Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Retro Rob]

Let's get 2 or 3 people together and ask for Anything in Jesus name and see what happens.

Go for it!

 

[sandorski]

So basically, logic and reason can't do away with the "myth" of God, then, yet, this is the basis of atheists arguements. 🙄

What can make people drop this myth, in your opinion?

There is no reason to not think gods are a Myth.

 

[sandorski]

Go for it!

I can assure you it has already happened billions of times, with no result as predicted by the Bible.

 

[bshole]

Go for it!

Ok, Jesus, I ask that people quit killing other people in your name.

 

[Retro Rob]

There is no reason to not think gods are a Myth.

Can you answer the question, please?

 

[sandorski]

Can you answer the question, please?

I am not sure, but if this god were not a Myth, it would know what would convince me. Hell, if it were not a Myth, it could simply make me Believe.

 

[buckshot24]

Maybe. What if these "defects" are Serial Killers and the 1000 "Normals" are their victims?

No, the 100 are completely innocent.

Regardless, whether I feel Guilt or not does not prove Objective Morality.

What's this business with "prove". I didn't say it "proved" anything. It's a piece of evidence.

All it would show is that I had an internal conflict with the situation and choice.

Yes an internal conflict between doing something you know is wrong and not doing it. You were compelled to do what you know is wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

If Everything has to come into existence, then God, if it is Something, is under the same situation.

Re-read premise 1.

But even if God needs to have a cause the universe STILL needs a cause if you accept both premise 1 and 2. Saying who created God doesn't answer the question about the universe. This is one reason it's a sophomoric response.

 

[buckshot24]

You're making an unfounded assumption that time is an independent variable, and that "before" and "after" have meaning in all contexts. In fact, it's widely believed by cosmologists that time is itself a characteristic of the universe, not something outside of the universe. To put this another way, you're imposing 3-dimensional thinking on a 4- (or more) dimensional universe.

I'm not assuming time is independent.

 

[buckshot24]

What do you mean by "come into existence" and "outside cause"?

Seems pretty obvious. Why don't you give it a shot and tell me what you think they mean and I'll help you along.

What other than the universe came into existence with an outside cause?

You. You didn't cause yourself to exist an outside cause did, namely your parents.

Seems to be that that your argument is meaningless and made up since you have nothing to support your first assertion.

All you would need to do is provide an argument as to why it is wrong then.

The argument may be logically consistent, but that is meaningless and is not supported by reality.

Which premise are you contesting then?

 

[sandorski]

No, the 100 are completely innocent.
What's this business with "prove". I didn't say it "proved" anything. It's a piece of evidence.
Yes an internal conflict between doing something you know is wrong and not doing it. You were compelled to do what you know is wrong.

1) Well see, that's a problem with the scenario. It is all too vague.
2) Ok, sorry. Poor choice of word.
3) I disagree that it is evidence of Objective Morality though. If one is put in a situation where being wrong is the result either way, that sucks. Decisions are rarely Black/White or Right/Wrong, they are degrees of them.

A better scenario than the one you offered is the Lifeboat scenario. You have 15 survivors from a shipwreck, but only a capacity for 12 people in a lifeboat. Due to water temperature, time until rescue possible, and other factors, the 3 people not allowed into the Lifeboat will drown. I won't bother drawing up individual descriptions, but just a general one. All 15 people are healthy, nice, energetic, and law abiding.

Regardless of the choices made, all the survivors are going to have regrets in that situation. That in no way points to the existence of Objective Morality, it just shows that people are not emotionless automatons. Objective Morality is just too specific a thing to simply attribute common response to it.

 

[sandorski]

Re-read premise 1.

But even if God needs to have a cause the universe STILL needs a cause if you accept both premise 1 and 2. Saying who created God doesn't answer the question about the universe. This is one reason it's a sophomoric response.

It is given as a response because those putting that argument forth are attempting to make the Universe subject to one set of rules and their god not subject to it. So, you are correct, it doesn't answer the question about the universe itself. That's not the point of making the statement though. It shows the absurdity of the argument.

What Caused the Universe? We don't Know. That's the only true answer to the question. Perhaps in time we will Know, but anyone claiming to Know at this time is making an assumption. Many postulations have been made, but our ability to test those is inadequate at this time.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

All you would need to do is provide an argument as to why it is wrong then.

No, that isn't how it works.

Which premise are you contesting then?

I don't accept either of them.

 

[buckshot24]

Well evidence exists that shows that time is itself a function of the universe itself. Time can be affected by gravity and speed. And prior to the existence of the universe as we know it, time wasn't really a thing. It's honestly nearly impossible to explain because it's so damn complicated and in depth that I don't know enough to explain it. But saying "God did it" is a giant cop out when instead we can investigate and actually explain the whys and hows.

Would it be a cop out if it was true?

The uncaused cause as you put it is the universe itself. It's illogical to believe a god could exist before the universe and had to create it but not accept that the universe could have always been or that the predate of the universe was itself simply a more complex non divine thing.

Since time started at the creation of the universe time is something that a creator wouldn't be bound or limited by.

 

[buckshot24]

No, that isn't how it works.

I don't accept either of them.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Paul98]

Seems pretty obvious. Why don't you give it a shot and tell me what you think they mean and I'll help you along.
You. You didn't cause yourself to exist an outside cause did, namely your parents.
All you would need to do is provide an argument as to why it is wrong then.
Which premise are you contesting then?

When I think "outside" and "come into existence" I don't think of simple cause and effect along with the arrow of time. I came into existence not from something "outside" but through physics/chemistry. Before what I am today I was part of the universe just in another form. I was not created by some sentient creator. Making the jump from cause and effect to some sentient creator that has always existed and is outside of spacetime has nothing to do with reality.

How about quantum fluctuations, quantum entanglement, much of the quantum world?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So basically, logic and reason can't do away with the "myth" of God, then, yet, this is the basis of atheists arguements. 🙄

This is how we know you don't have the first idea about atheists.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Thanks for playing.

Thanks for conceding.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Would it be a cop out if it was true?

Yes, because it doesn't explain anything.

Since time started at the creation of the universe time is something that a creator wouldn't be bound or limited by.

The universe isn't "bound" by time, either.

 

[buckshot24]

1) Well see, that's a problem with the scenario. It is all too vague.

Agreed.

2) Ok, sorry. Poor choice of word.

Thank you.

3) I disagree that it is evidence of Objective Morality though. If one is put in a situation where being wrong is the result either way, that sucks. Decisions are rarely Black/White or Right/Wrong, they are degrees of them.

A better scenario than the one you offered is the Lifeboat scenario. You have 15 survivors from a shipwreck, but only a capacity for 12 people in a lifeboat. Due to water temperature, time until rescue possible, and other factors, the 3 people not allowed into the Lifeboat will drown. I won't bother drawing up individual descriptions, but just a general one. All 15 people are healthy, nice, energetic, and law abiding.

Regardless of the choices made, all the survivors are going to have regrets in that situation. That in no way points to the existence of Objective Morality, it just shows that people are not emotionless automatons. Objective Morality is just too specific a thing to simply attribute common response to it.

I think you're talking about two different types of guilt. If I found a stray cat who was near death and tried to nurse it back to health and it died I'd feel regret and maybe even some guilt but not for something I did do but for something I didn't do. In reality I couldn't have done anything more to save the cat or to rescue the 3 people who drowned. If I went out and broke the neck of a perfectly healthy cat then I'd feel active guilt for something I did that I knew was wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

Thanks for conceding.

Not conceding just noting that you've got nothing to offer.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, because it doesn't explain anything.

So even if something was actually true you wouldn't like the conclusion because it doesn't explain anything? lol

The universe isn't "bound" by time, either.

Time is a property of the universe.

 

[buckshot24]

When I think "outside" and "come into existence" I don't think of simple cause and effect along with the arrow of time. I came into existence not from something "outside" but through physics/chemistry.

The point is you didn't cause yourself. Outside agents did. Clear?

Before what I am today I was part of the universe just in another form.

The matter that is currently you existed. But I don't think your just a pile of hydrocarbons.

I was not created by some sentient creator. Making the jump from cause and effect to some sentient creator that has always existed and is outside of spacetime has nothing to do with reality.

Where is a sentient creator in either of my premises?

How about quantum fluctuations, quantum entanglement, much of the quantum world?

This works at the quantum level as well.

 

[sandorski]

Agreed.
Thank you.

I think you're talking about two different types of guilt. If I found a stray cat who was near death and tried to nurse it back to health and it died I'd feel regret and maybe even some guilt but not for something I did do but for something I didn't do. In reality I couldn't have done anything more to save the cat or to rescue the 3 people who drowned. If I went out and broke the neck of a perfectly healthy cat then I'd feel active guilt for something I did that I knew was wrong.

These are just a matter of degree of wrongness. By not letting 3 people into the boat, the end result is the same as strangling them. The difference is in not actually doing it by your own hands.

That said, if one goes out, finds a healthy cat, then simply strangles it, they are most likely psychopathic. That's a whole other issue, one in which Guilt likely has no bearing on what they feel.

 

[buckshot24]

It is given as a response because those putting that argument forth are attempting to make the Universe subject to one set of rules and their god not subject to it. So, you are correct, it doesn't answer the question about the universe itself. That's not the point of making the statement though. It shows the absurdity of the argument.

So its a cop out?

But what's the difference with those who want to say something like a Multi-Verse is eternal? Something has to be eternal and from all observation it ain't the universe. If the universe isn't eternal then something else has to be.

If you want to talk about a created God then go talk to the Mormons but the Christian God is eternal.

But notice that my argument was that the universe had a cause not that it was God.