Thursday, April 26, 2007

intellectual dishonesty

Dani said "The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all."

So your belief in an eternal god has led you to believe the universe is eternal and god doesn't need to exist which suggests he is irrelevant.

Hey everyone- Dani is an atheist!

Dani said, " Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation..."

She is so excited about her new found atheism that she denies god a 2nd time.

Oh wait, now she has doubts...Dani said "...observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis since the universe supposedly began to exist only ~13.7 billion years ago."

No wait, we're back on track for atheism because the evidence Dani is quoting here is theBig Bang theory that says the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

So, let me get this straight, Dani has said
1- Eternal god -> eternal universe = There is no god
Atheism confirmed
2- Big Bang Theory -> There is no god
Atheism reconfirmed

Wow, I'd say Dani has made big strides in the last few days.

"The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific)."

I'm assuming you mean escape from the idea of a creator of the universe. What I can not fathom is why *you* have invented the idea of a super universe out of whole cloth. No one here has suggested it. You don't define it. And you say it can't be confirmed experimentally.

Now you know we pesky atheists want scientific proof for things, so accusing us of *inventing* a concept that can't be scientifically proven is cosmically ridiculous. Yet here you are forcing the idea of an invented super universe upon me/us and then denying its validity, like that proves your own point.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But do or do NOT the creationists use the idea of a super being to explain the first cause of the universe. A being which *cannot* be confirmed experimentally????

Dani said, The universe popping into existence on it's own or eternally existing violates the natural laws of physics. If we demand an explanation of who created God - that only pushes the problem back a generation, and then begs the question of who created that thing, and then so on until we get to a first cause.

How does a creator NOT violate the laws of physics??? Seriously, tell me which law of physics upholds "let there be light!"

You use the term for debating, "begs the question" yet that is exactly what first cause does. Read the Barker article. All of it. I challenge you to CLEARLY refute it.

Also, if the universe is the first and only cause, how do we determine absolute morality based only on matter and energy? The effect cannot be greater than the cause, so things like good and evil cannot exist in a limited morally relative material universe.

Dani what does morality have to do with the origins of the universe????

Why did you change the subject???

And on the subject of moral relativity- I am really insulted by this assumption. We talked about morality. We talked about how to live morally without the threat of eternal damnation held over you.

And you slip a 3rd argument in there- the "effect greater than the cause". ARGH!!!!!!!

Why are you clouding the issue???

Pick one stick with it, FINISH IT, then bring up something new. And morality isn't new, it's old. If you've got more thoughts go back to the morality post and begin our discussion anew.

Remember the link is READ ME


Refute it or admit to one and all for the THIRD TIME that there is NO GOD!!!!!!

22 comments:

Dani said...

Okay - I'm not going to play your childish games. I've wasted enough time on you already and I can see you are resorting to classic atheists tactics by appealing to ridicule. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. If you want to play dumb and be willfully ignorant of the TRUTH - go right ahead!

BigTex71 said...

Buh-Bye, Dani.

Look_an_Atheist, you are going to scare her away. Now she will deny that she ever said ANYTHING about refuting the existence of God.

Oh yeah, and she will keep throwing the word 'TRUTH' in there (ALWAYS in caps) because she thinks the Bible is the one and only TRUTH in the universe. And everything else (even scientifically PROVEN EVIDENCE) of things contrary to what the Bible claims is false.

She will never come to grips with the fact that it is just a storybook... a myth. I seriously doubt that she could deal with a world that had no God of the Bible. It's like when I found out the truth about Santa Claus... but multiply that by a hundred million. She could not deal with it.

So that 'begs the question': Should we leave Dani alone so she doesn't go completely insane when she finds out the REAL TRUTH?

:D

Sean the Blogonaut said...

Damn It! Just as it was getting interesting.

I love the leaps of logic that are used in the particular arguement that Dani uses.

I myself prefer the magic unicorn as the Creator of the universe. Which I could argue by the same circular reasoning.

Anywho!

Appealing to ridicule? - Dani, only because your arguement is ridiculous. Peace be with you (as well as a good bit of common sense)

look_an_atheist said...

Childish games???? I'm the one playing childish games??? WTF. What childish games. You mean me wanting real answers instead of rehashing the same tired old story? Me saying here what do you think of this and you IGNORING it?????

You mean me wanting you to not change the subject when the going got rough for you?

I'm playing dumb??? ME???? I spent a lot of time writing my posts. Looking at yours. HONESTLY THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU WROTE. Usually responding line by line. Not leaving out one single god damn MF word!!!!!!

You... ARGH!!!!!
You lying FUNDIE!!!!!

You "enjoyed" the debate right up until you had NO response to that Barker article.

Yeah, the frustration is showing. Subject changing, dodging the issues, "pretending" to refute the article by quoting the creatinoist stuff and saying "this I agree with" while wholly ignoring the case AGAINST it. Well excuse me for getting tired of mental masturbation.

I responded line by line to that HORSE SHIT form Pathlights.com did you do the same for my response to that? NO!!!!!

Dani you can take your TRUTH and shove it. You don't have TRUTH you have wishes. And if wishes were horses peasants would ride.

TTFN. Ya clueless fundy.

look_an_atheist said...

Sean- Thanks for visiting!!!!! I had no idea you were reading. WOW!!

Everyone- Agent Smith's evil Twin!!! BWAHAHAAHA.

Check out his blogfor the rest of that story!

You know what I like about the unicorn creator, prefers virgins alive and has healing powers!

Sean the Blogonaut said...

I have been reading off and on as tme allows and just as it was getting interesting Dani takes her bat and ball and goes home.

Becarful with fundies though, some can be a little mentally unbalanced(note Dani - not necessarily saying you are unbalanced) in my experience.

I have been wanting to write a piece on the Cosmological argument for my blog but time elludes me.

That and I tend to be forward focussed - Can we determine the origin of the universe? Not yet Maybe not ever, but I won't put limits on my fellow humans.

I am more concerned with what I am doing now and in the future.

look_an_atheist said...

Yeah, the conversation started off with the whole argument xians pose that "if there is evil, then there is a god". So we started there and it evolved slowly into morality and then evolution and finally into cosmology.

*sigh* I especially like the part where she says she was "wasting her time with me". I'm not sure what that says about her, but it isn't good.

Even now, pissed as I was/am, I don't consider it a waste of time, I was able to write about stuff that I had only talked about before. Plus- it got you and a whole bunch of others checkin' out my blog. YEAH!!!!!

Now I've got to think of something good to write about. :-)

Hmmmmmmm......

Sean the Blogonaut said...

On a blog linked on dani's site there is this comment questioning whether or not you would die for your belief's as an atheist. The topic is good the content of the post is well...you can judge for yourself.

http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheists-would-you-die-for-your-belief.html

I would like to blog about this when i have some time next week, but since you have time on your hands...

look_an_atheist said...

Sean- I'm on it.

:-D

Thanks for the suggestions! Looks like lots of possibilities in that piece of trash!

I would love to see your blog on the same subject though!!!

I've taken to composing my thoughts in notepad so I don't have to be "online" so much.

Stupid dial up connection with a limited number of minutes per month. Wasn't a problem before I started blogging.

Dani said...

At first I was enjoying myself too and didn't mind devoting time to these debates, but when you make moronic statements like, "Hey everyone- Dani is an atheist!" Along with crap like this, "She is so excited about her new found atheism that she denies god a 2nd time. - Only leads me to believe that you are unwilling to have a mature conversation, especially when you have to resort to ad hominen attacks and vulgar language - Then it becomes an utter waste of my time!

Sorry, but nothing can be accomplished with schizophrenic atheists who are unwilling to show the slightest bit of respect for opposing viewpoints, and then become hostile and defensive when you don't get your way.

Thanks for the time you allowed me to post my thoughts, I do appreciate it. Hopefully it gave you something to ponder over, but for now I must use my time more wisely and debate with people who actually want to learn something.

But hey – At least you have some traffic on your blog now, right?

look_an_atheist said...

Dani- did you or did you not write

The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all.

God doesn't need to exist at all.

Sounds atheistic to me. If that's not what you meant than say so! But that is what you wrote.

Actually respond to the words I write. Actually respond to the article that responds to your theory.

But what did you do with the article Dani? You took out 3 pieces that were an explanation of the creationist stand point, said you agreed with it and then went on to add more to that.

Well DUH you agree with those points. They ARE the creationist standpoint. What about ALL the other stuff???

You don't agree with it. I got it. But aside from not WANTING to agree with it. Please be so kind as to point out the logical falacies that it makes.

nothing can be accomplished with schizophrenic atheists who are unwilling to show the slightest bit of respect for opposing viewpoints, and then become hostile and defensive when you don't get your way.

No Dani, I became PISSED when you stopped discussing and started making gigantic assumptions- like super universe, moral relativity, when you started changing the subject with the "effect greater than the cause".

I got emotional, upset, because I was taking these discussions seriously. Actually making an effort. NOT just going through the motions. Were you? Did you learn anything? Did your views on anything evolve? Is your life different because of this? Well mine is.

Dani said...

Okay Atheist, I will take the time to continue with you, but only if you remain civil.

Yes I said, The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all.

I did NOT merely say - "God doesn't need to exist at all." Notice the key words, "leads us to the idea that maybe"

I was appealing to the atheist view with this statement and it is intellectually dishonest of you to make judgments about part of my comment, especially when it is completely out of context.

Since I went on to say, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis since the universe supposedly began to exist only ~13.7 billion years ago.

And then gave further explanation as to why the universe cannot be eternal.

You then asked, “How does a creator NOT violate the laws of physics???”

To which I have repeatedly said, God is a Supernatural Being who is not bound by the physical laws of the universe. That’s why He is God because He has the ulmighty power to simply speak things into existence, which is something way beyond our limited human understanding about science.

"Dani what does morality have to do with the origins of the universe?"

It has everything to do with it if you believe that an impersonal, amoral force brought everything into existence. Impersonal and amoral forces along with matter and energy do not and cannot explain why or how we are moral creatures. The fact that you do not believe in moral relativity is evidence of this understanding.

Concerning the article you said…

"What about ALL the other stuff???

You don't agree with it. I got it. But aside from not WANTING to agree with it. Please be so kind as to point out the logical falacies that it makes."


It’s not that I don’t want to agree with it, I disagree with it because not only is it scientifically impossible to say the universe has always been here or popped into existence on it’s own or was created by an impersonal force, it is also illogical and irrational. By pointing out why creation makes more sense I am pointing out the logical fallacies in the article.

"I got emotional, upset, because I was taking these discussions seriously. Actually making an effort. NOT just going through the motions. Were you? Did you learn anything? Did your views on anything evolve? Is your life different because of this? Well mine is."

Let me just say that I am thrilled to hear that your life is different because of the conversations we have had – which is why I don’t mind spending more time here.

Now if I may be honest with you, my life has not changed and I really did not learn anything new that I have not already known about the atheists worldview. Part of me was just going through the motions because I have been in countless other debates very similar to ours, but I do get emotionally invested when people like you show any signs of hope or willingness to learn.

At the risk of sounding extremely arrogant, unlike you, I have already found the Truth after several of years intense studying and searching for it. Once I knew for certain that God was real, it was like blinders were lifted off my eyes and for once in my life I could see clearly. I am completely 100% confident in my worldview and my only purpose is to share this wonderful information and the single most exciting event in my life with you, so you too can have the knowledge of Truth.

Unfortunately, nothing you could possibly say to me will ever convince me that God does not exist; so if that’s your purpose, it will be a lost cause. I however, am trying to convince you that He does exist, He loves you, and desires to have a relationship with you. But unless you actually want to believe in Him your heart will remain hardened to the Truth and you will continue to get defensive towards the words I write.

I am sorry if I have not answered each one of your questions to your satisfaction in the past, it’s just that these debates were going so fast and jumping all over the place making it hard to keep up. There is only so much free time I have, especially with homeschooling I have to be careful not to neglect my kids while I am captivated by online debates.

Maybe if you want to present 5 specific questions so we can start over, I will be sure to answer them point by point. I will also take back my statement, and let you know that YOU ARE WORTH MY TIME! ;-D

johngalt666 said...

I would love to benefit from Dani's 100% confidence and certainty. If Dani would just share the proof that showed her that god was real, the evidence that convinced her, I would be very grateful.

And with all of Dani's talk of rationality, science and logic, I would gather that there was a rational, scientific reason for Dani to know "for certain" that God was real.

Of course, earlier Dani summarized the true nature of God taken from, I gather, her several years of intense study. (The Link is here. It is near the bottom of the page.)

Dani listed God's attributes and their proof (her words, see the post for yourself).

1. "God is Eternal” But no proof even attempted. Just assertions.

2. "God is Omnipotent and is three people: Father, Son & Holy Ghost" Proof? There is a sun that is burning. (also more assertions.)

3. "God is personal and wants relationships” Proof? Humans have personalities and relationships.

4. "God is Righteous" Proof? Humans yearn for justice and have a conscience.

5. "God is Love" Proof? Humans love.

I see a lot of descriptions of humans and a reference to the fact that there is a sun and it burns. I don't see how that follows that there is a God. Not in any rational, logical sense.

The American Heritage Dictionary gives the following definitions for reference:

proof n. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

ev·i·dence n. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

Nope, none of that here.

If Dani has no evidence and just had a leap of faith and is now dogmatically convinced, that is fine. But stop hiding behind logic and science and proof. That is what faith is, belief in something without evidence or proof.

Science, logic and proof are derived from the facts of reality. There are no facts of reality that lead to “God”. Religion and Science are opposites for a reason. They have nothing in common.

BigTex71 said...

I am completely 100% confident in my worldview and my only purpose is to share this wonderful information and the single most exciting event in my life with you, so you too can have the knowledge of Truth.

Dani,

You COULD help win my heart over to the possibility of God's existence. If you happen to die before I do, just come back as a spirit and tell me about the afterlife and heaven (and it wouldn't hurt to give me the next Mega Millions lottery winning numbers.) Then I could be convinced of an afterlife, which would lead me to believe in a god.

:D

Dani said...

John666 -

Let me ask you this question:

Is there such a thing as Absolute Truth?

"Truth" is defined as: "the real state of things; fact; reality; an accepted statement or proposition." Some suggest that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions, while others argue that there must be some absolute basis. This being said, we can say that there are two diametrically-opposed beliefs related to absolute truth:

Either:

1. There are no absolutes that define reality. Everything is relative, and thus there is no actual reality. There is ultimately no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative; right or wrong.

Or:

2. There are absolute realities, or standards, that define what is real and what is not. Thus, actions can be deemed right or wrong based upon how they measure up against absolute standards.

ULTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS

Our perspective on absolute truth is determined by the one who is the ultimate authority, or maker, of all things. (This follows because the maker of all things has defined reality, thus becoming the standard for what we understand to be real.) For those who believe that the "maker" was God (a personal, all-powerful Intelligent Being), absolute truth is derived from properly understanding who God is and what His "will" is for His creation.

Those who reject the idea of a personal maker must ultimately believe that an impersonal one--chance--has determined reality. Hence, chance (which by definition has no standard or objective sense) is the only "real" thing in the universe. Everything is a chance occurrence then, including our ability to understand who and what we are talking about. Under this system of belief, there is no way to derive a standard of truth that has any authority. Anything goes!

*Read more => Absolute Truth

So John - Is there Absolute Truth? Yes or No?

Are you absolutely sure?

BigTex71 said...

1. There are no absolutes that define reality. Everything is relative, and thus there is no actual reality.

So if there are no absolutes, we are living an imaginary life?!

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

Dani said...

BigTex - So if there are no absolutes, we are living an imaginary life?!

That depends. Do you believe there are absolutes? Yes or no?

johngalt666 said...

From the fact that you are asking a new question instead or responding to my post, I take it to mean you concede the point? Just curious.

This whole new argument is set up to trap the reader. No matter which of the choices you pick, Dani wins. What is the trap? The fallacy of the false alternative.

A false alternative is when you present “ALL” the choices/possibilities in an argument and leave at least one out. In this case, We are presented with an either/or choice. If you don’t like one you must choose the other.

Using either/or arguments is fine, unless they are false. A good test of a true alternative is if you can show it as an instance of the law of excluded middle: “Either it is or it isn’t” is a rock solid method. Either this table is red or it isn’t. That is always true.

But in Dani’s argument, either we choose no absolutes and get moral relativity, or we choose absolutes and get god. Either we choose a personal maker (god) or we choose chance and anything goes. This is a false alternative.

The problem with arguing this way falsely is that all you have to do to avoid the trap is to come up with another option and the house of cards collapses. I will, of course, present another option in a moment.

Another problem with this argument is the not too subtle switch of premises. We start out talking about reality in #1. And then reality and standards of morality are used interchangeably in #2. A so-called bait and switch.

But maybe all these tricks are not being used on purpose. Maybe on the premise of benevolence I will assume this is all a problem of misunderstandings. A lack of good definitions. After all, it was Ayn Rand who said: “The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions.”

So lets start with truth.

Truth is the recognition of reality. After all, how do you find out if something is true or not? You check the facts. The facts of reality. Someone dented my car today. True or False? How do you find out? You go look at my car and see if it is dented. You recognize the reality of my car. Dented = true. Not dented = false. And you can all relax, my car is just fine. :-)

What is an absolute truth? Well, if truth by itself is the recognition of reality than absolute truth must be something like “I absolutely recognize this reality!” In other words it doesn’t add anything to the concept of truth to put “absolute” in front of it.

Now (and here is part of your answer now Dani) reality is an absolute. We are talking metaphysics now. In fact, we are talking about one of the three axioms at the base of all knowledge. The primacy of existence (reality). Existence exists. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Of any consciousness. Independent of mine, yours and this non-existent god of yours too.

To use part of your argument, actions can be deemed right or wrong bases on how they measure up to reality. So there is an absolute reality. And I am absolutely sure of it.

As for standards, a standard is a principle that serves as a gauge to guide mans choices in the achievement of a purpose. But that is not metaphysics. It is much farther up the hierarchy of knowledge. And there are moral standards that can guide your actions on a day-by-day basis. And you don’t need a god. It isn’t chance. It isn’t anything goes. You can prove your moral standards based on the facts of reality. It doesn’t happen automatically or through a mystic revelation. And it isn’t easy. It takes effort and study, but when you are done you have a proven standard by which to live your life.

That is all I have time for now. But remember to watch out for the traps. False alternative is just one of many.

Look into a good Aristotelian Logic Course and at least study the informal or common fallacies usually taught first. They will help you to avoid falling for this kind of trap so common in most religious arguments.

Dani said...

John666-

“From the fact that you are asking a new question instead or responding to my post, I take it to mean you concede the point?”

Considering that all you did was mock the evidence or "assertions" I provided demonstrates you are not interested in my answers, so I thought it would be best to get some answers from you. But to satisfy your curiosity I’ll try to elaborate some more.

“I see a lot of descriptions of humans and a reference to the fact that there is a sun and it burns. I don't see how that follows that there is a God.”

Coming from a creationist viewpoint - If God created us in His image then we should be able to see many of His attributes in humans. But to eliminate God as the Creator is to assume that we developed our personalities, sense of right and wrong, desires for relationships and ability to love merely from sticks and rocks. If not from God, then where did we get all these things which define our human nature?

proof n. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

ev·i·dence n. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

Where is the “evidence” for how we developed our conscience or why we have self-awareness?

What “proof” do you have that suggests we evolved from slime or came into existence from an impersonal/amoral being?

As I said on a previous post, no matter how hard science tries, evolution cannot explain our ability to reason or the emotions we have such as love and hate, sadness or joy, pain or pleasure, anger or peace of mind. Matter and energy do not have feelings, nor do they know the difference between good and evil.

“If Dani has no evidence and just had a leap of faith and is now dogmatically convinced, that is fine. But stop hiding behind logic and science and proof.”

Understanding the complexity of life and the universe we live in cannot be simplified in scientific terms or understood by a closed minded individual. Honestly, it is a matter of faith, but I’m not taking about blind faith, that would be foolish. The Bible defines faith like this in Hebrews 11:

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.”

So by faith I believe that God created the universe because the evidence of its existence is the evidence for a Creator. Just like when you look at a building, you know there was an architect who designed it and a carpenter who built it – you can look at the universe and the human body and logically understand that we did not appear from a cosmic accident, we were designed and created with a purpose.

If you think we arrived here by chance, that’s as logical as thinking skyscrapers appeared after a series of tornados and hurricanes thrashed through the area with sheet metal, wood and other rubbish putting together highly complex, fully functioning buildings.

Back to the question of absolutes – the only reason you think this whole new argument is set up to trap the reader is because you fear where the answers will lead you or you are simply unable to answer the questions. Let’s keep it simple and stick to morality and so you don’t get confused and caught up with a bunch of doublespeak.

Absolute = Always true throughout history. There are never any exceptions regardless of culture, society or religion. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being.

- Is it absolutely wrong to violently rape a woman or molest a child?

- Was it absolutely wrong for Hitler to murder millions of innocent Jews?

BigTex71 said...

Ok, Dani... I have held out long enough. Here is the REAL TRUTH:
We WERE created. By extraterrestrial beings that are far more intelligent than we are. We are their little experiment and they monitor us. Kind of like a kid and an ant farm. They created Jesus specifically to get us to chill out and love one another because we were getting too rambunctious.

Of course I am kidding. But your view is just as absurd to me.

johngalt666 said...

Dani  said...

Coming from a creationist viewpoint - If God created us in His image then we should be able to see many of His attributes in humans. But to eliminate God as the Creator is to assume that we developed our personalities, sense of right and wrong, desires for relationships and ability to love merely from sticks and rocks. If not from God, then where did we get all these things which define our human nature?

You are putting the cart before the horse. 

There is a starting place to knowledge.  Basic axiomatic concepts on which all knowledge is built.  From that starting point we build knowledge upon knowledge, concepts upon concepts.  Each of which can be called an assertion.  The person making the assertion is responsible to provide the proof of it by showing how it links to the basic axioms of knowledge.  That is what proof means. We start with the knowledge that we have a certain nature. Then we may, if we wish, try to figure out where that nature comes from.  Our conclusion, whatever that is, is the assertion that must be proved by the person doing the asserting. So in this case, the starting place is people have personalities, senses of right and wrong, desires, abilities etc. You, and others like you, then make the assertion that these things that are there come from God.  So the onus is on you to prove this by showing your evidence or proof.  Which you, and others like you, have never been able to do. 

Where is the “evidence” for how we developed our conscience or why we have self-awareness?

I don't feel a need to discover how we developed these characteristics.  I simply accept that they are there.

What “proof” do you have that suggests we evolved from slime or came into existence from an impersonal/amoral being?

I do not accept either of these positions.  Evolution is an assertion just like creationism.  Both need to be proven.  The only difference is that evolution is a theory that does have real evidence for it (maybe not for all of it, but definitely some of it) and creationism has no evidence.  The theory of evolution is not something I have studied, nor do I have much interest in it.  A good book on it I have looked at but admittedly have not read completely is Darwin's Dangerously Idea by Daniel Dennett.  Of course it would not be a bad idea to go to Darwin's book itself, or better yet find an expert and follow his suggestions on it.

As I said on a previous post, no matter how hard science tries, evolution cannot explain our ability to reason or the emotions we have such as love and hate, sadness or joy, pain or pleasure, anger or peace of mind. Matter and energy do not have feelings, nor do they know the difference between good and evil.

Understanding the complexity of life and the universe we live in cannot be simplified in scientific terms or understood by a closed minded individual. Honestly, it is a matter of faith, but I’m not taking about blind faith, that would be foolish. The Bible defines faith like this in Hebrews 11:

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.”


"the substance of things hoped for"   Hoped for means not having.  At least not yet. 
"the evidence of things not seen"    A witness telling what he didn't see wouldn't work to well in court. 
"not made of things which are visible".  Things that are not visible? 

Faith is belief in something based on feelings instead of evidence.  You just feel it.  Unfortunately emotions are not tools of cognition.  Emotions are produced by one's premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.  In other words they are an effect.  Emotions do not prove anything.

In other words there is no other type of faith than "blind" faith.  This so called different faith from Hebrews is not different at all.  It is still accepting something without evidence based on feelings.  And yes, it is still foolish.

Understanding the complexity of life and the universe we live in is only possible through reason and logic.  Through non-contradictory identification of existence.

So by faith I believe that God created the universe because the evidence of its existence is the evidence for a Creator. Just like when you look at a building, you know there was an architect who designed it and a carpenter who built it – you can look at the universe and the human body and logically understand that we did not appear from a cosmic accident, we were designed and created with a purpose.

If you think we arrived here by chance, that’s as logical as thinking skyscrapers appeared after a series of tornados and hurricanes thrashed through the area with sheet metal, wood and other rubbish putting together highly complex, fully functioning buildings.


Nice bit of circular thinking error here: God exists - proof?  Existence; Existence exists - proof? God. 

But now it is time for a quick discussion of the difference between the metaphysical and the man made. 

Nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated... it cannot come into or go out of existence.  All the forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved.  Nature is the metaphysically given-- i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition. 

Things of human origin are designated as man-made facts.  Like a building.  A man-made fact did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist.  It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically. It must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary. 

The metaphysical must be accepted. Then understood.  Then it can be adapted by man into something he can use.  (This is where the man-made comes from, of course) 

Now, back to your example.  Naturally, when you look at the man-made you can see the hand of man behind it.  Like a building.  And in seeing it you can see the purpose also.  But the process does not transfer to the metaphysical.  The metaphysical just is.  Existence exists.  

A process of reason and logic called science has shown us how certain metaphysical facts have come about like glaciers from an ice age affecting the landscape or how volcanoes create beautiful islands.  But there is no architect for the metaphysical. 

Back to the question of absolutes – the only reason you think this whole new argument is set up to trap the reader is because you fear where the answers will lead you or you are simply unable to answer the questions. Let’s keep it simple and stick to morality and so you don’t get confused and caught up with a bunch of doublespeak.

I'm sorry, doublespeak?  Me?  I don't think so.  I am the one providing clear objective definitions and clear principles. I am the one that is clearing up logical fallacies, not providing them.  I am the one that is answering the questions.  I am the one who is simplifying.  If you wanted to stick to morality you shouldn't have mixed ethics and metaphysics in your questions.  Morality is ethics.  Reality is metaphysics.  Look back at your own questions and see for your self.

Absolute = Always true throughout history. There are never any exceptions regardless of culture, society or religion. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being.

Axioms are always true throughout history regardless of culture, society or religion.  And they are the ultimate basis of all thought and being.  Existence, Consciousness and Identity.  Even in trying to denounce or disprove them you have to use them.  They cannot be proved, they are the basis of proof.  I will not go into a full discussion of them here because it is an essay or chapter of its own.  If someone is interested in a longer post on this they can ask me and I will put one on my blog.

- Is it absolutely wrong to violently rape a woman or molest a child? 
- Was it absolutely wrong for Hitler to murder millions of innocent Jews?


Of course it is wrong to rape, molest and murder.  Adding the word "absolutely" does not add anything to the question, but yes it is "absolutely" wrong by any standard of morals I care to think about. 

But that is all that it means.  Saying "yes" certainly does not prove there is a God anymore than it proves that a person has moral relativity.   It means that by the standard of morals a person holds, they believe that it is absolutely wrong.  That is all. 

I find you hopeless in your dogmatic belief without proof to a mythical god that explains nothing.  I am passing judgment on you Dani as a mystic, non-logical, non-thinking fanatic.  As you say yourself, you are close minded and will never change.  I find no more use in writing to you and I would rather use my limited blogging time on other subjects or at least to other people who want to discuss and learn. 

Sean the Blogonaut said...

Bravo John.