Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
If there is an objective morality, then it is written into reality just as scientific law is and is thus based on a higher power. This higher power could be the Holy Trinity, the Jewish God, Allah, some other God, or hell even chance could constitute a higher power if you believe the universe exists "just because", though chance by its very definition is arbitrary and follows a "what happens happens" type deal so if the higher power behind the universe is chance then it doesn't give enough of a **** for there to be an objective morality.
So either there is a sentient consciousness behind our reality and therefore an objective morality defined by the creator of our reality, or we exist arbitrarily because of the higher power of chance in which case our existences are arbitrary and there is no objective morality.
Are you familiar with John Locke's Second Treatise of Government?
Basically, law and government exist to provide security for the people consenting to law and government, so basically it's based upon "we'll protect each other and not hurt each other so we don't get ****ed" which can just as easily be motivated by selfish self-preservation as by an objective morality, and commonness in law can also be attributed to what works best for the people creating the laws.
It's like a business contract, there may be various similarities in business contracts and deals, but that's not necessarily because of an implicit morality in business, its because two people agreed on a mutually beneficial outcome.
I'm pretty sure that's not his argument. I'm pretty sure all he's saying is "If God doesn't exist there is no objective morality," not "I can point to an objective morality so therefore God exists," the two are not the same thing.
If he at some point made a statement or implication that morality exists so therefore God does, then feel free to prove me wrong, but he could very likely have a different reason for believing in God and the argument that "if God doesn't exist morality is an illusion" could be completely independent of that reason, so unless there's something actually pointing to that it seems a bit unfair of you to assume he's making that argument.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
I'd mostly be just extremely confused. Without getting too deep into the whole discussion, I'd be absolutely mind-blown on how there is so much order and complexity in the universe without some sort of intelligent designer. Like, the odds of it all happening by chance and everything being random are so astronomically and hilariously low it's almost inconceivable, and as such, I would be in a profound and prolonged state of complete and utter confusion.
My thing is that we see life comes from life: the law of Biogenesis. We don't observe abiogenesis. The universe had a start point (see the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics), and a supernatural Creator/Lifegiver that can act outside the laws of matter, space, and time (like the two above-mentioned) lines up with the evidence that is readily observable.
The universe had a start, yet energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed (1st Law of Thermodynamics). The universe is a closed system, and entropy always increases in a closed system over time (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Thus something (or Someone, in this case, God) supernatural had to start the universe.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
prop·a·gan·da
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
I have seen a lot of Christians try to say that the Laws of Thermodynamics to prove that a god made the universe. When I've looked at their web sites they post as support, in every case, it was a distortion of the laws. So, it is propaganda.
That actually supports the case for there being a Creator:
- You start with a plot of land.
- You have the materials to build the house.
- But, there has to be someone act upon those materials to build the house. The house cannot build itself.
I'm talking about the origins of the universe, not the continual processes of life and nature. You asked how you could build a house, I replied with a house needs a builder, materials cannot come from nothing nor put themselves together. Parallel that to creation of the universe from a Creator. God is the house builder.
I think we got mixed up there: the laws of thermodynamics argument and God being beyond them and things like the Watchmaker analogy is for the origins of the universe, not processes that occur naturally.
How does crystallization disprove God creating the universe/the Watchmaker analogy?
EDIT: I mean the above as an honest question, not trying to win the argument. I'll admit I don't know anything about crystallization, but the elements for it to take place are there in nature. I'm talking about where the elements came from in the first place, thus creation by God.
Last edited by John Murdoch on Dec 11th, 2016 at 12:41 AM
Dr. Patrick R. Briney is the author of this pamphlet, man. It's one of my sources, no need to hide that. The primary one that led me down looking more into scientific laws and discoveries going hand-in-hand with The Bible. Take a look through it and tell me what you think.
I'll finish the thread within a thread by stating that anyone can have bias. For example, Dr. Richard "Dick" Lewontin, Harvard University geneticist, biologist, and social commentator:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen."
EDIT: Added bolding to the quote by Dr. Lewontin above. The rest of my original post continues below.
You are correct though, I'm not on topic. As I stated earlier, I'd be as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:16-22 - "most miserable" if Christ did not rise from the dead. The passage is in context talking about the resurrection of Christ from the dead, so I'd take the original question one step further and say that if Christianity turned out to be false, then my worldview would be that of 1 Corinthians 15:32 - "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die."
Also, just want to say glad we can have a thread in the General Discussion Forum that has at the least points being made back-and-forth and doesn't get too far into name calling and such. Some of the more, shall we say, politically-geared threads go that route sometimes.