Circular morality

G.E. said:

Pain, suffering, survival. Are these concepts so hard to grasp? Those are the keys to our "morality." They are as universal as can be. A species that did not take those into account would go extinct. It goes to reason that our morals were key in our survival, in our ability to cooperate and strive. Those species who could not have the minimum "morals" perished. It is all too obvious.

-Is a tough marriage wrong then?...because it hurts? Are you saying they should split up because it would suit them better to survive?...
Or should they pull through and keep their vows to one another...for better or for worse, because it is right to do what is right?

-So Hitler was right to fight for his fittest empire?

Morality according to your view is whatever suits us best, it seems. Isn't this relativism?
Morality is relative...that is, relative to God, I don't deny that. But without God then morals are relative to the individual here on earth, with no penalty whatsoever (except governments elected by man and changeable).
What if everyone eventually decided that killing off the weak in the human race was the right moral standard for everyone? Would that make it "right"?

I would say no, because morality is a standard put in place by God for every period of time.

DB

P.S. PLZ don't take offense at my examples; Open, blunt, honesty is generally what I like (with tactfulness :)). If what you are saying were true then these are the questions I raise.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

I just saw this film recently

Have any of you guys seen it?
I thought it was one of the most powerful point making movies I have ever seen! It really reveals the reality of the Holocaust, not just the Holocaust, but all the people involved around it. It shows the relations between the supporters of Nazi Germany and the opposes...in Germany, also the ignorance of some was revealed.

May God bring justice...and yet, may He also bring mercy on the repentant.

Dan

Does God Exist?

Here is video where someone is claiming that God is evil because He made everything, including evil. To see a "supposed" reply from Albert Einstein, watch the following.
A must see.

Evidence, Revelations

EPM said:

I guess I'll tell you what evidence would convince me of a +God universe (your God, specifically)....
Other evidence would include personal revelation from God....
The Rapture. If the Rapture happened then I would instantly convert. No question.
Finally, if a YEC were able to accurately describe the theory of evolution - with a decent cross-section of the evidence that supports it - and then were to refute it using sound reasoning and scientific evidence; then I'd convert too.

Not because the ToE had been disproved, that makes no difference. Merely because a YEC was able to display a level of honesty and intellectual rigour with regards to evolution that, so far, has been so lacking that it would be miraculous at this point to actually see it. ;)

Firstly, I doubt from talking to you in the past whether you would take an angel as evidence...you would merely think you were dreaming? Yes?
Rapture...is too late as far as I know. Might as well say "When God sends me to hell, then I will believe."
Finally, you should not base your beliefs about God on your concept of dishonest people. True? Just because people can lie while in politics, does this mean that politics do not exist?
Remember, YEC people are not the only "fundamentalist" Christian believers. To me fundamentalist means sticking to the truth of the whole Bible.

I will aim to get my "would be" old earth view on soon for you as you have expressed interest in the past.

I presented things that could conceivably occur and would convince me that the way I currently view the world is wrong. You have failed to provide such instances.

Can you show me how it is probable that earth fell into just the right distance from the sun to form delicate life? Also can you show me how apparent order in our universe that seems to be like building blocks of laws working together... that seem to fit together so well, without design?

Also, show me how when at times I have prayed in faith and miracles have happened or unlikely situations occur along with my prayer, how did it happen by accident?

These refutations might convince me of no God. I would need to weigh the evidence. Just as you weigh the evidence...but we come to different conclusions. I am unconvinced of a universe without God. You are unconvinced of a universe with God.

BeamStalk said:

Eye witness testimony means nothing without corroborating evidence. There are men being freed in Texas that were accused of rape by eye witness testimony, including victim testimony. Why are they being freed? DNA evidence proves they didn't do it. Now were the eye witnesses lying? Probably not, I would guess that most were mistaken or did not see everything as clearly as they thought and the mind filled in the blanks.

Yes I know people get things wrong but we are talking about EVIDENCE, NOT PROOF. How do court cases generally make their decisions? by looking at the evidence they have, taking the best conclusion. We all live like this.
From DNA, they inference the best conclusion. DNA is not proof from my understanding. 2+2=4 is proof, it is a truism , but in reality we all take conclusions on assumptions to some degree.

What did you have for tea/dinner/supper? (whatever Americans call it :))
We know that food can be poisoned without us knowing it. Do you scientifically test it to see if it is poisoned each time or do you take the best conclusion?
Do you test the air each time you breath it in?

BeamStalk said:
Here is an example:
A person walks up to you and says, "I have a baseball."
You respond, "Do you have any evidence for this?"
"Here it is in my hand."

A different person walks up to you and says, "I have a baseball."
"Do you have any evidence for this?"
"YOU CAN'T PROVE I DON'T HAVE A BASEBALL!"

I'll re-write it to demonstrate how I see it:
A person walks up to you and says, "I have affectionate love for someone."
You respond, "Do you have any evidence for this?"

"Yes, the affects of it"

A different person walks up to you and says, "I have affectionate love for someone."
"Do you have any evidence for this?"
"Yes, but YOU CAN'T PROVE I DON'T HAVE AFFECTIONATE LOVE FOR SOMEONE!"

The person with affectionate love cannot show scientifically as a "baseball" that it is real...but they can have evidence of this affectionate love that leads to the conclusion of a real affectionate love.
God is not stick and stone, He is God. We can see evidence of His affects (like love) on creation around us. I cannot see wind, but I can see it's affects.

P.S. Who is Dani'EL?

Baby as a preacher?

I am sure this little one could out do many preachers concerning energy and enthusiasm spent while preaching! Sure does have a fire and a passion...bring on the next Charles Spurgeon! LOL

Rowan Atkinson

A bit of lightheartedness.

A funny guy doing a funny gig from his earlier days. Do check it out, I thought this was absolutely awesome!

Rowan Atkinson and the invisible drum kit.

Dan

Playing with negatives and positives

I am a non-believer in atheism.
I am a non-believer in the non-existence of God.
I am unconvinced of the existence of a universe without God.
I don't have enough faith to believe in the non-existence of God.
I cannot see the existence of a universe without God so I would need to have faith in order to believe it.

Actually I cannot see God as well, which then means I need faith to believe in Him also. Which one is more probable? The evidence needs to be weighed and considered regarding the existence of a Godless universe, whereas evidence needs to be weighed also for the non-existence of a Godless universe.

I need to make the best conclusion regarding this matter. But could the invisible pink unicorn be a real option as to being part of our reality? Maybe it is, maybe because I cannot see it or test it, but then I must find out the evidence pointing toward it pointing out whether it is probable or not. But it is merely a parody which is not good evidence for it at all...so I logically conclude that it is not real but there is a chance that it could be real. I am willing to act by faith that the invisible pink unicorn is not real.

However I am not willing to act by faith that God is not real. He is no parody. A book written over thousands of year and followed by millions of people seems better evidence for Him. My life has been changed by Him, he has guided me and shown me the way in which I should walk.

Another thought**** if I do not follow what He says then I am actively following against His will, and against His existence. I would not be neutral, just as when I follow after God and ignore atheistic thinking, I am not neutral. I have chosen that atheism is the least likely answer by following God.

It would take me more faith to believe He does not exist. Such an amazing awareness He has placed in me that I should be able to have knowledge and understanding of Him to some degree. How can a universe without meaning form to allow itself to understand meaning and find out that the universe has no meaning.
I remember Lewis saying that it is like "darkness". If there were no light in the universe then there would be no creatures with eyes. Would the creatures have concept of "dark" without the concept of light... would the creatures developed in our universe have concept of meaning and no meaning when the universe is without meaning?
Does a fish feel wet?

Little thoughts like this cause me to think that the best conclusion about our universe is that there is a God. But which God?...and we then move into another topic.

I simply dis-believe in the positive active belief in a universe without the existence of God.
We all have faith and for someone to suggest that they do not have faith in something is dishonest. Theists admit it...why can't atheists?

To witness an ignorant atheist suggest that he doesn't "believe" atheism and yet is an atheist, watch the following http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

Essay - Belief and the Existence of God

Belief and the Existence of God

Atheism and theism is the central idea regarding our reality, our lives, our being. This essay will aim to draw out the two different ideas regarding the existence of God and how it affects our lives. It will also seek to demonstrate Christian theism as the most rational explanation for our universe. The fundamental question for every person is the question “Is there a God?” We cannot sit on the fence in regard to this universal issue; the relations between belief or disbelief and the existence of God affect the very way we live and the way we perceive life.

A central focus will be made on The Dawkins Lennox debate held in 2007; it will be a heavy reference throughout this essay. Dawkins holds an atheist view point and John Lennox brings a Christian theist’s view point; both are very well qualified men and worth the time to acknowledge on this topic. Their qualifications and short bios are as follows:

“Richard Dawkins FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. He is the author of nine books: The selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind watchmaker, river out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, The Ancestor’s Tale and The God Delusion. He is Fellow of both Royal society and the Royal Society of Literature.
John Lennox is Reader in Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green College, University of Oxford. He holds doctorates from Oxford (D.Phil.), Cambridge (Ph.D.), and the University of Wales (D.Sc.) and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. Professor Lennox has weighed in on the science-religion debate with a new book, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?” (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007).

Atheism is the belief in the non-existence of God. (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2006). There are a number of atheists that vary in their beliefs but there are examples from well known atheists that suggest the primary reasons for their disbelief in God. In the debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, it is revealed some of the reasons why a leading atheist Richard Dawkins rejects the idea of God (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). He states that the revelation of the theory of evolution showed him that the idea of a Supernatural Designer is not needed to produce complex creatures. He also states that if God existed then He would need to come from somewhere. These questions raise a number of issues such as “Does evolution take away the necessity of a Grand Designer?” or “Because we cannot scientifically test God does this mean that God is not real?” For the atheist, reasons such as these cause them to disbelieve in God.

Theism is the belief in God. (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2006) There are also a number of reasons for theists to believe in God. One reason is that there is design in the universe that is un-explained. John Lennox states that the universe is mathematically fine-tuned for the way we have it (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007), such as the ability to support life. Hugh Ross gives evidence that if it were slightly changed neither we nor life would be here (cited in Deem, 2006). Theists see that where there is apparent design it should be assumed there is a designer. Theists deduct that it takes more faith to believe our fine-tuned universe happened by accident, than to believe it was designed (David Pawson Ministries, 2005).

Morality has been a controversial issue and is thought and considered by every person to some degree. Different fundamental beliefs regarding morality have its consequences, for Christian theism morality is defined by God in the Bible. According to Dawkins, atheism has no absolutes regarding morality except for what our supposed evolutionary development has produced. Richard Dawkins who is a biologist describes morality as “dancing to our DNA” (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). However if this is the case then there is no real or absolute way to define what is morally right or wrong in a universal sense. This kind of thinking is known as relativism; R.C. Sproul Jr. states that with morals being relative it destroys the ability for someone to define a situation as “wrong” or “right”(2007, p.101). Therefore atheistic relativism has the consequence of ultimately no universal “rights”; this line of thinking by obvious reasoning can be destructive. Dawkins argues that our ideas of morals have come from evolutionary causes and development (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). But this line of thinking still leaves a lingering thought: could someone really say that Hitler was “wrong” and be “right”? C.S. Lewis argues that the reason why people thought Hitler was “wrong” is that there was a line that every person looked to in order to judge him by; Lewis illustrates “Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality- for them to be true about.”(1952, p.13). Therefore universal morality is evidence of a standard not made by human means, but by God.

A significant issue is raised in regards to belief and consequence with the ability to justify his/her reasoning. An argument known as the “argument from reason” can be found in a book “Miracles” which brings to light this problem (Lewis, 1947). What it is saying is that if we were not designed to think then we cannot trust our thinking to be able to reach ultimate truth about our universe. In the chapter “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism” C.S. Lewis draws out the point that mankind are different from animals in that we see truths through inferences. For example, when someone comes across a garden they inference “There must be a gardener” (The Dawkins Lennox debate 2007); whereas animals are less concerned with abstract meaning and if they come across a garden they may not be as aware that it has a gardener. Throughout history, man has been looking for answers using abstract thought as to why he is here. Evidence of this can be found in the Bible which is one of the oldest books to be written (Nelson, 1994). To conclude the consequences of reason Lewis illustrates:

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God” (cited in Argument from Reason, 2009).

Unfortunately for the atheist the problem of purporting rationality from irrationality enters into the realm of science. If science requires the variables being tested to be consistent – if there is no Designer who designed them to be consistent – then how can we be sure that they will continue to be consistent? John Lennox makes a point that the early scientists understood that the laws are orderly because they understood that they had a law-Giver (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). A theist scientist knows that because they are orderly they can actually practice science; this is what science is and demands: “systematic study and knowledge of natural or physical phenomena” (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2006). If someone disbelieves in God it throws a challenging light onto their justification to practice reliable science, because if the laws were not designed, then they are potentially less able to be trusted.

It is by faith that theists believe in God and it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they do believe (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). Through discussing with atheists (Pilgrimage, 2009), the greatest struggle between atheism and Christian theism is the idea of belief and disbelief in God; the very meanings of those labels and “isms” bear witness to this fact. There are two types of atheists; one is a strong atheist who claims to know there is no God and the other is a weak atheist who does not know if there is a God. A weak atheist claims that by default they are without belief in God but they still admit there could be one, though some claim to be “agnostic” atheists and believe that it is impossible to know if there is a God. Atheism claims that theism is unscientific because God cannot be falsified and theism is accused of using the God of the gaps fallacy (God of the gaps, 2009, The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). Therefore atheists basically believe in what they can be sure of, mainly through scientific demonstration. An emphasis is made on a simple disbelief in God (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). There is no scientific proof of God, nor is there scientific proof of no-God. So we cannot pull down God and test Him in a test tube; proof is only spoken of in the field of mathematics (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). For theists finding truth and having faith is about taking the best conclusion with the evidence they have laid out before them, they take a belief in something beyond a reasonable doubt (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007).

Belief is “a principle or idea considered to be true; religious faith” (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2006). So a belief is what someone considers to be true; but belief is not merely speaking out what someone believes, but is more like speaking and then acting on what they believe. If someone was a Christian theist by statement and did not consistently do what Christian theists did, then they would not be a real actively living Christian theist. Consider now the weak or agnostic atheist and their stance on their disbelief in God. Notice the claim of “disbelief” (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007) rather than the claim of “I believe atheism”. It is an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the theist. The theist in reply to the atheist’s disbelief in God might as well reply “I just disbelieve in the non-existence of God” (Brian, 2009). Every person does not have a neutral belief; there is a need to act upon the best conclusion about the existence of God and live it out. Belief or disbelief in the existence of God is not a matter of “I don’t know”, but a matter of “taking the best conclusion”. Atheists not only disbelieve in God but by their actions they actively believe in no God by not acknowledging or following His ways. Without God there can be no absolute right and wrong outside of what individuals think; individuals live the way they like (The Dawkins Lennox debate, 2007). For example, a murderer who has a lifestyle of a murderer cannot say and be neutral (even if he is honest) “I don’t know if there is a state law by which we will be judged”. Belief in regard to the existence of God affects the way we live and we cannot escape it, just as the law of the land affects the way we live.

Every person has a “religion” or something they devote their lives to by choice. Sir Keith Sinclair (1961, cited in Ahdar, 2006, p.620), speaking of New Zealand in post-World War II, states “The prevailing religion is a simple materialism. The pursuit of wealth and possession fills more minds than thoughts of salvation”. Religion is not only a belief in God but a devotion to something people believe in. We need to understand what our chosen religious world view or devotion has led us to and where it is taking us. World views such as Atheism and Christianity need to be weighed and taken seriously.

Some evidence points to the conclusion of God and some evidence points to the conclusion of no God. However, one conclusion is better than the other when the evidence is weighed. The Bible makes the Christian theist’s position clear in Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” (Nelson, 1994). Beliefs have consequences, and people need to have understanding of what they believe and the consequences of what they believe. The Bible says that people are either for Him or against Him; there is no in-between (Nelson, 1994). People need to make the best decision with the evidence placed before them. It is imperative that people make a conscious decision about where they stand regarding belief and the existence God.


References:
Ahdar, R. (2006). Reflections on the Path of Religion-State Relations in New Zealand. Brigham Young University Law Review, 3, 619-659.

Argument from Reason. Retrieved August 21, 2009, from Http://en,wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Reason

Brian. (2009, July 9). How to be morally responsible sceptic mp3 audio by Dallas Willard. Message posted to the comments, archived at http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Collins, C., Cross, R., Gilmour, L., Holmes, A., Mackie, W., & Weber, P. (Eds.). (2006). Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus (3rd ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

David Pawson Ministries. (2005, January 12th) Natural disasters a biblical perspective (Television broadcast). Britain: Revelation TV.

Deem, R. (2006, June) Evidence for the fine tuning of the universe. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

God of the gaps. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Criticisms_of_the_view

Lewis, C. (1947). Miracles. London: HarperCollins Publishers.

Lewis, C. (1952). Mere Christianity (Rev.). London: HarperCollins Publishers.

Nelson, T. (1994) The holy bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Pilgrimage. (2009) Retrieved from http://www.vessel-of-clay.blogspot.com/

Sproul Jr., R. (2002) Tearing down strongholds. New Jersey, P&R Publishing Company.

Taunton, L. (Executive director). (2007, October).The Dawkins Lennox debate. Birmingham: Fixed Point Foundation.

by Daniel (Da Bomb)

Further thoughts about evolution

I was talking to a friend the other day and he brought up an interesting point on which I will expand.

If people lived in trees and there were no way of getting down except flying. Would people develop through evolutionary processes wings to fly down?...in other words accidental unguided information forming to produce wings?

Apparently it is claimed that dinosaurs turned into birds...I wonder why and how?
I just don't have the faith to believe that sought of thing.

Yes, I am sure there is evidence for evolution. There is evidence for ufo's...it does not mean that they are real.

Similarities of fossils does not mean they are derived from each other. It could mean they have a similar designer.

:)

I have a Nissan car and it is made by Nissan. There are many different varieties and ages of my car and I could show you a tree of the developments of there design. Did they accidentally evolve...or were they made?

Do you see the evolutionary assumption or fallacy?

Well, nearly finished my essay and I am back

A challenge from Stan the half truth teller,

"Rather than saying "I disagree," the onus is on you to explicitly show where and how this argument fails, if indeed you continue to deny it"

Stan challenged someone to point out his logical flaws about his conclusion about the christian God.
These are the premises that he concluded that God forces and desires people to go to hell or at least claims that God is contradictory.

"P1. The Christian god prefers not a populated hell.
P2. The Christian god knew that creating would result in a populated hell.
P3. The Christian god is the "first cause."
P4. The Christian god had in its power the ability to not-create.
P5. The Christian god chose to create in such a fashion as to ensure a populated hell."

I will point out his logical flaws.

P1. Half true...God would rather have a being (us) with the opportunity to choose Him or not to choose Him (loyalty), rather than having a predestined empty hell and a full heaven (robots living in paradise). God still wants an empty hell, but He leaves it up to us.
P2. As far as I know. True
P3.True
P4. We know that He did create.
P5. Half true... It is more like, God chose to create in such a fashion as to "allow" a populated hell, just as the police allow criminals to go to jail, even though the police keep telling them they don't have to go to jail.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. "
— C.S. Lewis

Stan, your half true premises show your ability to twist truth about the God of the Bible. Clever, but wrong.

P.S.
I am currently organising a wedding and maybe buying a house! Busy busy. I'll try to be on every second day or so.

cheers guys.

Dan