The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality

[jce]

Hi Rick,

I'm curious, how can you make the absolute statement that God exists? What proof do you have?

It seems you don't have any more proof that God exists, than atheists who say God doesn't exist.

All the best,
Rose

Rose, really? In any court of law, a verdict demands evidence. It is no different in the world of philosophy. Evidence of a creator by virtue of design is increasing with each new advance in science. The closer we examine creation, the more intricate detail we see.

Put that on a scale of justice next to the evidence for time+matter+chance. Do you see a balance?

Of course, I hear that there is still a "Flat Earth" society, the members of which still hold that the idea of a spherical earth is nothing more than a huge conspiracy perpetrated by globalists. What's curious is that as the evidence continues to mount against them, the reasoning they cling to becomes more absurd with each passing satellite.

God needs no man to prove His existence. The evidence is everywhere the open mind is willing to look, and it will continue to mount. I would hope you agree.

John

[CWH]

Hi Rick,

I'm curious, how can you make the absolute statement that God exists? What proof do you have?

It seems you don't have any more proof that God exists, than atheists who say God doesn't exist.

All the best,
Rose

And being a non-theist as stated, Rose, what proof do you have that God may exist?

God Blessings to all.

[Rose]

Rose, really? In any court of law, a verdict demands evidence. It is no different in the world of philosophy. Evidence of a creator by virtue of design is increasing with each new advance in science. The closer we examine creation, the more intricate detail we see.

Put that on a scale of justice next to the evidence for time+matter+chance. Do you see a balance?

Of course, I hear that there is still a "Flat Earth" society, the members of which still hold that the idea of a spherical earth is nothing more than a huge conspiracy perpetrated by globalists. What's curious is that as the evidence continues to mount against them, the reasoning they cling to becomes more absurd with each passing satellite.

God needs no man to prove His existence. The evidence is everywhere the open mind is willing to look, and it will continue to mount. I would hope you agree.

John

Hi John,

My question to you would be which "God" do you choose as creator? There are many to choose from and each is very different...

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rose, really? In any court of law, a verdict demands evidence. It is no different in the world of philosophy. Evidence of a creator by virtue of design is increasing with each new advance in science. The closer we examine creation, the more intricate detail we see.

Put that on a scale of justice next to the evidence for time+matter+chance. Do you see a balance?

Of course, I hear that there is still a "Flat Earth" society, the members of which still hold that the idea of a spherical earth is nothing more than a huge conspiracy perpetrated by globalists. What's curious is that as the evidence continues to mount against them, the reasoning they cling to becomes more absurd with each passing satellite.

God needs no man to prove His existence. The evidence is everywhere the open mind is willing to look, and it will continue to mount. I would hope you agree.

John

Hey there John,

You have made a false dichotomy between Christian style theism and materialism. They are not the only possibilities.

For example, I see "God" as "all that is." The Universe (everything that is) is the "body of God" - it is a living all-inclusive conscious entity. This is not unlike the biblical references to God as the "all in all" which is "over all, through all, and in all." Therefore, I see neither theism or materialism as true.

Your assertion that "Evidence of a creator by virtue of design is increasing with each new advance in science" is not true. In all science, there are only three "gaps" which might allow a place for a "intelligent designer" of the kind you propose. 1) The origin of the universe, 2) origin of DNA, 3) the fine tuning of the universe. Now consider all the natural phenomena that the Bible atributes to God, such as pregnancy, earthquakes, and storms. We now know that all those things are explainable in terms of natural law. You argument is merely a "god of the gaps" argument. The moment that science successfully explains the gaps, your proof evaporates. We also must consider that natural science can explain a vast array of phenomena, and yet not one of those explanations requires an appeal to God. So here is the score: Science has never encountered any phenomenon that required "God" as an explanation, and the only unexplained things that might require God as an explanation refer to one-time events that occured in the distant past and that are not subject to experimental confirmation (Big Bang, DNA, Fine Tuning). Therefore, your appeal to science as evidence for God as an intelligent desinger is exceedingly weak because it does not apply to any phenomenon that can be experimental tested.

Furthermore, even if there is evidence of intelligent design it does even prove theism. If my perception of God as the living multi-dimensional universe is true, then that would explain the Big Bang, DNA, and Fine Tuning without theism.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And being a non-theist as stated, Rose, what proof do you have that God may exist?

God Blessings to all.

Why would a non-theist need (or want) to prove that God "may exist?"

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If man is created in the image of God, then man's innate morality is an attribute of God. If there is a God, and man is created in His image, then your argument fails in less spectacular fashion.

Good morning John,

Your argument is correct if we begin by assuming that man is created in the image of God. But it can't be used to defeat my refutation of Craig's argument because he was trying to prove the existence of God. As you know, we're not allowed to assume what we are trying to prove.

Good chatting with you, bother-man.

Richard

Hey there John,

I'm reposting this in case you mised it.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Rick!

I'm back! My four day conference has ended and I now will have some time to engage in these facinating conversations again.

This is funny.
Since God exists how would anyone be able to test if they would still have morality if God did not exist?

I'm surprised that you don't see the irony of your question. Could you conceive of any "test" to prove God exists? No? Well then we are all on equal grounds there.

But there is an asymmetry between our positions. Given that there is no test that would prove God, then we know the answer to the question "What would the physical universe look like if there were no God?" The answer must be "the same as it looks when there is a God" since otherwise there would be a test to discern the existence of God. But we all know that there is no such test. Therefore, we can ask my question. And now, if we ask that question, it seem totally obvious to me that the whole universe, including our morality, would remain exactly as it is if there were no God. And this leads to a new question for you - do you really believe that there would be no "morality" in any human society if there were no God? If not, why not? Why wouldn't societies invent rules of "right and wrong" to govern themselves?

God formed the heart and the conscience and it cannot be tested whether you have a "heart" or conscience with the absent of God because you cannot kill or vaporize God.

If a theistic God doesn't exist, we don't need to "vaporize" anything but the false beliefs people have about the existence of such a God.

You have to be able to prove this side by side with the existence of God.

That doesn't work. You have never shown any connection between the origin of our moral intuitions and the existence of God. You merely asserted your hypothesis that we got our morals from God. But that makes no sense to me at all because I have never felt that something was right or wrong merely because someone's "God" said so! That seems absurd to me because things are good because of what they are and how they affect people, not because of what anyone (including God) might say about them.

My moral intutions are like a rock that cannot be moved. I know what is good and bad, and more importantly, I know why. According to you, nothing is good or bad in itself, but only because God arbitrarily says something is good or bad. And that's the error of your argument. I know why things are right or wrong, but you do not. You believe that nothing is right or wrong unless God says so, and this implies that God's choice is arbitray. Therefore, anything that God says is "good" is not actually "good" becuase that word now has no meaning. In your system, "good" means only "what God commanded." It has no connection with love or any other value. If you try to say that God's commands are based on "love" or "goodness" then you are assuming that there is such a thing as "love" or "goodness" independent of what God commanded. This is the fundamental error of the "command theory" of morality. Of course, the other fundamental error is that we all know that we base our moral intutions on the Golden Rule, not on arbitrary commands by a God.

This is funny.
The One that made our heart in the first place, can also make a NEW heart in us.
And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: (Eze 11:19)


Best to you,
Rick

Yes, the living Spirit that manifests throughout all creation certainly can and will put a "new spirit" within anyone who asks in faith.

Great chatting,

Richard

[jce]

Hi John,

My question to you would be which "God" do you choose as creator? There are many to choose from and each is very different...

Rose

How about this one:

The only way the universe as a whole can rise to a higher level of consciousness is by self-aware creatures (humans) carrying out self-determined actions, thus we are in a sense the 'Hands of God' working together to carryout the will of the whole collective universe of which we are a integral part.
Rose

John

[jce]

Hey there John,

For example, I see "God" as "all that is.
All the best,

Richard

Colossians 1:16-18 (KJV)

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Richard, you are really close on this. A sure sign of progress.

John

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Rose
Hi John,

My question to you would be which "God" do you choose as creator? There are many to choose from and each is very different...

Rose

How about this one:

Originally Posted by Rose
The only way the universe as a whole can rise to a higher level of consciousness is by self-aware creatures (humans) carrying out self-determined actions, thus we are in a sense the 'Hands of God' working together to carryout the will of the whole collective universe of which we are a integral part.
Rose

Yes, indeed!

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Rose