That begs the question that God does not exist, and has not revealed his moral law to us.

That is a common misconception. God did not ‘decide’ what the moral standards would be, the moral standards are a reflection of His very character. For example, stealing is not ‘wrong’ because it is bad to steal, (which it is), stealing is wrong because God is not a thief, and we were created in His image, and are to represent tht image in our lives.

Problem is, with such a presupposition (the non-existence of God), one could not make sense of ethics or science (which is wholly dependent on the uniformity of nature, which cannot be accounted for outside of God).

There are cooks on both sides of the argument, but it is my position that our ability to pursue ‘objective knowledge’ is a gift from God, and that in fact, one cannot know ANYTHING to be objectively true without invoking God. (Try it, I’ll show you

Impossible? No. Heck, I'd like for there to be a benevolent god out there, but like I said, there's no proof. There isn't even a shred of evidence. And even if there were, what would we know about this proposed god? Nothing. We can't rely on any religious doctrine since it is all so damn different and there is no way to validate which is correct. We can't even rely on Pascal's Wager as justification for belief since it runs under the unfounded assumption that a god would prefer believers over non-believers.

Ultimately, what I see in this world are thousands of religions- some popular, some not- and all of them claim to be "The" religion. They all have equally zero evidence to support them. The only world view that stands out amongst the crowd is non-belief. It doesn't require evidence. It promotes intellectual curiosity. It does make a claim regarding "absolute morals" so if we progress in ethics we aren't held back by ancient brutalities written in scripture. Everything comes down to rationality. No war has ever been fought between two parties each guided by rational thought.

That is a far cry from molestation, and again, one must interpret Biblical laws in light of how they are to be treated. The Israelites were to be maintained as a culture until the birth of Christ, and some laws imposed on them were specifically intended for the survival of that culture.

What you fail to realise though is that slavery in Biblical times (as I understand 75% of Romans were ‘slaves’), is not at all like the slavery thay you understand, and neither does the Bible condone slavery as the best situation, in fact it is often used as a teaching metaphor of our bondage to sin, and subsequent freedom in Christ.

Or a third choice that certain laws were meant in Biblical times for a specific culture to ensure their survival. The interesting thing in all this though, is that I can show you from the Bible where it is unethical to oppress others, however, you, who bring up all these objections, cannot give me any justification for calling ANYTHING absolutely unethical.

Where have I said this? It is not my claim that non-Christians must be associated with child molestation (in fact I know some non-Christians who behave better than some professed Christians), just that they have no justification for calling child molestation absolutely wrong.

That’s right.

Not at all, I just want people who deny the authority of God, to see what that denial leads to, the inability to justify the absolute wrongness of such a heinous thing as child molestation.

What do you mean? God, and His Word, is my ultimate authority.

Well, lets start with your account for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws then.

Burden of proof, dummy. I'm allowed to assume that your claim is wrong until you prove otherwise, which you haven't done.


I already went over that possibility. I see you ignored it.



"Ethics or science... is wholly dependent on the uniformity of nature, which cannot be accounted for ourside God" --You

This is I and many others are in disagreement about with you. You make this a part of your premise, but it's bullshit.

Again, you have the burden to prove that this is the case. I already noted that the website did not bother to ask the visitor whether or not we accept this premise even though it is the key premise in your argument.

Sometimes I just don't understand why people like yourself are so intentionally ignorant of your own misguided logic and unethical behavior in a discussion like this. You can't expect us to just sit back passively as you try to sneak such a ridiculously baseless assertion past the discussion. The fact that the site does not include a "I don't believe absolute morality/math/logic are dependent on the existence of a god" button is very telling. You must know that many people will agree with it, but you really really did not want to include a "Your lack of belief in God is entirely rational" page to your site.


There are cooks on both sides of the argument, but it is my position that our ability to pursue ‘objective knowledge’ is a gift from God, and that in fact, one cannot know ANYTHING to be objectively true without invoking God. (Try it, I’ll show you [/quote]

There is evidence.
The thing is, the majority of scientists/philosophers approach everything assuming that there is no God.
The Theory of evolution is a way of explaining the origin of life/the planets without God. Darwin himself stated that he did not know how life started, but dealt only with its development. The theory has been worked to avoid any inclusion of anything supernatural. Most people approach everything with the presuppositon that there is no God, and any research or thing that points to God can't be true. They are "open" to a greater diety, but absolutely know it can't be true. Canuck's signature is a pretty good example of why this. No one really wants to be held accountable.



That depends on your definition of rational, but wouldn't saying "I want that land, because it would make me wealthier" be fairly rational thought?

Even if I couldn't account for these laws (which is not to say it can't be done), it does not give you the right-of-way to squeeze god in as an answer. That's commonly known as the "God-of-the-Gaps" fallacy.

So no.

Problem is, survival at all costs is an inherently selfish behaviour, whereas altruism, and empathy are inherently unselfish, or ‘selfless.’ Surely you see the problem with positting the evolution of 'selfish selflessness' as they are mutually exclusive. If survival at all costs is the most beneficial for the species, then killing the weak to eat them, could not be considered unethical.

Your very ability to reason, and prove things, are proof of God, as you cannot account for those things outside of God. And I discussed faith previously on this thread. PotHed, how do you know that your ability to reason is reliable? On what basis do you assume that the laws of logic are valid? If you can account for those without using your blind faith, the floor is yours.

Problem is ‘survival of the fittest’ is question begging. All you could hope to posit is ‘survival of the survivors,’ nothing in any natural selection model can show that it is actually the fittest that survived.

Unless, of course, you needed it for food to survive, then no problem right?

A huge omission is that you have yet to prove that ‘survival of the species’ is the proper goal. Why would any member of any species have to adapt that goal? Why not survival of the individual at all costs? Is survival the most important goal, or justice, altruism, aesthetics? How does natural selection give you that answer?

Unless, of course they were eating the rest of the population to stay fit.

Natural selection would give us ‘what is,’ not ‘what ought to be.’ If we are all just bags of advance primordial slime, ‘what ought to be’ does not even enter the picture.
Just answer this, why ought the species survive, and which species ought to survive?

You're about 40 years behind in Evolutionary Biology.

You have a very simplistic and ignorant view of evolution.

Just for starters, evolution is about reproduction, not survival.


Yeah, you discussed it alright. But you still have yet to show why God is necessary. All you have done is ask us for a better answer. That's not an argument, Canuck. That's a fallacy.


Any answer to your inquiry is irrelevant. You're the one who claims proof of God. So prove it.

We're all waiting.

Alright, is it your claim that the laws of logic can exist without God?


Is it your claim that that ethics, and the uniformity of nature can be accounted for without God?

Well, if my logic is ‘misguided’ then you obviously ascribe to ‘guided’ or ‘proper’ logic. I am still waiting for you to tell us how you account for the universal, abstract invariant laws of logic according to your worldview. (Note that I originally asked this 2, and a half years ago – still no response).

Again, in order to call any argumentation fallacious (which you constantly do), you are invoking absolute laws of logic. If you can’t account for them, you have zero justification for calling ANY argument fallacious (exposing the inconsistency of your worldview). (Not to mention that you are question begging by assuming that God is not the correct answer).

canuck
It's hard to catch up to what I missed in this thread but let me just say you've exposed a huge lack of knowledge in evolutionary theory.
Pretty much every assumption you've made is incorrect.

No there's not.

Oh come on. Be fair. We tried it your way for thousands of years. A few hundred years after we threw god out of the equation we landed on the moon.

You are scientifically illiterate.


And? Two different things. Evolution is not the same as Abiogenesis.

Again, you are scientifically illiterate.


Yeah. Duh. Where would we be today if we just used "Goddidit"? That sort of hypothesis is a dead-end. There is no reason to continue research if you think god did everything.

The other reason nothing supernatural has been recorded as an explanation is that nothing supernatural has been found. And believe me, the day it is you'll hear about it. That's money in the bank.


I'd agree with you. Most people, most of the time don't even consider god to be an explanation. But call you theists an ape or break the news that you're going to die one day and it's god to the rescue.


Accountable for what? Are you calling me a child molester or are you implying that we're all "sinners" according to the Bible? Because I don't molest children, but yes I do work on the Sabbath. So sue me.



That depends on your definition of rational, but wouldn't saying "I want that land, because it would make me wealthier" be fairly rational thought?[/quote]
Yes, that would be a fairly rational thought.

"It's worth the money for guns and supplies, and worth the lives of the men, women and children that will surely die in and out of battle" is not rational for a lot of reasons.