it doesn’t MAKE a decision this requires it to THINK. 3) happiness can’t ENFORCE obedience.  It’s either a commodity or emotion – neither of which give it ENFORCEMENT power.

Again, you just killed your moral authority and don’t even see it.

No, it doesn’t literally bark out orders. What it does do, however, is establish what is right and what is wrong. It’s like saying that the color red establishes what red looks like. It never consciously ordered red to look like red, but the point is that its existence, metaphorically speaking, “gives the order to red to look like red”.

No, it doesn’t consciously make decisions. However, its existence determines what is right and what is wrong, like the “color red” example I showed above.

Finally, happiness does actually in a sense enforce obedience, due to evolution that decided to hardwire us (to the best of its ability) to do moral actions on the basis of happiness. Happiness doesn’t beat you with a stick if you don’t follow its rules. However, the existence of happiness establishes what is right and what is wrong, and I find it ridiculous for you to think that that doesn’t make it some type of an authority, conscious or not.

Also, may I mention that your use of capitalization is childish, and your last little bit makes you look like a five year old on top of a tiny hill, waving his flag back and forth frantically, screaming “I WIN, I WIN, I’M THE CHAMPION, I’M KING OF THE WORLD!!!” (and that mimics your use of capitalization as well. Two birds with one stone.)

QUOTE:”Don’t see anything about the authority talking and walking.”

Ah, but there is about THINKING – cognition.  GIVE orders – MAKE decisions – ENFORCE obedience.  Requires thought (especially the first two) and purpose.

The word “thinking”, nor “cognition”, was never mentioned once in the definition.

Give (verb) does not require consciousness; for example, we could say that the “red color of the dress gives it a touch of flamboyance”.

Make (verb) does practically the same thing as the very “give” above; “the electricity makes my monitor produce a series of colors and lights”.

Enforce (verb)- again, no conscience necessary. “Evolution has enforced our ability to act moral”.

And purpose? Nope. In each of the three examples above, no conscious “purpose” was present, yet they still all matched the definition of authority.

Another strike against commodity and emotions.

Another point for a god, a moral authority.

You remind me of- what was it- ah yes, the one fellow in Indiana Jones: Raiders of The Lost Ark who swings his sword back and forth, all around the place, trying to look like some kind of pro, when Indiana just pulls out a gun and shoots him dead.

QUOTE: A mathematical equation could be an authority as well, in math, yet there isn’t anything about it that talks. The laws of our universe are authorities, but they aren’t sentient (well, as far as our scientific knowledge goes, anyways).END QUOTE

ONLY in the latter part of enforcing perhaps, but that would be using the definition very loosely.  As math doesn’t GIVE orders, MAKE decisions.  It’s ENFORCEMENT is in the logical necessity of it.  But that isn’t a power of math.  Math can’t make me use it, nor do I have to use it properly.

As well as the “laws” of the universe – well, that just adds to my argument – not yours.

Again, you have killed you objective morals, but either ignore it or just not thinking critically.  By all means keep trying, but it shows you aren’t understanding mine (or your) position.

Again, math “orders” lines and numbers to work in the way they do; it “decides” how numbers act and work in conjunction with one another. And, yes, it “enforces” the way in which these numbers work; it’s not like numbers can decide to leap out and say “Ha! I don’t follow the laws of mathematics anymore!”.

Math doesn’t make you use it, but it makes numbers work the way they work. If you don’t use numbers properly, it’s not the numbers that are stepping out of bounds, it’s you.

Again- you act like a pathetic child. Grow up, kid.

ME – “For morals to be objective they exist despite our desire – that is something I desire to do may be immoral. Or I do not “like” a certain moral principal – but my feelings toward it, my desires do not make it right or wrong.”

YOU – Again, isn’t my argument at all. I might not like the fact that it’s immoral to kill my neighbors, but that doesn’t make it moral, certainly not through my moral law. How you interpreted me as saying this, I have no idea.”

See?  You don’t even understand my statement.

For morals to be objective, they must be INDEPENDENT of our feelings toward them.  They cannot be INFLUENCED by our feelings.  So regardless of if I agree/disagree with a moral principal it is either right/wrong morally.

MEHHH HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND MY STATEMENT THAT LITTLE M***********G B*****D, I’M GONNA F*****G MURDER HIM IN HIS SLEEP!

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention- that seems to be another one of your primary arguments.

Anyways, that aside, I completely understood what you were saying. You don’t demonstrate at all that I misunderstood your statement. I completely agree with your last part

For morals to be objective, they must be INDEPENDENT of our feelings toward them.  They cannot be INFLUENCED by our feelings.  So regardless of if I agree/disagree with a moral principal it is either right/wrong morally.

That’s why I mentioned the neighbor example. Yet, you continue to persist in saying that my morality is based on my opinion even though I’ve shown countless times that benefit is not opinion, that my morality is based on objective facts, and that there is absolutely no way in which my “personal feelings” influence whether something is right or wrong. Yet, you continue to imply that that is what I am arguing, because you continue to say that my opinions are not objective at all.

And lastly: “Adjective (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

[Godless Teen]: I see no way whatsoever in which I just introduced “personal feelings” or my “opinions”. I think the fact that you still say my morality isn’t objective is insane.”

This is exactly what I am saying.  YOU aren’t paying attention to what you are stating, nor reading my argument.  The definitions you provided have KILLED your objective morality. Including that one.

And that you can’t see it…very telling…but keep at it if you wish, but each time you “defend” your morality, you make the case worse and worse.

Oh, quit your whining, and grow the heck up already.

You keep saying “OMG LIEK ERMAHGERD UR DEFINITIONNNES ARE KILLIN UR ARGUEMENTZ” yet do not mention (here, anyways) how they are doing so. You say that I don’t pay attention to what I’m saying, yet give no examples of how this is so.

Then you spend that last sentence declaring your childish, fantasy, nonexistent victory by saying that I just keep making my case worse and worse.

As my friend would say… “Whatever helps you sleep at night.”

And hey, that’s fine, GT keep thinking it’s objective.

So one last time, I’ll show you how yours isn’t objective.

Let’s look at the def. you provided: NOT (see that word? NOT) influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

It’s your personal feeling that happiness is the greatest commodity – I disagree.  That we all want to be happy is fine, but I don’t believe that happiness as an end goal is a solid basis for a moral code.

You do.  Because it’s YOUR opinion that happiness should be and IS the greatest commodity.

Also, I showed you that happiness is influence by many things: opinion being one of them – you disagree with this?  Well, if happiness IS influenced by opinion (and personal feelings) than it cannot be an objective moral basis, given the def. you provided can it?

No.

Ok, ok, now you say why my “opinion” is “wrong”. Fair enough.

You begin by treating me like a delusional child. Well, coming from the person that believes in an invisible being in the sky who arbitrarily decides what is moral, has many of the same characteristics of Santa Claus (he sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake…), killed millions of people in a worldwide flood with no evidence backing it, ordered two she-bears to brutally murder forty-two children for mocking a man for being “bald”, sacrificed his son to himself in order to save us from himself as well as to forgive us for the things that offended him (for no apparent reason, considering that he’s all-knowing), I find this treatment of me to be a bit…

Well…

Ok, let’s just move on.

It’s your personal feeling that happiness is the greatest commodity – I disagree.  That we all want to be happy is fine, but I don’t believe that happiness as an end goal is a solid basis for a moral code.

You do.  Because it’s YOUR opinion that happiness should be and IS the greatest commodity.

Also, I showed you that happiness is influence by many things: opinion being one of them – you disagree with this?  Well, if happiness IS influenced by opinion (and personal feelings) than it cannot be an objective moral basis, given the def. you provided can it?

No.

Um… Wow. Ok.

I thoroughly showed that happiness is the greatest commodity. You agree that we all want to be happy, thus implying that it is beneficial to be happy through rational self-interest. As I showed earlier, and many times before that as well, rational self-interest would make a benefit like happiness anything but an opinion or a personal feeling. It’s a rational goal, and that’s a fact. And, as I completely showed in my page on morality that you originally ignored, given this, happiness is a perfectly fine basis for determining what is moral and what isn’t.

You say that “It’s your personal feeling that happiness is the greatest commodity – I disagree.  That we all want to be happy is fine, but I don’t believe that happiness as an end goal is a solid basis for a moral code.”, yet this sentence is self-contradicting. How can you disagree that happiness is the greatest commodity and then say that we all want to be happy? Unless you’re implying that there’s something better than happiness as a benefit- and what’s that? In hours of argument, you have not been able to bring up a single example of such a thing. The only thing you’re disagreeing to is the idea that happiness can be the basis for moral law, not that happiness is the greatest commodity. You say yourself that you agree (more accurately, you said the following statement “is fine”) “That we all want to be happy”. I’ve shown over and over again, through rational self-interest, it is thus in the best interest of everybody to do things like form a government in order to make all the citizens happy. I’ve shown that it is rational- not a personal feeling or opinion- for everybody to want to promote happiness, due to the idea that happiness is the greatest commodity/benefit. I’ve shown how this law applies to everyday situations and reflects the way we act. I’ve shown that everybody wants to be happy, that, clearly, happiness is indeed the greatest commodity. I’ve shown that we ought to promote happiness due to the fact that it is not a personal feeling or opinion, but the ultimate benefit.

And yet you dare continue to say that my moral law is nothing but opinion?

You make me want to vomit all over my keyboard.

You do.  Because it’s YOUR opinion that happiness should be and IS the greatest commodity.

Also, I showed you that happiness is influence by many things: opinion being one of them – you disagree with this?  Well, if happiness IS influenced by opinion (and personal feelings) than it cannot be an objective moral basis, given the def. you provided can it?

I see that YOU CONTINUE TO USE CAPITALIZED LETTERS TO TRY AND METAPHORICALLY SHOUT OVER ME.

You just agreed that everybody wants to be happy. You have not given a single example of anything that is a greater commodity than happiness. Even heaven: heaven is the promise of nothing but eternal happiness. God? You believe that you will benefit from making God happy, that’s why you try to do so. In doing so, you fulfill your desire.

You have done nothing of the sort, as you described in your second part. The closest you got was something about people “self-mutilating” and the like. No, people aren’t made happy by all the exact same things; that is a fact. Not all men want to be married to women, nor do all men want to be married to men. The point is, however, that we have to decide which choices people can make in order to decide what is moral and what is immoral. The choice of marriage: whether you’re engaged in a heterosexual marriage or a homosexual marriage, neither hurts other people in society. That is why we (ought) to give people the choice of whether or not they can engage in homosexual marriage. It doesn’t hurt people; instead, it makes them happier.

Yet, other choices, like whether or not to kill somebody, are a completely different matter. Of course, for obvious reasons, not murdering somebody promotes more happiness than if we did murder somebody (I’ve covered this multiple times in other areas). The morality is clear: it is moral not to kill people, but it is immoral to kill people. That is where we have to draw the line, and deny people a choice.

Other things, like self-mutilation and the like, also depend on the degree of the action. Piercings hurt virtually nobody; the minute pain experienced by the one person who gets the piercing is made up for by the years of happiness then take from being able to show off their piercing. Not getting a piercing also hurts virtually nobody, so we ought to give people the choice of whether or not they want to have a piercing. That way, the people that do are happiest, and those that don’t are happier than if they had gotten a piercing. However, in a case like suicide, we ought to try and stop a person from engaging in such an activity because they are clearly being irrational; they are hurting themselves (and those around them) more than they are benefitting anybody. They are irrational; they are not following the idea of rational self-interest. We need to bring them back to rationality and show them that suicide is not the answer.

This balance of choices whether or not to do something and non-choices, in which a person ought to do only one thing and not the other, is a major factor in morality. It ensures that people are able to, as stated by the Declaration of Independence, engage in the “Pursuit of Happiness”.

IN ADDITION – I have quoted you and showed that you take one moral principal and ADJUST it to fit your fancy – remember the whole slavery deal?  Yes, you decide to “TWIST” a moral principal because it could lead to something you didn’t like….whoops! Opinion again!  Personal feeling!

Fact is, GT, I have shown your moral code to be subjective.  Ignore this if you wish, be blind to it, but I have.  if you wish to be intellectually ignorant is this way, by all means do so, but you are doing so on your own blog and hurting your case.

QUOTE”For the trillionth time, morals are founded in happiness, which was created by evolution.”

Another nail to your moral code…but you don’t see it.

I have gotten multiple definitions of utilitarianism. Here is the one that I use:

Utilitarianism: a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically:a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

There was no “twisting”, I just chose to use an alternate definition to what is normally used. And, if any such “twisting” occured, it would have to be in my own moral code, not that of others! I might as well say that you’ve twisted and taken my moral code, or, for that matter, I’ve done that to you!

I’ve shown over and over and over that happiness is the ultimate benefit. For that reason, it would make sense to use the first, bolded section of the above definition, as opposed to the second option.

I showed you that happiness is the greatest commodity. Whether or not my moral law is different from the one originally intended, it doesn’t matter. I’ve shown that my moral law is superior to that one multiple times, yet you continue to ignore this. Not only that, but you earlier dismissed my use of quotes from people like Ayn Rand because they were “fallible human beings”, and yet, now you want to criticize me for changing the idea of another person in order to better fit a good description of morality, using net happiness rather than the happiness of all of the people. It’s absurd, and completely hypocritical.

Fact is, GT, I have shown your moral code to be subjective.  Ignore this if you wish, be blind to it, but I have.  if you wish to be intellectually ignorant is this way, by all means do so, but you are doing so on your own blog and hurting your case.

How? By showing that happiness is the greatest commodity/benefit? By showing that it is rational to pursue happiness?

Anyhow, intellectual ignorance is ignoring what a person has said about something multiple times, blocking your ears with your fists, and screaming “I WIN!!! I WIN!!!” like a five-year-old child.

QUOTE”For the trillionth time, morals are founded in happiness, which was created by evolution.”

Another nail to your moral code…but you don’t see it.

Thanks, Operative Overconfident. Want to give me an example of how it’s another “nail to my moral code”?

First Cause

QUOTE: 1. The thing that created the universe could’ve been created by something else. Clearly untrue.END QUOTE Please show otherwise – don’t just state it.  As you don’t below. QUOTE2. No reason to believe what created the universe was changeless, especially if you’re talking about a god like yours, who has changed in multiple ways.END QUOTE Has to be changeless by necessity.  (furthermore we aren’t talking about MY God for this piece of the puzzle but A God.  And yes, it has to be changeless. QUOTE3. No reason to believe this either, unless you mean “non-material” in the sense of what is considered material in this particular universe… Still, no real evidence.END QUOTE Correct, THIS particular universe. God has to be outside it.

QUOTE4. No reason to believe the cause was transcendental. For all we know, we could’ve been created as a high schooler’s science project in another universe.END QUOTE Ah, multi verse theory!

QUOTE5. Design only implies purpose with a conscious, thinking designer. Genetics don’t have any “purpose”, yet they “design” us anyways.END QUOTE I’ll leave this one for now… QUOTEThen you brush aside abstract objects for no reason, mostly because of observations in our own universe that rocks don’t create universes.END QUOTE A rock is NOT an abstract object – it’s an ACTUAL object. Numbers are abstract objects. Again, read and understand – don’t just REACT. QUOTE: As for the purpose assumption, again, implying a conscious designer, so your own premises are biased towards a conscious designer in the first place. Back to creating things… Then again, neither do humans… Law of Conversation of Mass and Energy…END QUOTE 1) humans are WITHIN the laws of the universe so as to energy, correct! We cannot create nor destroy energy. 2) We can CREATE and DESIGN though.  Both of which purpose and consciousness are required.  Nothing that we humans do, gets done without either. God is outside the universe – or would be subject TO the universe. QUOTE“This would be arguing for an infinite past universe. Which even still has the problem of the infinite past (if not for OUR universe) but universes altogether. All you have done is kick the can further down the street, but NOT addressed the infinite past problem.” God suffers the exact same problem, so, either way, we face this same problem, based on your initial contentions. Not to mention that you earlier said things could be “infinite” with the idea of “timelessness”, which you said God had… So your idea that I “haven’t addressed the infinite past problem” is a bit silly, given that there was no such problem in the first place.END QUOTE No, God being outside our time/space doesn’t suffer from this problem at all.  Since scientists contend that time/space were created at the moment of the Big Bang – within the universe. QUOTE:Also, science points to a Big Bang, not to an initial cause, which still allows the idea of the expanding-contracting universe.END QUOTE QUOTEYou end by saying that an infinite universe is absurd, yet the idea of God being infinite apparently isn’t absurd… Um… Talk about bias..END QUOTE LOL. It would help your cases more if you stopped to think now and again and not just fire off a response…take some time. I’ll wait. But I noticed you completely ignore the question as to what you believe. Always existed or became? Answer please. So far, we see the hoops you are willing to jump through to avoid the design aspect.  More on this later.

I just copied an pasted the entire thing here, to make things a lot simpler.

1. You want me to show how a creator could be created? A human comes from a human. Boom. Here’s the thing, Chris: if you  want to play these word games to try and prove the existence of your god, then I can play word games as well. A creator can very well be created, so that completely takes down the idea that the creator of the universe (assuming there is one) is timeless.

2. Good for you. Has to be changeless? Why? How? A human isn’t changeless, yet humans design bridges and buildings. There isn’t any reason why a god has to be changeless, nor any other type of creating process.

3. Why does God have to be “outside” of this universe? In fact, what the heck does “outside” mean, if space is only defined to the limits of our universe? If you mean “not always a part of our universe”, sure, that’s ok; it’s certainly possible that our universe wasn’t self-creating. But, otherwise, that doesn’t mean that it still has to be outside of our universe.

4. AH, MULTIVERSE THEORY! Good for you. It’s not like I’ve mentioned that before with your probabilities argument in my “evidences” post…

5. Ok, we’ll see if you can “prove” that the universe was “designed” with purpose.

You then go on to say things like “rocks aren’t abstract objects”.

Well, now that I know what you meant by “abstract objects”, what I’m going to ask is this: why can’t non-abstract objects “create” the universe?

You clearly don’t seem to think of god as abstract, as you originally presented two possible causes for the universe: abstract objects and god (talk about a leap of faith). You thus implied that God is not abstract. Thus, non-abstract objects could just as easily create the universe.

Then, you completely ignore the fact that you use “purpose” as a self-affirming bias. Ok.

You then say that God doesn’t suffer from the timelessness problem if the time only came to be when the universe did. Fair enough, but that still allows for the expanding-contracting idea (due to the fact that time was only created with the Big Bang, infinitely many of which would have occured due to the constant expansion and then contraction of the universe), nor to any other idea for what the cause of the universe is.

You end this contention with your four-year-old, flag waving disrespect that you’ve shown multiple times already. You say I just miscellaneously fire off responses, yet don’t give any examples as to why this is a bad thing. The two quotes you put out have no relation to one another. A “Big Bang” is not the same as a cause. The first quote talks about a Big Bang, while the second talks about a cause. No relation whatsoever.

And then you continue your whining about how I believe the universe came to be. My answer is that, simply, I don’t know if the universe has “always existed” (remember that time only came with the Big Bang) or “came to exist”. I think that, at this time, anybody who claims otherwise is just trying to con us, with no real evidence to their claims.

Chance

Now, to finish with the rest of what you’ve said…

You ignore what I had said before about the first life:

…You neglect the idea that life could have started off in a form very similar to viruses, with a self-replicating RNA molecule, which viruses happen to be composed of. We’re talking about a near infinite number of chemical reactions on planets all across the universe; that you would believe that a self-replicating RNA molecule or self-replicating nucleic acid could not be created on at least one planet, a single planet, in the universe, is rather odd.

Which I have now had to requote myself on twice.

So, if you’d like to argue that life CAN arise out of non-life – I would like to see this presented.  As we don’t find this happening.

Then, because I have to tell you again: life coming from nonlife is a rare event. I’ve said that quite a few times. For it to happen twice on the same planet is absurd. For it to happen twice, but on different planets, however, is a much different case.

Also, keep in mind that we’re not talking about a cow suddenly appearing, we’re talking about a self-replicating molecule, like the RNA molecule mentioned above.

Evolution

Um, evolution has no direction – a mutation either works or it doesn’t.  It’s random, non purposed.  No design. As for evolutionary advantage – I can argue that it isn’t an advantage, just like happiness isn’t always an advantage.

Right off the bat, you say that “evolution has no direction”, which basically contradicts every single thing evolutionists have said about evolution since Darwin. Mutations having direction? No, they are chance occurences. However, the overall process of all of those mutations works in a direction- say, to form wings, to make an animal smaller or larger, and the like.

Then you talk about happiness being an advantage, although it’s better described as a benefit.

And, evolutionarily speaking, an advantage is something that allows an animal to reproduce more often. This occurs in one of multiple ways: by allowing an organism to live longer and thus reproduce more than before, for example. We see this occur in the present day, with diseases. We find a cure to a disease, one individual of that disease eventually develops a random genetic mutation that allows it to protect itself from that cure, that organism reproduces, and, soon enough, the number of individuals with that genetic mutation outnumbers those without it and the disease essentially becomes immune to that cure.

…Well, since we’ve all seen or known of windows actually being broken we can certainly assume a number of ways it being broken.  As well as HOW the glass was broken – just a crack, is there a small hole, etc.

You miss the point. I brought up the window example to show that not knowing one of the details (the time of occurence) does not instantly rend everything untrue. You seem to say that we don’t know exactly when the mutation from non-sentience to sentience occured, and thus evolution is untrue, even if the rest of the evidence points towards it.

Not once have we seen a sentience being mutate from a non-sentient being.

Because that’s not how evolution works. An fly doesn’t suddenly turn into an organism with a massive brain that can easily communicate with us. Rather, it may, to start off, grow larger, which will eventually lead it to being able to having a larger brain.

But sentience from non-sentient – nope.  Never been observed. Never been replicated.

Again, that’s not how evolution works. Evolution works through minute mutations over millions and millions of years, not from a monkey into a human being. We see this kind of variation occuring greatly, in which an animal will go from one form to another over a very long period of time. But you apparently didn’t pay attention in biology class.

In addition, as you know, evolution is non-directional, non-purposeful.  Yet sentience allows for purpose and direction.

Again, wrong; evolution gives organisms a reproductive advantage. I strongly suggest you read Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True, or, at the very least, spend ten minutes on Google researching the damn topic. I’m sorry that those two things must be such an inconvenience to you, especially considering that I’ve spent weeks studying evolutionary books, atheistic books, but also going on theistic websites like AiG’s or William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith so that I get both sides of the story.

How can this happen with random mutations?  How can purpose and direction come out of non-purpose and non-direction.  You are giving evolution more power than it has…

Diseases have evolved over many years to gain immunity to certain cures. This is a fact. How does evolution make this happen? Well, after many, many individuals of those diseases reproducing, one will eventually gain a mutation that gives it immunity to a cure. We see this happening so fast in everyday life due to the near innumerable amount of reproductions these diseases go through in a single given year.

And once that mutation has developed, the disease will be able to reproduce without being killed by cures. The individuals without the mutation will die out, leaving the diseases with it to take their place.

So if you can claim “evolution” to fill this gap – I’m perfectly rational in claiming design to fill mine.  Especially when design IS purposeful, directional, creative, and OBSERVABLE.

We sentient beings create all the time, with intent.

No, you aren’t, because you have provided no evidence for design, whereas there is plenty of evidence for evolution.

Back to Origin of Life

You make another comment gloating over how you’re obviously winning this argument (*snickers on the inside*), and, while most of it contains points I’ve already addressed, there is one thing that I would like to point out…

Example: if you and I were to play poker and each hand I kept getting full houses – you know what you would say?

That I was cheating. I could argue that it was chance – you wouldn’t believe me.

And that’s a silly little card game.

Yet, as it pertains to life – which you agree is meaningful and much more important (and complex) – you give completely, and without reservation, over to chance.  Same with fine tuning, and a life supporting earth.

Each an independent circumstance.

You want three full houses in a row to happen by chance and NOT design.

You know, I’m not the greatest scientist to live on the planet (I just happen to care about it a heck of a lot more than some of my classmates do…). I’m not a brilliant writer. I’m not the most amazing historian. But, the one area that I personally believe that I have a decent amount of strength in is math.

That encompasses probability.

In your poker example, we’re looking at one single “trial” (a single game). The probability that, in any single, randomly selected game, you get multiple full houses like that, is extremely low.

However, looking at millions, billions even, of such games, you are likely to find at least one, if not multiple games in which such a thing occurs.

So, it would be possible that, in our game, that I just happened to slip into that very, very tiny fraction of games in which such a thing occurs, but that’s unlikely. Maybe the probability of you cheating is .0001%, but the chance of you getting such hands are even smaller. If that’s the case, it would be more rational to suppose that you’re cheating than that you’re just really, really lucky.

The same goes for planets. Pick out any particular planet at random, and say that it has life, and I’d say that you didn’t choose it at random; you were biased. Yet, choose billions, trillions of planets, and say that one of them has life, and the probability that you aren’t cheating, that you legitimately, randomly found a planet with life, becomes far, far higher.

I don’t want to prove that three full houses occured by chance on one randomly selected planet.

I want to show that three full houses occured on one planet out of trillions and trillions of randomly selected planets.

It’s like the lottery; the more tickets you buy, the more likely you’ll win.

Back To Sentient Life Again

Oh, and sentient life (after life arises out of nothing by chance)…you go with chance again.  Evolution is NO guarantee for sentient life…so it happened by random, non purposed, mutations that just happen to come about at the “right” time – at any other time it wouldn’t have “survived” as a trait.

So four full houses now…independent of each other.

Chance is your defeater for a designer?

You wouldn’t accept that in ANY other circumstance.

I don’t even know where the third full house came from, but whatever.

Anyhow, chance events are not always independent. With evolution, we’re talking about billions of years in the making. It’s not a guarantee of sentient life, no, but, due to the clear-cut advantage of being sentient, it would almost seem certain that, eventually, at least one species was going to branch off like us.

And mutations aren’t always something about coming at the “right” time; sometimes, the “right time” is a very, very, very long stretch of time.

“Independent of each other”? That’s assuming that the event of life forming is independent of sentient life (which it likely isn’t, as I showed before), that a “fine-tuned universe” is independent of a planet like Earth forming, and so forth.

I wouldn’t accept that in any other circumstance? Let’s put it this way: an event has a probability of 1*10^(-10) of occuring (.0000000001). However, given that enough trials occur, eventually, you are virtually guaranteed to have the event occur at least once.

Jesus

I’ll just put this simply: it’s not up to me to decide what evidence is “enough”, it’s up to you to provide convincing evidence and argue that it is convincing.

Now that I’ve finished, I will officially retire from this argument.

And don’t try to be rude and pull me back in like last time. I’ll give you the initiative of the last word; don’t abuse that ability.

Undoubtedly, you’re not going to be satisfied with my response. You’ll probably still try to draw me back in. I’ll post a few resources for you to check out, in that case:

Jerry Coyne’s fantastic website

 

A debate between two theists and two atheists in which many of the arguments that you presented are brought up (and dealt with reasonably well)

Debunking Christianity, a blog that brings up and rebuts many theistic arguments.

Various rebuttals to the idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

 

 

And, if you’re actually interested in, ya know, debating, and not spending half of your time whining about how I’m not listening to you and the other half making the exact same points you had made before, while holding on firmly to the idea of “I’M RIGHT I’M RIGHT I’M RIGHT!!!” then I would suggest that you email JT Eberhard at wwjtd21@gmail.com. Not to say that I don’t think I can argue my position well, but JT has had years more experience than I have had doing this, and his blog is much larger and full of many other atheists. You might suddenly find that whining and repeating the exact same things over and over again in spite of the evidence isn’t getting you anywhere. :)

You never seemed interested in debate. You seemed to want to come here to make yourself feel better for just knowing that you’re right, and that atheists are wrong. And you seem fixated on the idea that I’m not listening to you, in spite of the fact that I have resorted to quoting you multiple times to show what you said. And then there are things like this:

…[Chris]: “Where did you pull this from? Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim. However, what I will argue is that goodness cannot exist without a moral giver – however I won’t address it here. I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.”
[Chris]: Now, I supposed you could say that I was claiming that I was saying: “no, it’s true atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.”
However, what is my VERY FIRST LINE?
“Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim.”
What claim?
“Atheists are less decent, less moral and overall worse people than believers.”
I wouldn’t call that a “myth” of atheism, because I don’t know who makes that claim.

Absolutely insane. You just showed that your own statement is self-contradictory. First and foremost, a myth doesn’t require for at least one person to believe in it. A myth is simply false information. So, even if nobody stated that atheists were less moral, less decent people than theists, it would still be a myth. However, with that last line, you implied that it is not a myth, suggesting that you actually believe in it. You’re trying to change words that already came out of your mouth. To say that something isn’t a myth because you don’t know anybody who believes in such a thing completely goes against the definition of “myth”.

Secondly, even after considering the first part, you then have to consider the second part of the equation: I brought up (multiple times) theists who had indeed claimed the statement that atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers. One such example was that of Bodie Hodge, from whom I cited an article multiple times. So, either way, either Chris completely skipped over those links or he suddenly forgot, magically and mysteriously, what Bodie Hodge had ever said.

Those things in mind, we then have to look at the first and last sentences in what he said. They clearly contradict one another, because, logically, it is ridiculous that a person could say they no nobody who would make a claim, and yet then makes that claim right after that. So, what is it, Chris?

Even if the first two things mentioned are untrue, your whining is completely inappropriate:

Again, GT, jumping and not reading. And certainly NOT providing FULL context for a quote.

I provided all the context that was necessary. By basically proving that your first statement contradicted your second, I had finished with what I had to do.

Look, Chris: if you even refuse to admit that you did contradict yourself, then, at the very least, have the manners to apologize for making such a vague statement (cuz, come on, the sentence that “I wouldn’t call this a myth” doesn’t instantly imply that you were thinking that because you didn’t know anybody who thought the alleged myth was true), and then apologize for that second part, which I found unnecessarily rude, particularly given the context of your quote.

And, here’s something else…

QUOTE:I’ve shown you can’t. [Oh yeah, cuz I know you totally just read the entire page I wrote about morality that I linked to in the beginning of my blog post]END QUOTE
I didn’t need to, what you provided was enough to do this. Once something is based on emotion and opinion – it will never rise higher than that, no matter how much you talk about it.
It’s opinion. YOUR opinion that morals should be based on happiness. You can ignore this fact, but it won’t change it.

Yeah, you didn’t need to read the entire few thousand words that I wrote addressing your arguments, simply because you were far too lazy to follow the link to the page about morality, while I have read all of your comments in their entirety on this blog.

And the second part- again, blind faith. I brought multiple- multiple- objective facts to the table to prove why morality should be based on evidence.

Yet you still call my ideas “opinion”… giving no reason as to why. Nor, for that matter, why my opinion is automatically less valid than God’s, given the cost-benefit problems in Chris’ morality I pointed out earlier.

I will now leave this argument to be. Chris, you can have the last word here- just don’t abuse it.

Night, y’all.

13 responses to Final Response – By Godless Teen

  1. Long post.

    Anyhow I can’t get to it all today, maybe the next couple of days if time allows, if I feel a reply is necessary.

    I’ll get to the rest, however I can deal with one thing quickly:

    “I’ll just put this simply: it’s not up to me to decide what evidence is “enough”, it’s up to you to provide convincing evidence and argue that it is convincing”

    So very telling so thank you for this answer. This shows quite a lot about your beliefs and stance.

    Regardless, i still will present evidence – of course you won’t find it convincing, because you have left yourself an out to say “that’s not enough evidence” or “that’s not good enough evidence” as you just stated above YOU won’t say what you will minimally accept.

    At least it’s a safe position for you – your belief is not in danger.

    But I’m glad for the chance to put up the evidence for the historical Jesus, especially here.

    So I’ll put up the evidence, then you can just go ahead and put up your “that’s not evidence” reply and we can leave it at that.

  2. GT – Check your PM.

  3. I’m going to break these up – as I quote GT at his words, it adds to the length of the replies. Thus for ease of reading and continuity I will break them up.

    REPLY PART ONE

    GT——:“To begin: Chris decided to use three main arguments that virtually every theist uses:
    1. The Argument From a First Cause
    2. The Argument From Morality
    3. The Argument From Formation of Sentient Life<<<<<>>>>

    Right off the bat you have misrepresented my argument. I gave you three arguments as my base – 1. Universe has a cause. 2. Objective Morals values 3. Jesus’ death and resurrection.

    I then provided an additional list of pieces of which: Life and THEN sentient life were listen within.

    So, again, another misrep of my arguments from you.

    GT——”I will address each of these three arguments, go back a little in the argument between Chris and I and respond to a few other things, and then I will conclude this “debate” completely.

    I’ll start with the Sentient Life argument, as this one will be the shortest to dissect:<<<<<<>>>>>

    Okay, so you will argue the Sentient Life FIRST…

    remember this: SENTIENT LIFE…is what you are going to argue first.

    GT——“The entire point to my last comment was to show that “invoking chance twice” is no big deal. Of course, a certain somebody missed that part, so I will clarify.<<<<>>>>>

    Chance is no big deal – okay.

    But let’s see what we are talking about here:

    “1) life supporting universe and
    2) life happening”
    (this is what I said you were invoking chance twice on, remember)

    Um…neither of these are regarding sentient life formation.

    So already you are arguing the wrong thing here – you said you were going to start with sentient life…this isn’t sentient life.

    GT——:Ok, kiddo, I have absolutely no idea why the hell you’re even trying to use this for your argument. What I’m going to assume is that you somehow believe that invoking chance twice makes an event highly unlikely, and I’ll broaden out a little bit just in case that was not your argument.
    So, two events, Event A and Event B, are both probabilistic events; they are both chance occurences. Now, would we say that the chance of both Event A and Event B occuring is near zero?<<<<<>>>>>>

    Remember, you are to be addressing sentient life here.

    This is 1) life supporting universe, 2) life happening.

    You claim both events ARE probabilistic – though you have NEVER shown that A is. In fact, so far you haven’t staked a claim, though I have asked, on whether you believe that the universe began to exist or always did.

    So let’s go back to you’re A/B quote: “So, two events, Event A and Event B, are both probabilistic events; they are both chance occurences. Now, would we say that the chance of both Event A and Event B occuring is near zero?
    Before we go further, let’s remember what’s being argued (from above):

    GT ——First, we have to know what the probabilities of the two events occuring are. If Event A has a probability of 1%, and B has a 1% probability as well, then the probability of both A and B occuring is very small- .01%. However, let’s say that A and B each have 99% probabilities of occuring. This would mean that the probability of both A and B occuring is 98.01%- a very high likelihood. So, just “invoking chance twice” means nothing; first, you have to know the probability of both events occuring. END QUOTE
    QUOTE:Of course, then Chris could argue, “what are the probabilities that A) a life-supporting universe appeared and B) life formed in that universe?” Of course, with the first event (life-supporting univere), you have to consider multiple factors:
    • In a different universe, life could appear in a different form, unlike current life, but still be considered “life”.
    • Multiple universes could very well have formed; an infinite amount, for that matter. If an infinite amount of universes did form, then that would mean that, mathematically speaking, the probability of not one life supporting universe forming (assuming that the variables of all of these alternate universe were assigned randomly) is virtually 0 (more accurately, I believe, it would be 1/(Infinity), which is… Well… 0).
    • Another factor to consider is that the universe could only have formed a single way, or multiple ways all very similar to a single way. If that’s the case, then this universe was already predestined to form the way it did, regardless of a god.
    • Although I could think about multiple other factors, the last one I’d like to consider is the idea that the variables in the universe are not independent (Kane et al. 2000). If this is the case, then that would mean that we would only be looking at a select few variables that would be randomly assigned value, which would mean that the probability of the constants of the universe forming as they have done becomes much, much higher.<<<<<<>>>>>

    NONE of the above deal with sentient life as you were to argue as you stated above….

    But we’ll look at them anyway.

    So, you really don’t provide us with probability, you just say – chances are it can happen this way.

    But let’s look at each of your points.

    Your first two points argue the “Many Worlds Theory.” Or multi-verse.

    However, this deals with a universe ALREADY in existence – not the “first cause” as you did correctly list as one of my arguments above. As WLC expresses it “All this has been said, of course, without asking whether the multiverse itself must not exhibit fine-tuning in order to exist. If it does, as some have argued, then it is a non-starter as an alternative to design.”

    In order to save space, I would suggest you read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument#ixzz2GCJa3WcA

    (note this isn’t the only article on chance as a design)

    Point number 3: “Another factor to consider is that the universe could only have formed a single way, or multiple ways all very similar to a single way. If that’s the case, then this universe was already predestined to form the way it did, regardless of a god.”
    This is the argument from NECESSITY – which you claimed you would NEVER argue. However you just did. Which then argues that a life-prohibiting universe is impossible.

    So here, point 3 you invoke an argument you said you never would.

    And lastly: your last point doesn’t argue if the universe either (or first cause) but the variables AFTER the universe “happened.”
    GT, while you were suppose to be arguing “Sentient life” you turned to argue “fine tuning” but as listed above one of my CORE arguments was the universe BEGINNING.

    GT—–…Chris had better concede that he really has no clue as to the probability that the universe formed the way it did. If he doesn’t, well, I’d urge the reader to think he’s completely insane.<<<<<>>>>>

    I would never claim to know the probability (as you tried). However, your arguments above do NOT address first cause – which you, correctly, stated above as part of my initial argument.

    Your argument above dealt with fine tuning (which yes is ONE part of my argument, but in conjunction WITH first cause).

    Not to mention you said you were going to be arguing “Sentient Life.”

    You just completely argued the wrong point here – “Fine Tuning”

    And did NOT argue one of my main points as I listed. “First Cause.”

    Part Two – Beating the Dead horse of morality up next!

  4. REPLY PART TWO

    >>>>>So, now, leaving that argument behind, I’ll go to the argument from morality<<<<>>>Whine whine whine, gloat gloat gloat, let’s see what Chris has to say.<<<<<

    How can I “whine” AND “gloat” at the same time? Seems contradictory to whine WHILE I’m gloating.

    Anyway..

    CHRIS—- “Again, in your morality, we ought to do actions or ought not do them regardless of benefit, yet give no reason why we should thus follow those morals, thus rendering at least part of your morality pointless because there isn’t any motivation to follow the morality”
    Something is either right/wrong REGARDLESS of our motivation or benefit. You seem not to get that point of objectivity.
    Many things that I wish to do WOULD benefit me personally – yet they are not moral to do. So REGARDLESS of the benefit to me, it would be immoral to do certain actions.

    Why would we want to do them?

    Not necessary to the point that ONLY through a moral authority can there be objective morals. Objective right/wrong. No matter the amount of words you use to further defend your morals, they don’t objectively do this.

    We can get to the “whys” later – main point – without a moral giver – God – there are no objective morals.<<<<<<<
    Nice collection of quotes!

    YOU—–Actually, you seem to not get the definition of objectivity:

    Objective (adj): (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: “historians try to be objective and impartial.” (The New Oxford American English Dictionary)
    You act as if, somehow, by some fairytale magic, the word “benefit” suddenly is the same thing as “personal feelings or opinions”.<<<<<<<<<<

    LOL!

    I have never argued that benefit is the same thing as “personal feelings or opinions” at all! Even the quotes above to not suggest this.

    YOU—–Ever heard of the economic concept of “rational self-interest“? It’s the idea that a rational person will act in the way that benefits them.<<<<<<<<

    Okay, let’s keep that in mind GT. As this is an argument FOR the individual pursuit of happiness and benefit and NOT the corporal (everyone else) pursuit.

    YOU — Andd it’s a logical concept, too. But yet, you say that “…Something is either right/wrong REGARDLESS of our motivation or benefit.”<<<<<<

    Correct!

    YOU —-Which is stupid. If there is no benefit nor drawback, then an action is meaningless. If there is no meaning to doing that action, there is no reason to do or not to do that action. If there is no reason to/not to do an action, then your morality is just stupid, because it wants us to do things that we have absolutely no need to do whatsoever.<<<<<<

    I know, you have trouble with the concept.

    Remember – something is right or wrong because it’s RIGHT or WRONG. When we look at the individual benefit (as we are now, because you brought in RS above) it matters not if it benefits me to be right/wrong. It is right/wrong because it’s absolutely objectively right/wrong.

    I’ll show you with your example:

    YOU—-: It’s like if I asserted that, according to my morality, not throwing rocks in a pool five times a day was immoral. My moral law dictates that not doing this is immoral. Yet, there is no punishment nor benefit to throwing or not throwing the rocks in the pool; we just slap the label “immoral” on not throwing the rocks in the pool. If that’s the case, why the hell would you want to throw the rocks in the pool?!<<<<<<<

    Maybe I like to see water splash. Which would make me happy, which would increase my happiness!

    You confuse the end result (punishment/benefit) for making something moral/immoral. This is incorrect. Morality is first – then outcome.

    Now, the outcome may be punishment, or it may be benefit, AND it may be neutral.

    IE – walking down the street. Morally neutral. You can say there’s a health benefit – but that’s not morality. It’s neither moral or immoral to walk down the street.

    But the outcome does not determine if an action is moral or immoral – that is, an action is not morally wrong because there’s a punishment for it. It’s wrong because it’s objectively wrong.

    Punishment MAY result – but that would mean 1) the action was illegal. 2) one would need to get ‘caught’ and this isn’t always the case is it? Despite the risk of punishment, people do immoral acts all the time. And in these cases, more often than not, no punishment is given.

    Also, not EVERY immoral action is illegal. So one can freely do immoral actions and not face the risk of punishment as well.

    So the OUTCOME does not determine if an action is moral/immoral.

    And not every moral/immoral outcome has a benefit/punishment associated with it legally.

    YOU—- It’s completely and utterly meaningless! Yet, morality deals with actions that we ought and ought not do.<<<<<

    CORRECT! It deals with “oughts” – but as I showed outcome does not determine “ought.” The nature of the action, what it’s based on, what it’s grounded in…

    And not every moral/immoral action is legal/illegal – thus benefit/punishment is unnecessary in determining morality.

    YOU—-: Your morality asserts that we ought to do an action, and ought not do another action. Yet, as I have just shown (and you have just reaffirmed), some of these actions may have no inherent punishment or benefit to doing them.<<<<<<

    Actually we have discussed “my” morality very little – I so far, have been showing that your moral code is NOT objective.

    And I just showed you that OUTCOME does not determine morality.

    Morality comes first – outcome later.

    YOU —–So why would you do them?! I might as well go around saying “such-and-such is moral, that’s immoral, you’re immoral, that’s moral”, which is practically what you are trying to say your god does. <<<<<

    No, you have no real idea what I’m saying – we haven’t discussed “my God’s” moral law yet.

    You continue to defend your position that your morals are “objective” despite all the facts to the contrary.

    In addition, we are speaking here of OBJECTIVE morals only. Not about “my God” yet, but what objective morals are GROUNDED in.

    YOU —–Yet, there is no reason to do them or not to do them.<<<<<

    This issue was never discussed yet, because you were failing to understand “objective morals” and what they are grounded in if they exist.

    Whether or not we have to do them or if there are reasons for doing them are a separate issue.

    YOU——: “There is no rationality behind completing the action; if there isn’t anything rational behind doing the action, then “ought” and “ought not” are completely irrational concepts as they have no meaning yet assert that there is a benefit to doing an action even when there is none.<<<<>>>>

    Certainly there’s rationality behind doing an action – you just have a hard time rationalizing it BEYOND morality. In fact, for someone to rationalize an action – morality need not be considered. I can do any number of actions, and NOT consider once whether or not it’s moral to do them, and each action COULD have a rational reason behind it.

    And this action could be to my benefit or to my detriment.

    Many things that I wish to do WOULD benefit me personally – yet they are not moral to do. So REGARDLESS of the benefit to me, it would be immoral to do certain actions

    YOU—-So, rationally, a person will act in their best interest. That’s not opinion or personal feelings, that’s just rational behavior.<<<<>>>

    But people don’t ALWAYS act in their best interest. You fail to recognize this in people (however, as you get older you will). People act in many ways, for many reasons – some rational, some irrational. Some under false pretenses.

    General statements – such as you make are nice for discussion, but don’t always apply in the real world with real living people. In many cases there are many irrational behaviors that act in a person’s best interest.

    YOU—-Benefit to an individual does not equal benefit to a population. I’ve said that before; I’ve used that as my basis for the establishment of government. I’m not arguing that all actions that benefit an individual are moral, I’m arguing that all actions that are moral provide an overall benefit in net happiness to the entire population, not just Chris.<<<>>>

    Yet, you only have argued for the individual benefit above…then change to ENTIRE population.

    Back and forth with no rhyme or reason. Argue benefit for the individual, then when shown this to be an issue, you switch to the populous.

    YOU —I just showed that an action can only rationally be an “ought” or an “ought not” with the presence of a benefit or a punishment. Just slapping “moral” and “immoral” on different actions (as your god seems to do) is insane; I might as well tell you that living is an immoral action, so we should all kill ourselves. There’s no rationale behind it, no benefit, but, according to you, since it’s immoral to live, we ought to kill ourselves anyways, in spite of the fact that there is no benefit to killing ourselves nor any punishment to staying alive.<<<>>>

    No, all you have showed is that we should ONLY perform an action to either avoid a punishment, or to get a benefit.

    But these don’t necessarily correspond to morals – as we well know. As some things that we can deem immoral – need not be punished, or made illegal.

    And certainly, an argument can be made that it’s to our benefit to avoid actions that can be punished – yet that doesn’t always fly does it?
    In addition, some actions we can deem moral or at least morally neutral, could be deemed illegal.

    See you confuse LEGALITY with MORALITY.

    But again, OUTCOME does not determine what is moral/immoral.

    It either is, or it isn’t.

    YOU – —-And you continue to use the word “objective” in a very odd manner.<<<>>

    No, you just misunderstand what objective morals are.

    YOU—– Again, “benefit”, as I showed earlier through rational self-interest, is not the same as “opinion” or “personal feelings” as doing things that are beneficial is rational and that’s a fact, as the result of rational self-interest. Benefit isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact, and that’s where you’re wrong, Chris.<<<<<>>>>

    Never said benefit was an opinion…

    YOU —–So, if “benefit” fits the criteria for being objective, then my law does stand.<<<>>>>

    But it doesn’t, as I have shown you – and via your contradictions (self vs. others, etc.). So you law fails.

    Because you are quick to argue an action for MY benefit, yet at the same time disregard my benefit for that of the population.

    Also, as I have shown, something can be moral but NOT to my benefit and immoral TO my benefit.

    Thus, benefit does NOT fit the criteria for being objective.

    Either an action is right or it’s wrong REGARDLESS of who benefits.

    As I can argue, if 500 people BENEFIT from 100 slaves…well, then…why is slavery immoral?

    If we use benefit objectively as you would…it’s not. The majority of the people “benefit” from slavery. (remember, you believe in the NET gain of happiness – so this fits…I know you’ll scream: rights! Rights! Though in no case have you ever established how rights are given)

    YOU —— I’ve shown happiness to be the ultimate benefit (which you’ve had no real response to), and I’ve shown that it’s rational, in everybody’s best interest, for us all to promote overall happiness (which is the cause of the formation of government). Because my original starting point, “benefit”, is a perfectly objective one to use, there’s every reason to believe that my moral law is indeed objective.<<<<<>>>>

    Keep on believing that…

    YOU——You, on the other hand; you state that the opinions and personal feelings of your god dictate what is moral and immoral. If your god says something is immoral, such as homosexuality, then it’s immoral. Yet, if he says that it’s perfectly moral the next day, then it’s moral. That is not objectivity. That’s the opinion and personal feelings of your God, that have no established basis in morality.<<<<>>>

    You know nothing of my God’s morals…you here are projecting what YOU believe about my God.

    None of what you have just said can be attributed to me, I never stated such things. In fact, we never got around to discussing the morals of “my” God.

    So here, as you have often done – misrepresent my side of the discussion to try and bolsters yours.

    If you call this good “debate” then you need some lessons on how to debate.

    ME – :You say happiness isn’t an authority, but “authority” is defined as

    Noun The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. This just shows that happiness ISN’T and authority. 1) it doesn’t have power or right to give orders. It’s either a commodity or emotion. NEITHER have power/rights to GIVE orders. 2) make decisions. Happiness can’t do that as well. It can INFORM or INFLUENCE but it doesn’t MAKE a decision this requires it to THINK. 3) happiness can’t ENFORCE obedience. It’s either a commodity or emotion – neither of which give it ENFORCEMENT power.<<<<>>>>

    YOU —-No, it doesn’t literally bark out orders.<<<>>>

    Strike one – as it literally needs to happen for it to be an authority.

    YOU—- What it does do, however, is establish what is right and what is wrong.<<<>>>

    According to YOU.

    YOU —–It’s like saying that the color red establishes what red looks like. <<<<>>>

    Wrong.

    The definition of red establishes what red is as a color on the spectrum. We could have labeled it “gooble gobble” if we wanted to – but the spectral coordinates are still the same.

    Happiness doesn’t necessarily establish morality – as we have gone over and over again. As Happiness is not quantifiable, nor completely measurable (so I’m not sure how you get ‘net gain’ out of the deal) nor is there a baseline established.

    YOU – It never consciously ordered red to look like red, but the point is that its existence, metaphorically speaking, “gives the order to red to look like red”.<<<>>>\

    Grasping at straws here.

    YOU —No, it doesn’t consciously make decisions.<<<<<<>>>>

    Strike two. As this is needed in the ACTUAL definition of authority – not the watered down one you are trying to argue for.

    YOU—- However, its existence determines what is right and what is wrong, like the “color red” example I showed above.<<<<<>>>>

    No, again, the “nature” of red – it’s location of the spectrum determines ‘red’. If we change our position on the spectrum, we get a different color. Happiness is not always to the same degree, so how do we know “net gain” if we don’t even know exactly how someone feels?

    YOU —-Finally, happiness does actually in a sense enforce obedience, due to evolution that decided to hardwire us (to the best of its ability) to do moral actions on the basis of happiness. Happiness doesn’t beat you with a stick if you don’t follow its rules. However, the existence of happiness establishes what is right and what is wrong, and I find it ridiculous for you to think that that doesn’t make it some type of an authority, conscious or not.<<<<<>>>

    Find it ridiculous all you want…doesn’t make you right, because you aren’t. It cannot ENFORCE our actions in anyway. Influence, yes. Inform, yes. But it cannot enforce it. Never be able to.

    I can do things that won’t make me happy, or that will take away my happiness…and happiness can’t do a thing about it.

    Play fast and loose with def. all you want, but that just goes to show even more how un-objective your morals are, that you cannot even use ACTUAL def. to defend it. But have to modify how you define certain aspects of a word so your will fit.

    Here then is one of my favorites…

    YOU —-:”Don’t see anything about the authority talking and walking.”<<<<>>>

    You say this about the def. or authority – but can’t even conceptualize what the def. means!

    ME ——Ah, but there is about THINKING – cognition. GIVE orders – MAKE decisions – ENFORCE obedience. Requires thought (especially the first two) and purpose.<<<<>>>

    YOU —–The word “thinking”, nor “cognition”, was never mentioned once in the definition.<<<<>>>

    Give orders – requires purpose, requires thinking. Enforce requires ability to enact, to FORCE, purpose…thinking…
    And my favorite —->>>> ….”MAKE decisions!”

    Deciding…REQUIRES thought. Cognition, THINKING!!!

    Really, GT…

    Sad, dude…really. Seriously…

    YOU — Give (verb) does not require consciousness; for example, we could say that the “red color of the dress gives it a touch of flamboyance”.

    Make (verb) does practically the same thing as the very “give” above; “the electricity makes my monitor produce a series of colors and lights”.

    Enforce (verb)- again, no conscience necessary. “Evolution has enforced our ability to act moral”.<<<>>>

    We are not speaking of individual words here GT we are speaking of the def. of “authority”.

    Give orders, Make decisions, Enforce obedience – that is, action opposed to our will.

    1) give ORDERS is FAR different from “touch of flamboyance.” If you seriously think they are the same… Orders are directives, actions to be taken.
    2) Make DECISIONS – decisions. Decisions require thought.
    3) You confuse enabled vs. enforced. As evolution to ENFORCE us to have morality, would have had to have it in mind PRIOR to our having the ability.

    See how bad you have to play with the def to make it fit?

    YOU —-And purpose? Nope. In each of the three examples above, no conscious “purpose” was present, yet they still all matched the definition of authority.<<<>>>

    No they don’t, because you OMITTED the key words of the def. It wasn’t ability to give, make, enforce…it was give orders, make decisions, enforce obedience…which is, for us to act against our will/want.

    ME – —It’s your personal feeling that happiness is the greatest commodity – I disagree. That we all want to be happy is fine, but I don’t believe that happiness as an end goal is a solid basis for a moral code.

    You do. Because it’s YOUR opinion that happiness should be and IS the greatest commodity.

    Also, I showed you that happiness is influence by many things: opinion being one of them – you disagree with this? Well, if happiness IS influenced by opinion (and personal feelings) than it cannot be an objective moral basis, given the def. you provided can it?

    No.<<<<<>>>>

    YOU —–Ok, ok, now you say why my “opinion” is “wrong”. Fair enough.

    Well…

    Ok, let’s just move on.<<<>>

    Fair enough? LOL your code, is either right or wrong – if you can’t say absolutely that your code is right, then it is NOT objective.

    It is NOT true or binding.

    Then you beat the horse more…I’m not, I’m just going to keep point out the subjectivity of your code.

    YOU —The point is, however, that we have to decide which choices people can make in order to decide what is moral and what is immoral.<<<>>

    See here? You said we have to “decide” which choices people can make.
    That’s not objective morality.

    Either something is right or it’s wrong – it’s not what we “decide” is right or wrong. You want to “decide” what is right or wrong…and you can do that to a certain extent – opinion.

    But you can’t point to something and say beyond opinion that something is right/wrong.

    As you just stated above – it’s about “deciding” which choices people can make.

    That’s just rule making, GT…that’s not morality.

    You can make all the rules you want, have at it – but that doesn’t make them moral.

    Then I make the claim you “twisted” utilitarianism.

    To that you: “There was no “twisting”, I just chose to use an alternate definition to what is normally used. And, if any such “twisting” occured, it would have to be in my own moral code, not that of others! I might as well say that you’ve twisted and taken my moral code, or, for that matter, I’ve done that to you!”

    Um…here’s what you wrote me in your email: —— “As for the second part, I define morality as the “principles governing
    right and wrong”. The actual definitions of the two main terms though
    (right and wrong) go a bit deeper than that. I follow the principle of
    utilitarianism, although I do TWIST it a little.>>>>>>

    So, yeah, GT you twisted. You told me you twisted…so either you twisted or you didn’t. Just going off of what you told me you did.

    Second, you say “I just CHOSE to use an alternate def….”
    Choice…opinion.

    Remember you agree that objective morals are NOT influence by feelings and opinion – so far we have seen opinion twice now…(though more than that really).

    Opinion = NOT objective.

    YOU —-I have gotten multiple definitions of utilitarianism. Here is the one that I use:
    Utilitarianism: a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically:a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)>>>>>>

    “Here’s the one I use…”

    Why?

    Because of your opinion, your choice to do so.

    but why did you twist it?

    YOU (in the email to me) —– “Utilitarianism
    usually asserts that something is right if it benefits the majority,
    however, I’ve found that that could lead to the promotion of slavery
    and other such clearly horrible behaviors. In the end, I decided that
    the overall net gain of happiness is more important than how that
    happiness is distributed among people.<<<<>>>>

    Because it could promote slavery.

    You didn’t want that to be argued…so you “twisted” it to fit something you liked better.

    Opinion #3

    Of course NIN says you can find happiness in slavery.

    YOU —Not only that, but you earlier dismissed my use of quotes from people like Ayn Rand because they were “fallible human beings”, and yet, now you want to criticize me for changing the idea of another person in order to better fit a good description of morality, using net happiness rather than the happiness of all of the people. It’s absurd, and completely hypocritical.<<<<<>>>>

    Actually, I used Any Rand against you – as her quote that you used went against your populous moral code, hers was about the individual – your the populous.

    Horse is dead.

    If you still fail to see what you have to do to “Make” your morality objective…then well, that’s on you GT.

    But even right here at the end I showed you 3 opinions you used in your decisions to make your moral code.

    By your agreement – objectivity is OUTSIDE of opinion…

    Thus….

    well, you won’t see it if you haven’t by now.

  5. Okay, let’s deal with “life happening.”

    Which isn’t one listed above!

    So what are you arguing this for? Maybe, we’ll find out.

    QUOTE:As for the next event (life forming), I’ve already provided multiple ways in which the chance of life forming is almost certainly very, very high. There are trillions of stars and planets throughout the universe. The probability that a single randomly selected planet has life is near zero. However, given trillions and trillions of trials, eventually, you are likely to get at least one planet that has life on it. We are given trillions and trillions of trials, and, thus, the probability that at least one of them was able and did support life is quite high.END QUOTE

    Here you argue probability, however, you actually have no idea what the probability of life is – so what do you base this on?

    YOU—–…You neglect the idea that life could have started off in a form very similar to viruses, with a self-replicating RNA molecule, which viruses happen to be composed of. We’re talking about a near infinite number of chemical reactions on planets all across the universe; that you would believe that a self-replicating RNA molecule or self-replicating nucleic acid could not be created on at least one planet, a single planet, in the universe, is rather odd.
    ‘Nuff said.<<<<>>>>>

    I think it is good you ended there. Shall we look at what you just wrote?

    Form similar to viruses?

    You didn’t read the beginning of your own link, GT – it says “The RNA world hypothesis proposes that self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules were precursors to current life, which is based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), RNA and proteins.”

    NOT that life arose from something “similar to viruses” with SR-RNA but that it STARTED with SR-RNA.

    Well, which came first GT the self-replicating RNA or the “similar” virus that HAS it already?

    Since you link the RNA – World from Wiki – then you must be aware that even this theory has huge hurdles to jump!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis#Support_and_difficulties

    So you don’t get the hurdle jump, you in fact just throw up another one. And then invoke “chance” based on probabilities you don’t even cite – just figure chance plus time will get it done. However, you “chance” dances pretty dang close to: necessity. That is, given time it HAD to have happened.

    Well, so far science says it can’t happen, nor have scientists show it “could have” happened.

    Unless, you are ignorant or oblivious to the issues the SR-RNA has…then, yeah, it “could have” happened.

    So I don’t “ignore it” – I don’t accept it. Too many problems to just accept it “by faith” as you have.

    First Cause

    YOU —- You then go on to say things like “rocks aren’t abstract objects”.
    Well, now that I know what you meant by “abstract objects”, what I’m going to ask is this: why can’t non-abstract objects “create” the universe?<<<>>>

    It’s not what I mean by “abstract objects” it’s what it means.

    YOU —-You clearly don’t seem to think of god as abstract, as you originally presented two possible causes for the universe: abstract objects and god (talk about a leap of faith). You thus implied that God is not abstract. Thus, non-abstract objects could just as easily create the universe.<<<<>>>

    No, you didn’t read what I posted.

    Here’s what I posted: (and you even quoted me correctly in your first response to this)
    1. abstract objects
    2. a non bodily mind.

    THOSE were the two options I gave. I didn’t say God, because to do so would be circular in reasoning.

    This is evidence to point to God.

    God cannot be evidence for God.

    This is basic logic.

    Which is why it’s labeled non-bodily mind.

    PLUS said non-bodily mind ALSO had to meet other certain criteria:
    1. timeless
    2. changeless
    3. non-material
    4. transcendental
    5. have purpose – design requires this.

    If you can provide us with another beyond the two I provided, I’m all ears!

    So, no, according to my argument not just ANY non-abstract objects could create the universe.

    Again, not paying attention there GT, or purposefully misrepresenting my arguments.

    YOU —Then, you completely ignore the fact that you use “purpose” as a self-affirming bias. Ok.<<<>>>

    No, as it must be included with the other four properties. However, even if we were to take this out, and you might be able to make a case to do so, the other STILL stand and are all that are required.

    YOU —-You then say that God doesn’t suffer from the timelessness problem if the time only came to be when the universe did.
    Fair enough, but that still allows for the expanding-contracting idea (due to the fact that time was only created with the Big Bang, infinitely many of which would have occured due to the constant expansion and then contraction of the universe), nor to any other idea for what the cause of the universe is.<<<<>>>

    No, because we are dealing with a first cause.

    Again, you either believe there’s a first cause or that the universe ALWAYS existed. As in the case of the Big Bang in the expanding-contracting universe still would have time associated with it.

    As you have stated Big Bang is AFTER first cause – thus BB is within the confines of the universe and time – regardless of expanding and contracting.

    YOU —-“ A “Big Bang” is not the same as a cause”

    So, no it doesn’t.

    YOU (finally) —-My answer is that, simply, I don’t know if the universe has “always existed” (remember that time only came with the Big Bang) or “came to exist”. I think that, at this time, anybody who claims otherwise is just trying to con us, with no real evidence to their claims.<<<>>>

    Well, I did give logical evidence to that of a non-bodily mind causing the universe. Thus the discussion…

    Chance

    Dealt with this in my prior post…

    Evolution

    YOU —Right off the bat, you say that “evolution has no direction”, which basically contradicts every single thing evolutionists have said about evolution since Darwin. Mutations having direction? No, they are chance occurences. However, the overall process of all of those mutations works in a direction- say, to form wings, to make an animal smaller or larger, and the like.<<<<>>>

    First you contradict yourself.

    If mutations don’t have direction and are chance occurrences, then how does evolution have direction?

    You are the one that is on the wrong side, many scientist now DISagree with Darwin about evolution having direction. Darwin thought that evolution went from less complex to more – however, thanks to ACTUAL science, we see that even the smallest virus is vastly complex.

    I think you should do a little digging, or I can link up a few if you need. Wikipedia, talkorigins, etc. All say that evolution is directionless.

    YOU — And, evolutionarily speaking, an advantage is something that allows an animal to reproduce more often.<<<>>>
    Then how does mammalian sex enter into this? As this complicates reproduction and in fact slows it waaaay doooowwwwnnnnnn. We can only reproduce once every 9 months. That doesn’t sound like a benefit for reproduction…

    YOU —-We see this occur in the present day, with diseases. We find a cure to a disease, one individual of that disease eventually develops a random genetic mutation that allows it to protect itself from that cure, that organism reproduces, and, soon enough, the number of individuals with that genetic mutation outnumbers those without it and the disease essentially becomes immune to that cure.<<<<>>>

    Um, you really need to do some more reading on this man…

    Anyhow, if you want to discuss evolution, make it a post – this is side tracking (as you are needing to make an argument for evolution of sentient beings…you haven’t)

    You talk about mutation etc.

    YOU —-But you apparently didn’t pay attention in biology class.<<<<>>>

    No, seems you haven’t nor do you keep up.

    Again, if you want to debate evolution – make it post.

    Say top ten evidences for evolution!

    Back to Origin of Life

    YOU —-You make another comment gloating over how you’re obviously winning this argument (*snickers on the inside*), and, while most of it contains points I’ve already addressed, there is one thing that I would like to point out…
    You know, I’m not the greatest scientist to live on the planet (I just happen to care about it a heck of a lot more than some of my classmates do…). I’m not a brilliant writer. I’m not the most amazing historian. But, the one area that I personally believe that I have a decent amount of strength in is math. That encompasses probability.<<<>>>

    Okay.

    YOU ——In your poker example, we’re looking at one single “trial” (a single game). The probability that, in any single, randomly selected game, you get multiple full houses like that, is extremely low.
    However, looking at millions, billions even, of such games, you are likely to find at least one, if not multiple games in which such a thing occurs.

    So, it would be possible that, in our game, that I just happened to slip into that very, very tiny fraction of games in which such a thing occurs, but that’s unlikely. Maybe the probability of you cheating is .0001%, but the chance of you getting such hands are even smaller.
    If that’s the case, it would be more rational to suppose that you’re cheating than that you’re just really, really lucky.<<<<<>>>>>
    And again, dance ever so lightly on the line of it HAS to happen given enough time.

    YOU—–It’s like the lottery; the more tickets you buy, the more likely you’ll win.<<<<<>>>>

    I’m shaking my head right now…I cannot believe you just said that!!!

    The state lotteries are going to LOVE you when you can gamble….so are the casinos.

    But remember, in the case of life – we don’t see this happen.

    So you argument is solely based on: life can happen by chance, because we are here.

    That’s not very strong evidence for chance.

    Because we could ALSO be here by design.

    And in our everyday life – guess which is usually the more probable case?

    Back To Sentient Life Again

    You were never there to begin with.

    Jesus

    YOU —-I’ll just put this simply: it’s not up to me to decide what evidence is “enough”, it’s up to you to provide convincing evidence and argue that it is convincing.

    Now that I’ve finished, I will officially retire from this argument.<<<>>>

    Cool.

    But yet you continue with…

    …[Chris]: “Where did you pull this from? Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim. However, what I will argue is that goodness cannot exist without a moral giver – however I won’t address it here. I would say I wouldn’t call this a myth.”
    [Chris]: Now, I supposed you could say that I was claiming that I was saying: “no, it’s true atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.”
    However, what is my VERY FIRST LINE?
    “Of the theists I know, none of them would make such a claim.”
    What claim?
    “Atheists are less decent, less moral and overall worse people than believers.”
    I wouldn’t call that a “myth” of atheism, because I don’t know who makes that claim.
    Absolutely insane. You just showed that your own statement is self-contradictory. First and foremost, a myth doesn’t require for at least one person to believe in it. A myth is simply false information. So, even if nobody stated that atheists were less moral, less decent people than theists, it would still be a myth. However, with that last line, you implied that it is not a myth, suggesting that you actually believe in it. You’re trying to change words that already came out of your mouth. To say that something isn’t a myth because you don’t know anybody who believes in such a thing completely goes against the definition of “myth”<<<<<>>>>

    Oh, so NOW you know what I was saying…as before you used this same quote to make the argument that I was saying your were immoral and a bad person, etc.

    (haven’t seen you retract that yet, guess you still believe it, despite what I have ACTUALLY said)

    Second, this is what you call it: TOP 10 Myths…that means, GT, that there are more than just a handful of theist that say this…otherwise, how did it make the top ten list?

    YOU —Secondly, even after considering the first part, you then have to consider the second part of the equation: I brought up (multiple times) theists who had indeed claimed the statement that atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers. One such example was that of Bodie Hodge, from whom I cited an article multiple times. So, either way, either Chris completely skipped over those links or he suddenly forgot, magically and mysteriously, what Bodie Hodge had ever said.<<<<>>>

    No, I am just saying that it doesn’t amount to a top ten myth – nor do I believe it IS a myth, because it is NOT the case. (actually on your side on this one, but again….)

    ME —-Again, GT, jumping and not reading. And certainly NOT providing FULL context for a quote.<<<<>>>

    LOL! And here’s another example of not providing context – because GT what was that in regards to?____________________________

    And then you backpeddle and not man up to the fact you made a claim about me that is completely false and won’t apologize for doing so.

    Again, find where I was actually rude, and I will apologize. But you should have the guts to do the same when it’s presented to you.

  6. Well, I haven’t checked my PM yet so this reply is ignorant of what you have written.

    Clearly a nerve has been struck. Someone doesn’t reply as you just have if one hasn’t been.

    instead of ending the debate – you come back and post what you have.

    If you think that helps you, your argument, your “cause” in supporting other teen atheists…okay…though, most would disagree I think.

    A calm and collective response tends to have a better result.

    Do I always do it that way? Not always no, I’m human, I’m fallible.

    But to offer this up as your best “retort” is way more reflective of you, than it is of me.

    See, I don’t care if that’s how you view me – incorrect as it is – i understand that your personal ID is being “attacked” and this is what people who feel cornered and have no other recourse but to lash out as you have.

    I don’t expect you to apologize – and I don’t need you too either, I forgive you. i was pointing out that you didn’t – and perhaps that wasn’t great on my part, so for THAT I apologize.

    In the back of my mind, I knew I shouldn’t have done it, but I did anyway. For that I’m sorry. As i said, I don’t care that you didn’t apologize. You get my forgiveness regardless. And you get my love as well.

    So for that, I do apologize and ask you to forgive me.

    I admit that my ego can get big and in the way sometimes – again, I’m human, sinful, fallible. By no means perfect.

    I do wish you would, honestly, put up where you think i was rude – as I would like to apologize for those moments as well.

    That said – did I give you the ‘needle’ playfully now and again? Sure. I do like to have fun and keep these light. Sometimes people can take it wrong or misunderstand and offended…if that’s the case let me know with what i said.

    Just a general – “you’re rude’ doesn’t help me to know WHERE I was rude and why someone could see it as rude.

    If I seemed combative, I’m sorry for that. I wasn’t being so on purpose. In no way was I every angry with you, mad at you, hated you, or felt any animosity toward you – and if anything I said gave you that impression…well, that’s my fault. What is typed does NOT always translate into what is thought and meant – especially if it’s in jest. (maybe I need to add more LOLs or JKs)

    Any how, I did my post on Jesus, but I didn’t post it here, but back a couple of posts.

    You can deal with it if you’d like or ignore it…it’s your blog.

    Okay, now I will go check my PM.

    • Thanks, Chris, but I’ll tell you “what nerve has been struck”. The fact that you consistently lie about what I say, acting as if you have the most incredibly short attention span because you clearly lie about what I say, skip over other things I say, and forget what you’ve said.

      So, yeah, actually, I would say a nerve has “been struck”. Lying about me (as in the alleged individual-to-population switch you mentioned that never actually occurred), about what you said (saying that such-and-such was never discussed yet when it was… Presumably to “defend” your morality, and the like?), and then ignoring what I say (as in the myth example earlier, after which you actually went on to attack me for it- completely absurd)… Yeah, I’d say it pisses me off.

      Did I go a little bit too far? Probably, I’ll concede. But I’m not the one saying your morality is opinionated. I’m not the one arguing that I never said something which I clearly did. This isn’t debating, this is argumentation.

      So, yeah, actually, I’d say that “a nerve has been struck”.

  7. Well I can’t get into it at the moment, but I will say this: I didn’t LIE about anything. Now, I will go and highlight what we both said and this the conclusions.

    But I didn’t lie. I don’t need to and I don’t take the accusation lightly.

    Never once have you considered that you position might actually be faulty. Time and agains I have shown your code to be opinion – disagree if you wish, but it’s not lying when I can point exact reasons WHY it’s opinion.

    As for the rest it’ll have to wait

  8. K. One last time to show you why your code is opinion based. Answer these questions:

    1) is your code grounded in absolute truth?
    2) is your code THE truth?
    3) can there be a better code?
    4) if I chose a different moral code who us is absolutely right: you, me, neither?
    5) could there be a different way to establish morality?

  9. To think about: because something may be based on fact, doesn’t mean it’s objective.

  10. This is my final attempt to show you how your moral code is NOT objective.

    Your code is based on the premise that “Happiness” is the greatest commodity.

    This is based on the notion that we all want to be happy, and can be argued that above all desires – happiness would be listed number one.

    In essence, I have no issue with that.

    We can even call this a fact: everyone wants to be happy AND happiness is the greatest commodity.

    Now, an action that increases happiness is a “good” action – moral.
    The opposite would be “bad” – immoral.

    Now, we can call this a commodity or even a good – as in goods and services. Not good as in moral.

    This can all be called FACT. No issue there.

    However, what happiness STILL is – emotion.
    emotions plural of e•mo•tion (Noun)
    Noun
    1. A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
    2. Any of the particular feelings that characterize such a state of mind, such as joy, anger, love, hate, horror, etc.

    (From Google – however, you can use any other source of choice, it’ll pretty much be the same)

    A goal, for sure, but a goal that we know we have achieved because we “feel” it as an emotion.

    Emotions, however, beneficial as they can be, desired as they may be are NOT objective.

    Because emotions ARE influenced by opinion among MANY things, including too personal preferences.

    Also, as we see from the definition above – emotions are derived from many factors as well.

    Thus, happiness is NOT objective.

    Here are some links on emotions:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hot-thought/201004/what-are-emotions

    Interesting powerpoint on emotions:
    http://www.uky.edu/~dlowe2/documents/252Emotions.ppt
    (in part deals what influences emotions)

    And

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making

    So, hopefully, you understand now that even though it may be a fact that we all want to be happy – this emotion is NOT an objective emotion.

    Among the many variables that influence happiness: opinion.

    This is the hurdle that your moral code cannot get over. Thus it can never be more than opinion.

    Useful? Sure!
    Beneficial? Of course!

    Objective? No.

    Now, if you would now still like to argue that your code is based on objectivity – you’ll have to make the argument that happiness IS objective as an emotion. That it is NOT influenced by opinion, culture, and all the personal variables…

    So, either you take that point and show it, or you do have to resign to the fact that your moral code is no more than opinion.

    Those are the two issues you are left with.
    1) show happiness to be OBJECTIVE despite the fact it’s an emotion.
    or
    2) realize your code is based on emotion – and therefor opinion.

Please leave a reply!

%d bloggers like this: