Underlying Philosophy

Dr. Adequate, I most certainly have taken note of that, and if you want me to go into detail to explain what the proverbs mean, then I will. What's this about the "nature of reality"? Didn't I ask a question about that maybe, kind of, sort of had something to do with that? And all I was told was "mumbo jumbo". Heh heh.So, please explain what you believe the nature of reality is, and also, what you know about the nature of reality that our good Friar buddy didn't. Oh yes, he was indeed a Unitarian, which I would deem heretical. However, his theological writings are somewhat well known. The principle of parsimony does not only relate to the amount of entities, but also to the complexity, in a certain subject. I invoke one entity (God) to ultimately explain morals, which provides a very simplistic explanation for morals/morality. The atheist also invokes one entity (himself) to make sense of morals/morality. At the same time though, the atheist created a very arbitrary and complex explanation of morals/morality.

Modulous,

And why does the brutal dictator do that? Is it at least partially because he is free from the consequences (ie he can do so with impunity)? This supports my position that consequences are important to whether or not you decide to murder and if you take them away (or take away the 'caring about the consequences') - bad things can often follow.

Why certainly. So if he is completely free from the consequences, is it still inherently wrong for him to commit mass atrocities (such as Stalin did).

And the lesson here? If we want humans to not commit rape - we have to come to a widespread agreement to enact negative consequences on those that rape. I believe there have been some surveys carried out where young men were asked if they could get away with it completely, would they rape someone and a large number of them said 'yes'.

All you are doing is here is explaining morality or "moral living", but not morals themselves. Of course people will live more morally if there are consequences. But the question is this: why do not want people to murder? Why should consequences be put in place for murder? Certainly it will cause people to live more morally, but why would you want them to live more morally? Is it because there is something intrinsic about the nature of murder that makes it wrong? Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

PaulK, Ugh....Okay; Law of Identity: an object is the same as itself: a=a. This is true, correct? Was it true before humans were around? Yes....Can you account for the intrinsic truth in the law of identity?

Dr. Adequate, Then what does it mean to be self-aware, and to love?Now as to the brain and the soul...If you are your brain, then why do we refer to your brain as "your brain"? We refer to "your brain" as if there was someone or something {the "your") that owns or controls the brain. If you go to a doctor, and he finds a tumor in your brain (there we go again), he doesn't tell you "you have a tumor in you". He would say "you have a tumor in your brain". Likewise, if I say that I have a tick in me, that doesn't mean that its in my brain (there we go again), it means that it is somewhere in my body (there we go again).So really, I shouldn't even say that "I am my soul". "I" am an abstract entity. Myself, or my being is abstract, because we constantly refer to "your brain", or, "your heart", or "your body". So who is the "your" in those statements? Who is the person that owns the brain, heart, and body? If you come take my brain out of me (or to be proper, we should say "come and take me"), you haven't taken "me" anymore than you would if you took my heart, or my lungs, or my thumb. Even if you destroy my body, you haven't killed "me", because "me" is an abstract concept.This abstract "me" includes my soul, my heart and my mind. So who controls "me"? Ultimately, I believe God controls everything, because He created it all, so how could He not be sovereign over it all?

Catholic Scientist, My logical progression was a very lengthy one, but that doesn't necessarily meant that it is an equivocation.For example, the following is a one-step logical progression: if Sally dances, the crowd will go wild, therefore, since Sally danced, the crowd went wild. This is a one-step logical progression.Now we could extend this logical progression one or more steps: if Sally dances, the crowd will go wild. If the crowd goes wild, security will have to calm the crowd down. If security has to calm the crowd down, then Bob (a security guard) will have to leave his post. Therefore, if Sally dances, Bob will have to leave his post.Now this was just a three-step progression, which does not make it an equivocation. Now need I go through all the steps from the Big Bang to your pencil rolling of the desk? The steps are there, and there are quite a few of them; but this does not make it an equivocation.But this isn't the point anyways, so it really isn't worth discussing anymore. My point in discussing the Big Bang is asking how the universe can go from being a pin-point (or whatever) of space-time, into an incredibly massive universe with a small planet in it upon which the most amazingly complex processes have come up. And besides, without God, where did that pin-point of space-time come from in the first place? If the Big Bang hadn't happened (in an evolutionist's worldview; I don't believe that it happened) then mammals wouldn't have formed, would they?Although there isn't a direct causal-effect relationship between the Big Bang and the forming of mammals, as in a "one-step" relationship, there is a relationship, one that might take multiple steps (e.g., the Big Bang caused matter to form, causing pebbles to form, causing rocks to form, causing planetoids to form, causing planets to form, etc. etc.). This can be explained by hormones, because, after all, a peacock's tail is used for attracting mates. But do Peacock's build art galleries? Do they compose music? Do they sing for the sake of singing? Do they take pictures of beautiful landscapes, or admire beautiful landscapes?And even if peacocks and monkeys do have an aesthetic sense, don't you think it's an awfully big jump from them to Beethoven's 5th symphony? Or Bach's well-tempered Clavier? Or Michael Angelo's sculptures? Or Leonardo Da Vinci? Or William Shakespeare?... Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Modulous, What is it about "wrongful killing" that makes it inherently wrong? Why do governments have the right to punish someone who commits murder? Why would it be wrong for me to come find you and kill you? Something is not "wrong" because of consequences. Something can be "stupid" to do because of consequences, but that doesn't make it wrong. Something is defined as wrong if there is something about the crime itself that makes it morally incorrect.So suppose we were in a place where there were no consequences for murder. Does it then become right to murder you? Oh really? I didn't know my brain made value judgments on its own...I just thought that my brain was the control center in the upper portions of my head that sent messages to my nerves, and that controlled my thought processes...never knew that...So is there a limit to what value judgments my brain can make for me?Or what about a baby's brain? You said our brains are hardwired to not rampantly kill people, indicating that our brains have always been that way. So is a baby's brain that way?And what defines "rampant" killing anyways?And even if your statement is true, how would this come about? That is, how would a brain "evolve" to a point where it does not naturally kill people "rampantly"? Apparently "our latest ancestors", orangutans (I know we didn't come directly from orangutans; we supposedly came from a common ancestor of monkeys and humans), are not bothered by rampant killing. In fact, they cannibalize each other, and are apparently never punished for it, nor do they seem bothered by it. So why are humans bothered by killing, or death period? And further, why is it a bad thing for humans to be upset by death? And suppose I hadn't? Would murder still be wrong?

Dr. Adequate, "Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you? So he said, I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself. And He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat? " - (Genesis 3:9-11)In asking these questions to Adam, the LORD God presumes Adam to have a reliable memory. Therefore, we have a reliable memory.Now isn't that a working reason for why our memories are reasonably reliable? Do you have a reason for believing that our memories are reasonably reliable? Then what is self-awareness, and love? Oh what a ramshackled world we live in! Nothing makes sense! Nothing is complex! Nothing works well! Oh wait, that's in Dr. Adequate's dream world. In the world I live in, I can make sense of a lot of things, I see an absolutely incredible amount of complexity, and I see a lot of things that work together to make this world work pretty well...sounds like a bunch of ramshackle to me...not. So you don't have any reason for knowing that your memory is reliable, which means that you have ultimately no reason for doing any thing that you do. But I do have a good reason for relying on my memory, compliments of the aforementioned Scripture passage. How do I know that I am not mentally insane? Well, following your logic of "presuming nothing to be true until proven so", until you can prove that I am mentally insane, I will believe that my memory is reliable, and my reason for thinking that my memory can be reliable is, once again, because of God.Now to prevent an objection; I am not arguing that you have no reason for believing that you are not mentally insane. I am saying that you have no reason for making the arbitrary assumption that your memory even has the ability to be reliable. You do have a good reason for not believing you are mentally insane: no one has proven it to be so. But you do not (as you have admitted) have a good reason for thinking that there is even a remote possibility of your memory being reliable.My reason for believing that I am not mentally insane is the same as yours: no one has proven it to be so. But, unlike you, I do have a reason for believing that there is even a remote possibility of my memory being reliable: because of the aforementioned Scripture passage.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Dr. Adequate, There are two different aspects to this argument. One - which is the aspect you have been discussing - is one which discusses whether one is mentally stable, or mentally insane. Now for one who is mentally insane, chances are that they have an idea of what it is like to have a more or less reliable memory, because they probably had a decently reliable memory at some point in their past. This is obviously why they continue to depend on their memory, even though that memory is oftentimes disillusioned.But the other aspect is this: either our memory has the ability to be reliable, or it isn't ever reliable, nor can it be. If it were impossible for our memories to be reliable, then that would be the norm, and we wouldn't think it unusual that we didn't rely on our memories. Also, if our memories were never reliable, we wouldn't ever seek to depend on them. We actually wouldn't even really have a memory. This kind of a world would obviously be insane. But without God, what reason do we have for ever thinking that our memory can be depended upon? You've already said that ultimately, you have none. One last thing of note - when I said you have no reason for relying on your memory, I am not saying that you have no reason for believing that you don't have Korsakov's syndrome, or Alzheimer's disease. I am saying that you have no reason for believing that it is even possible for your memory to be reliable. So I'm not accusing you of not knowing whether or not you are mentally diseased, because this would imply that it is possible for you memory to be reliable. I am arguing that you have no reason for thinking that there is even the slightest, most remote possibility that your memory even has the ability to be reliable (the word ability is important).So what are my reasons? "In the beginning God created" (Gen. 1:1); "The eternal God is your refuge," (Deut. 33:27); "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1). These verses either imply, or state explicitly that God is eternal. This means He is outside of time. When is the "beginning"? The beginning is when time began, or when God created time. God is outside of time, therefore, it is impossible for His memory to be unreliable, because He really has no need of a memory, because He is not caught in the space-time continuum, and therefore, past events cannot be forgotten, because with God, there is no past, or future; eternalness. Since God created us in His image (Gen. 1:26), then He created us with the ability to be able to remember past events, just like He is unable to forget past events. Now of course, the reason God doesn't forget past events is different; He is outside of time, while we are created with the ability to remember past events.Now somebody said that "if unreliable memories are a result of sin, then those who sin more are the ones with more unreliable memories"...read Genesis 3:17-19, which is the curse given by God on mankind. Diseases etc. are the result of the curse, and whoever is overtaken by these diseases, and whoever is not, is determined by God and God alone. It is not proportional to man's actions, for it lies in the curse.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Dr. Adequate, We already know about epistemology, and we already know about the nature reality. We don't have to go and relearn them. So when I say that I place metaphysics before epistemology, I am saying that when I formalize my philosophy, my epistemological beliefs stem from my metaphysical ones, and my most fundamental metaphysical belief is that God exists, and He reveals Himself to us through His holy Word. My epistemological beliefs stem from this: "For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight" (Ecc. 2:26) "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (this would include knowledge; Col. 1:17). Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

There have been a lot of rabbit trails on this thread that, while certainly worthy of discussion, are a little bit off track from what the 1st message laid out. Also, I've got an awful lot of messages to respond to still, and since I don't like leaving messages unanswered, I'm just going to forget them all, and we'll start over right here with this message. Also, some of my arguments are scattered throughout my messages, so a number of people have complained that I'm not presenting my arguments for the impossibility of God's non-existence. So here, I'll attempt to bring as many of my arguments as I can together into one message, so this could end up being rather lengthy.So what I'm going to do is present several topics of discussion, which will all center around the inability of any worldview without God in it to account for certain things. Not only this, but I will show that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that can account for, ultimately, anything. I will also show how the Christian worldview accounts for these things.First of all though, I'm going to talk some about metaphysics and epistemology.It seems that most (if not all) of the atheists on this forum have taken the typical, naturalistic approach to epistemology: you elevate it above metaphysics, and refer to metaphysics as "mumbo jumbo", and think that the scientific method is the best - if not the only - way to go. But a number of things must be taken into account when one wishes to throw metaphysics down the metaphorical trash-can. First, epistemological method (such as the scientific method) is not, nor can it be, neutral. Atheists will often claim that they are "neutral" when it comes to determining the correctness or incorrectness of certain subjects (such as the existence of God). But this is impossible. Either one's thinking is centered around himself and his reasoning, or it is centered around God. The universe is not centered around man and his reasoning, but around God, for God created the universe. Now if indeed God does exist, what would you expect to happen if you rely on your own reasoning? "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1 Cor. 1:20). Ruin will come if we rely on our own reasoning, that is, if it is apart from God. If the universe is not interpreted in terms of God, but rather, in terms of man and his reasoning, ruin will come to that person's philosophy. "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad." (Matt. 12:30). So we conclude that either one assumes "the ultimacy of the human mind", or their reference point is God. There is no in-between. There is no neutral position. In claiming that there is a neutral position, you are setting yourself directly against God, because God said there is no neutral position. Second, metaphysics is necessary to epistemology. To quote Van Til, "Our theory of knowledge is what it is because our theory of being is what it is....We cannot ask how we know without at the same time asking what we know". Something to note about the scientific method is that it presupposes some metaphysical matters. The scientific method says that observations are made and data is gathered, then a hypothesis is formed to explain said observations and data. Then that hypothesis is rigorously tested with more data and experiments. Note that the scientific method involves "observations about objects" and the "gathering of data", which are metaphysical issues. Third Metaphysical presuppositions are necessary to reasoning. Every system of thought absolutely must have a foundation, or it would easily be carried away with a whirlwind. What is the foundation of atheism? It could be materialism, naturalism, or other such inherently anti-God philosophies. But you won't admit that such things are the foundation, or "presupposition" of your thought. Well what is the foundation of your thought then? You must have a foundation. Why? Well suppose you give me a standard for determining truth, such as the scientific method. I then ask "how do you know that that is the right standard". You have several options here. (1) - You can admit that your standard has no justification. (2) - You can argue that your standard is established by some other standard, thus destroying the argument that said standard is the ultimate standard. (3) - You can seek a more ultimate standard, capturing yourself in an infinite regress, which Huntard has quite explicitly done with the issue of the wrongness of murder. (4) - You can point to an ultimate, self-verifying standard that explains everything, a standard beyond which no appeal can be made. So we conclude that evaluation requires a standard, and one must eventually come to an ultimate standard when wishing to evaluate. I believe that ultimate standard to be God, and I believe that there can be no other. God is the only standard which is completely sovereign over the entire universe, and He is the only standard "beyond which no appeal can be made". "For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him, and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Rom. 11:34-36); "Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as His counselor has taught Him?" (Isaiah 40:13).I could list some more, but this will suffice for now.

---

Moral absolutes....A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe there are no moral absolutes. I assume all of you would say that there are no moral absolutes, because this would imply the existence of an absolute standard beyond this world. But what if there are no moral absolutes, what problems would arise from this? Well, if someone denies the existence of moral absolutes, they must adopt another standard that explains moral behavior and morals themselves. As a result, they may adopt a relativistic approach to morals, a consequential approach, or some other such anti-God approach to morals.There is one glaring problem with moral relativism. If there are no moral absolutes, then how can a proponent of moral relativism say that I "should not" believe in moral absolutes? Is that statement absolutely true? If they believe that there are no moral absolutes, then how can they say that I have an obligation to believe in moral relativism? How can someone claim that relativism is absolutely (!) true.Some will also say that good is determined by society. But suppose you lived in a society that accepted cannibalism, or human sacrifice, or infanticide, or widow immolation? What then? At this point, it become completely arbitrary as to what is good or bad. And why is it absolutely true that the morals of a given society can be imposed upon the people living within that society? Suppose the denizens of a society did not accept the morals of that society; is it absolutely right for the society to impose those morals upon those people regardless? Suppose there was a society that made it unlawful for anyone to skip church, or to not read their Bible? Would this be "wrong"? Is infanticide always wrong in any society, despite what that society has agreed upon? Is widow immolation? Hindu's still perform widow immolation; is it wrong?Now what about consequentialism? Consequentialism takes a teleological approach to ethics, that is, it seeks a certain end which defines goodness. Here is an Internet article on "Teleology and Ethics": This is the link for the entire article.The obvious question then is this: how do you know that the ends are good? Why is "human happiness" good? And how do you know that your actions in some way relate to the happiness of those around you? And suppose another society accepted different ends as being good, such as cannibalism; what then?So we see the problem that arises. If indeed there are no moral absolutes, and really, no moral statement is absolute, how should we live our lives? How can we know that evildoers should be punished? How can we know the best way to live? How can we live at all, if we really don't know whether any given action is truly right or wrong? What of all this ambiguity brought on by moral relativism? It makes an entanglement out of that which should be clear. It makes difficult that which is simple. It makes hazy that which is clear. How can this web be untangled, this complexity made simple, and this haze made clear?...God. Since God has a certain nature, and since He created this universe, we should only expect the universe to be in accordance with Him. What is His nature? "No one is good but One, that is, God." (Mark 10:18b) so God is good, as is His law-word: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (Rom. 7:12). Also, God is righteous "Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yes, our God is merciful. and the Law is righteous" (Ps. 116:5), and the Law is righteous "And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?" (Deut. 4:8). God is also just: "He is the Rock, His work is perfect; 'For all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He." (Deut. 32:4); "Tell and bring forth your case; yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me." (Isaiah 45:21); as is the Law: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (Rom. 7:12). He is also holy: "And one cried to another and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory! (Isa. 6:3); as is His Law: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (Romans 7:12); and perfect: "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48); as is His Law "But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." (James 1:25).So good is defined by God's unchanging nature. God does not have to measure up to an outside standard of good, for good is embodied within Him.Can a more unambiguous standard be found than this? Or will we continue to rely on man and his foolish reasoning, that reasoning which in many cases becomes illogical, arbitrary, and weakened by wicked desires?

---

The Uniformity of Nature ....We would all agree I assume that science and the scientific method depend on the uniformity of our universe. Laws of physics could not be established if we found that there were changing principles of physical movement. Suppose the physical laws governing this universe were ever-changing? Suppose one day, we were attracted to the earth by gravity, but the next day we went floating into space? Do you realize how grossly primitive we would be if the laws governing this universe were not uniform? We would be unable to build houses, unable to eat food, unable to speak even, supposing the laws governing speech and sound were ever-changing. Also, take note of the word "universe". We do not live in a "multi-verse", but a "uni-verse". It is "one", in that its laws do not change. Another way in which nature is uniform is in our understanding of speech. How do we know that a given statement means the same thing from day to day? How do we know that other people can understand what we say?The uniformity of nature is another one of those things that must be assumed. It cannot be proven, for in attempting to prove it, one would have to first assume that nature is uniform.So when does the problem arise for an atheist? As with other things, he cannot account for the uniformity of nature. Why does it so happen that the universe is uniform?One problem with an atheists belief is that he assumes that the future will be like the past. But how can he know this for sure? Some will claim that at times in the past, they believed certain things, and then in the future of those past times, they found those things to be true. But this only accounts for "past futures", or "futures that have already been experienced. It does not account for "future futures", or "futures that have never been experienced. How do you know that "future futures" will be like "past futures"? We always have the "future" to deal with, and to look forward at. But how can we ever know for certain that the future will indeed by like the past, for we will never truly experience the future, for once we get there, it will no longer be the future?Another problem is that you cannot say that you know that all of nature is uniform. Have you investigated the entire universe, or even come close to doing so? Do you realize how small an area in the universe the earth takes up? And do you realize how limited our scope is? Just because nature is uniform here on earth, and from what we have seen in space, that doesn't mean that nature will be uniform in every single place, or at every single time. How do you know that way back in the past, things were like they are now? How do you know that the physical laws in some obscure corner of the universe are the same as they are here? What makes you think that the physical laws at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang were the same as they are now.Another problem is that the Big Bang relies on the temporary transcendence of physical laws by nature, in that "something" came from "nothing". How can this be? The physical laws governing this universe do not allow for "something" to come from "nothing". Evolutionists admit that they don't know how "something" came from "nothing". The reason they don't know is because in order for the Big Bang to have happened, the physical principles which govern the universe must have been temporarily transcended. So what makes us think that the physical laws governing the universe won't be transcended again, as in the Big Bang? And how would the Big Bang, which relies on chance proceedings, produce uniform physical principles, such as the ones we see today?How does God help with this problem?Since the universe is created by God, and thus based upon Him, we expect to see uniformity, if indeed the Bible is true. "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:16-17); The word "created" in this passage is a perfect tense, in that it describes a past work of God that was done completely, finished, at that is also binding throughout all of time. Nor was it by whim that God created the universe, but for the pleasure of His will. "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33a). God wouldn't, nor could He create a chaotic universe. The creation of the universe by God was a complete work, and one that is binding, and will not change. Something else of note is that God is outside of time. Therefore, to Him, there is no past, nor future. Therefore, He cannot just "change" laws, because this implies that there is future and past with Him. "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ God exists. He cannot change, because He just exists. In order for God to change, there would have to be a way that He was previously. But God was not any "way" previously, because with Him, there is no "previousness".

---

Universals....First, let me define what a universal is: any truth of a general or abstract nature--whether it be a broad concept, law, principle, or categorical statement. Here are a few key points about universalst they apply to multiple things - meaning that they are not particulars - they are abstract, and they are general truths, rather than specific.A good example a universal is "classes". Humanity is a class. The idea of humanity is an abstract concept. Now if you took a particular person who is contained within the class of humanity, that person is referred to as a "particular". What makes a human a human is an abstract concept however, in that it cannot be eaten, touched, or seen.Another good example is numbers. Take the numeral "2". If we apply that to certain things and say, for example, "there are 2 trees", we are applying that abstract idea to certain things in nature. However, the concept of "twoness" is an abstract concept. What makes two trees two trees is abstract. If you have three pairs of shoes, each individual pair is within the class of "twoness". So the applying of numbers to objects is an abstract concept.The best example of a universal though lies in the Laws of Logic. "They are the abstract, universal, invariant rules that govern human rationality." (pg. 202, Pushing the Antithesis).So what is the problem with universals? The problem is that if you believe that the only thing that exists is that which can be seen, touched, tasted etc., then where did universals come from? We cannot make them out to be merely products of human thought, because they then become subjective. If you say that the Laws of Logic are products of human thought, then you fall in the danger of subjectivity. If they are merely arbitrary products of human thought, then how can we rely on them? Couldn't they change? We know that the laws of logic are universally true. There was never a society that decided that "an object is not necessarily the same as itself" (Law of Identity). No one ever even considered that possibility. No one ever takes the possibility into account that an object is not necessarily the same as itself, we all, always assume that to be true, in all places and at all times.So how is it that the Laws of Logic came to be universally true, and how did they come about at all, if they are of an abstract nature?And how does God help with this? God affirms the law of identity by stating "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14). The laws of logic reflect God's unchanging nature, and since God created the universe, the Laws of Logic are seen strung throughout the universe, just as they reflect God's nature.

---

Personal Freedom and Dignity....Most people tend to believe that humans have certain rights, and certain freedoms, and that, ultimately, everyone has personal dignity. Personal dignity leads to a general respect for people. Humans have a tendency to be polite (in one way or another), or to honor certain people, such as leaders, elders, kings, presidents, or even the dead, by performing funeral ceremonies. We would all agree that there is a certain respect of persons among us. But how can an atheist account for these things, if we are merely the product of biological evolution? Or how do we know that lower orders of primates do not have personal dignity? Or what about lower orders of mammals? Or what about lower orders of animals? Or what about lower orders of life? Where is the line drawn?It seems fairly obvious that in the animal world, there is no dignity. We do not see anything like a funeral for the deceased. Lions eat their dead relatives, and it doesn't seem to bother them. So just why would humans have funerals? Natural selection would not bring this about, because the performance of funerals has no survival benefits whatsoever, and is of no value for our species as a whole.
Some people though, such as Albert Schweitzer, were consistent with their humanitarian and evolutionary philosophy. Schweitzer did not keep his hospital very clean, in large part because he respected the life of insects and bacteria. So how far does dignity extend into the animal kingdom? If it extend to monkeys, why not to lions? Then why not to birds, and then fish, and then insects? And then, why not to fungus, and bacteria? Bacteria are just single-celled organisms, while humans are merely multi-celled organisms. What constitutes a difference between single-celled and multi-celled organisms? Or is it the development of our brain? Does this mean that the only reason we have personal dignity is because of chemicals in our head? So suppose I found someone without a brain, would it then be proper to commit the grossest of atrocities on them out in public?...You get the idea. Charles Darwin once said in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881: "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" What an excellent observation. So what makes us think that we have personal dignity, any more than do apes, or fish, or bacteria? If it is just a value judgment, then it can just be thrown out the window...who cares about human dignity, does it really matter? Oh wait, people sure make it out to matter...makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why would such a high order of primates construct something (human dignity) that doesn't really exist? Our brain is made up of chemicals...that's all. Our body is made up of chemicals...that's all. Why would a combination of chemicals, no matter how complex it might be, have personal dignity? Does a strand of DNA have personal dignity? Would the chemicals that make up the brain, if mixed together in a bowl, have personal dignity? Why then do we have personal dignity? Why should we arbitrarily think that our species is any better than another species? It's just our own arbitrary opinion that determines what makes a certain species more "advanced" than another. Suppose in a fish's world, the most advanced species are those with the most efficient gills, what then? And besides, what constitutes a species is a completely arbitrary classification of man.So why don't bacteria have funerals? What about fish? Why don't lions have funerals, or any respect of kin? Why don't monkeys have funerals? Why do humans have funerals? Why do we have a sense of dignity, as though there were some worth to our life? How can chance (the Big Bang) produce something with a purpose? Do we have a purpose, or are we just a complex arrangement of various molecules, placed in the last metaphorical micro-second of the geologic column, floating around in a seemingly endless universe on a ball of molten rock and dirt? How can we have personal dignity, and a purpose in life?...God. God created us in His own image: "Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. From our very Creator, we have the mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the earth and subdue it". This constitutes a purpose, and an incredibly meaningful one at that.Is it not clear now that the Christian worldview provides, not only the best, but the only foundation for philosophical thought? For the way we function in our universe? For our reliance on the uniformity of nature, universals, and personal dignity, without which we would be utterly unable to function in this universe?

---

Sources: About.com, Pushing the Antithesis (c) 2007 American Vision, Inc. Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

PaulK, I'm not arguing for the validity or invalidity of the scientific method. I'm arguing that any epistemological method (such as the scientific method) must be derived from some sort of metaphysical framework. The metaphysical presuppositions contained within the scientific method are obvious and numerous. So if someone claims that any epistemological method can stand alone as a means of determining truth apart from any other beliefs, they are seriously deluded, because any subject relating to epistemology necessarily entails a number of metaphysical assumptions. What do you mean by "science"? I'm talking about epistemological methods. Science is not an epistemological method. The scientific method is an epistemological method. I'm willing to wager that you can not make any epistemological method whatsoever that does not first assume certain things about what we know. It is impossible. This is why I wagered. And yet, no epistemological method can be made that does not have assumptions of its own..."Experience and reason are the foundation"...so you admit that your epistemological method is not neutral? Relying solely on personal experience and personal reason is deeply anti-God: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Cor. 1:20). It's no wonder you're an atheist, seeing as how your very foundation (which I don't really believe is a foundation) is anti-God. So much for neutrality. But if I ask you about the truth of such standards, you must, in turn, refer back to a "more ultimate" or merely "a different" standard, to prove the truthfulness of the aforementioned standard. You have now caught yourself in an infinite regress. Or, if you chose to end the infinite regress, by referring back to an already mentioned standard, you would be committing the error of circular reasoning. Do you think that I am wrong in making the assertion that there are moral absolutes, or right? How subjective is this code? It is difficult to have an argument when the limits of the universe can not even be agreed upon. I don't think any astronomer would say we have reached the end of the universe. We certainly have not found the end of the universe. You have a seriously deluded view of God's nature. Your argument can be responded to with five words said by God himself: "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14). If you don't understand this argument, try reading my entire message #485. Pragmatically, all we need is that the great and mighty Pink Elephant is taking a shower. We do not need to account for it - it would be nice if we could account for the big guy down under (and prove his existence). But making more assumptions is not the way....you get my point?

Modulous,Sorry for the long hiatus... A moral absolute (at least in my mind) is a truth established by God which is absolutely, and objectively, true. "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." (Romans 7:7-12). "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith" (Romans 9:30). This is a good summation of my view of morals and morality...In order for a moral absolute to truly be a moral absolute, it must be absolutely true. Now I understand what you mean by saying that two people can hold contradictory but absolute moral positions. But a moral absolute is something that is objectively true, and I don't think it is possible for an atheist to believe in this kind of moral absolute, because it insinuates the existence of "truth" outside of this physical world, and for the atheist, nothing can exist but this material world. So a moral absolute entails two concepts: it is universally true, and it is objectively true. You don't conform to this position, do you? What moral issues do you have with me being a murderer that you don't have with me having what you believe to be an incorrect viewpoint? Both could be destructive to the species, could they not? If I am teaching my children that there are moral absolutes when there really aren't, then couldn't this be seen as being destructive to society? Why is murder any worse then the teaching of an incorrect viewpoint, at least in your human-centered moral system? And besides, who or what defines what it is that is destructive to society? You have a very insidious way of seeking to distract people from the point in case. The point is this: why would it be "wrong" for a society to perform infanticide, and widow immolation, if indeed it is society that determines good? Or would it be wrong?...I notice something common in all of your statements about morals: they are inherently anti-God by virtue of the fact that they are incredibly self-centered, relying alone on man's reasoning and his decision-making, as though man's reasoning, which is supposedly a bi-product of evolution, is lord over the universe, and can somehow tame that which produced it. "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (I Cor. 1:20). God can make humanly wisdom foolish by displaying His wisdom, which alone is true wisdom. God displays His wisdom in numerous places throughout the Bible. I would highly suggest that you read Romans 11, if you wish to see a marvelous display of God's wisdom. And if you don't understand it, read the whole Bible. God, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col. 2:3), is the source of all true wisdom and knowledge... How blatantly self-centered. And supposing another, whose "knowledge" is just as "good" as yours, does not feel that human happiness is a good thing? Are they wrong in their thinking?

---

Your method of communicating your moral beliefs to me is very vague, which personally isn't surprising, given that your moral system is based on yourself. You seem to be saying that nothing is objectively wrong. If this is what your saying, then all that morals amount to are a self-woven entanglement of prejudiced guidelines for how everyone should live their lives, which should somehow meet your own "personal" guidelines for what is "right" and "wrong". To say that nothing is objectively "right", or objectively "wrong", destroys the concepts of right and wrong in their entirety. We see plainly that human devices seek the pleasure of oneself, through the entangling of that which is straight, the mystifying of that which has been revealed, and the destruction of Truth.

---

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." [emphasis added] (Romans 11:33-36)

Dr. Adequate,As with Modulous, sorry for the long hiatus...And just in case you did not read my entire message, then please don't make another response until you do. I said what I said for a reason, and if you didn't read it all, then you may have missed key points. I like your phrase about "sophomores who have looked upon the weed when it is green"...I'll have to use that sometime.Seeing as how you think that metaphysics only deals with myths, I'll have to once again iterate that any epistemological claim whatsoever necessarily involves some metaphysical beliefs. Please try to follow the simple logic here: how can you devise a system of how to know, without first knowing at least something? To say, "the best means of gaining knowledge is through the use of our five senses", is to assume a number of obvious things, such as: we do have five senses, we can use our five senses, etc.So once again, the wager that I have made, and will now make again, is that you can make absolutely no epistemological claim that is entirely neutral. It must refer back to another standard, and that standard must in turn refer back to another standard, which will refer back to another standard, etc. And any epistemological claim will involve at least some metaphysical assumptions. And you may say then that those metaphysical assumptions were proven to be true by another epistemological method. But this epistemological method would also necessarily involve a number of metaphysical assumptions, which if they were proven, would in turn have to refer back to another metaphysical standard. And those observations must in turn refer back to a higher, or simply another, standard. Why shouldn't someone believe something that is wrong? Why does it matter what you think?If moral relativism is indeed true, then is it absolutely true in all situations? How can relativism be absolutistic? What if in my particular situation, it is more appropriate to believe in the truth of moral absolutes? Either you skipped reading onward, or you totally missed the point. If society is the determiner of good, then is infanticide, widow immolation, community suicide, and child harassment right in such a society? Or might it still be wrong?"Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.'" (Gen. 3:22a). God knows good and evil in that He knows that evil is that which is done apart from Him. Remember what Adam and Eve did: they decided to throw away God's commandment, and rather, rely on their own reasoning which, under influence of the serpent, had come to decide that they would be better off if they knew good and evil. But for humans, with the knowledge of good and evil comes the ability to do evil, for evil is that which is done away from God. Remember, "in the absence of light, there is darkness" and, "in the absence of warmth, there is coldness". Since evil is that which is done in the absence of God, or in the presence of lawlessness, then ruin will come thereby.So, the universe is in accordance with God, and the reason that humans devise foolish moral systems is because of sin: they wish to make themselves as God (just as Adam and Eve did) in that they get to define right and wrong. But God doesn't determine right and wrong by mere whim, as humans would ultimately do, but by creating a universe that is in accordance with his holy, perfect, and righteous nature. In such a universe (as we do indeed have), morals are not products of human thought, but revelations from God as to how we should live our lives in a universe that is based upon His very nature. Your example with regards to the Laws of Logic has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. To say, "since there are no unicorns, then all unicorns are pink", is simply an application of the law of logic that says, "if p then q, p is true, so q is true". Whether it is a correct or incorrect application is a different matter.But take the Law of Identity for example: supposing this "law" changed, and suddenly, no object was necessarily the same as itself...could this ever happen? Not with us knowing about it, because the world would be turned into such complete chaos they we would be unable to find out just what happened.But anyways: suppose I have a dream, one that says, "I am a billionaire, and I live in Las Vegas, and I am the most well known man in the world"...this is an abstract idea, in that it only exists in my mind. This dream could then at any time change to saying "I am a pauper, and only eat a morsel of bread each day, and I have no friends". The point being that if something merely exists as a part of a particular person's mind, then that idea is subject to change at any time...So if the Laws of Logic are merely product of human thoughts, then why do they not change? They must then have some truth outside of the human mind. But how can an atheist account for this truth? How could evolution produce this?But the real monster that you did not deal with is numbers...What makes "two shoes" fall within the class of "twoness"? Numbers are abstract. But if they are merely products of human thought, then are they not subject to change? So how can numbers be accounted for, that is, the "classes" of numbers? Indeed it would. And the simplest way of preventing that is to bury the dead. The performance of funeral ceremonies is completely unnecessary if only the well-being of the species is being taken into account. So why are funeral ceremonies performed amongst humans, and not animals, if they do not have survival benefits? Why should this keep me from intruding on another person's body? Why do you think humans are bothered by seeing atrocities, much less having atrocities performed on themselves? Would the chemicals that make up the Mona Lisa - if mixed together in a bowl and given eons of time - form the Mona Lisa? Would the chemicals that make up a car - if mixed together in a (large) bowl and given eons of time - form a car? Would the chemicals that make up this universe - if mixed together and given eons of time - produce this universe?With the Mona Lisa, the chemicals have no artistic merit until a painter uses his cognitive and physical faculties to form something that has artistic merit.With a car, the chemicals have no transportation merit until a builder uses his cognitive and physical faculties to form something that has transportation merit.With the universe, the chemicals have no merit whatsoever - for pleasure, for learning, or anything - until a designer uses His Word to form something that has merit to it. "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light." (Gen. 1:2-3); "Who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them; Who keeps truth forever," (Ps. 146:6); "So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11); "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:1-5); "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).

---

Did I say we should never rely on personal experience?...My words can be twisted to mean anything that you wish, if you apply any amount of effort that is.But relying solely on personal experience and reasoning in the hope of determining truth, and in the hope of finding some meaning to life, is, ultimately, hopeless. Apart from God, man's reasoning and experience has no real merit. Maybe it can keep you from getting run over by a car, but does this really matter?...So in relying solely on your own experiences and your own reasoning, you are not at all neutral, but deeply anti-God; and yet you claim to be neutral. "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad." (Matt. 12:30)What does matter? - "the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Rom. 2:16)...and for that matter, the rest of the Bible, which is God's Holy Word, which he has revealed to us through His infinite mercy; and what fools we would be to not take advantage of this.

PaulK, What do you mean by "external reality"?And just so it won't look as if I'm avoiding the subject, let me once again iterate: this subject has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the scientific method; the subject is discussing whether or not *any* epistemological framework can stand alone as a means of determining truth, apart from any metaphysical framework. Certainly the scientific method has its advantages. But I do have some quibbles with it, which I will not go into detail to discuss, as this would be extremely off topic. Consider the subject closed. But you do admit that there are some. And if there are some (even one), then these assumptions must have another standard of proof. What might your standard of proof be for the existence of some "external reality" (?)? And what would your standard of proof be for the truth of the aforementioned standard of proof...you get the picture. Do you have any good reason for believing that these assumptions are any better than others? You said "pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform". But how can you know that nature is uniform without first assuming that it is uniform? How can I know that the great and mighty Pink Elephant is taking a shower (causing it to rain) without first assuming that he does exist?...You made a statement of fact: "nature is in fact uniform". I will also make a statement of fact "the great and might Pink Elephant is under the earth, holding it up"...pragmatically speaking, as long as it works for me, then does it really matter? You see, pragmatism gives ultimately no limits as to what a person can believe...as long as it works for them, it goes. So I think it works best to believe that the Pink Elephant is holding the earth up. Pragmatically speaking, its true to me, as long as it works for me...

---

"Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each one according to his deeds: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousnessindignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:4-11)

Modulous,I'll make a couple of general responses here, rather than particular responses, and make a few key points...1. - A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe their moral system to be superior over mine, because it relies on (rational) empiricism. They then stipulate that their moral system is "neutral" with regards to the existence of God. But it is inherently biased against God because it relies solely upon empiricism. To rely on one standard, rather than another, is to be biased against that other standard. This does not imply that the person is unreasonable, but merely biased (but for other reasons, I believe relying on empiricism alone to be unreasonable). This destroys the atheist's notion that he is "neutral". In fact, it is impossible for anyone to be entirely neutral, because if a person was not biased at all in favor of one standard or another, then they are already biased, for they are biased towards the standard of neutrality, as opposed to some other standard...2. - Is the statement that there are no objective morals purely objective? If not, then you would most likely say that its truth is proven through rational empiricism. To prove it, you would have to use other standards of proof. But is it purely objective that these new standards of proof are the correct standards?...The point I will continue to make is that if no standard of proof is purely objective, then how can one ever produce a self-verifying meta-physic, epistemic, or ethic? If one walks down this road of denying objectivity, they will either end in arbitrariness, inconsistency, or circularity (which is ultimately arbitrariness).3. - Because God created the universe based on His unchanging nature, then any ethical claims that deny His objectivity, and instead promote a view of subjectivity, are in direct opposition to God. So, if one takes a subjective view of morality, they are not in any way whatsoever taking on a view of neutrality with regards to the existence of God, but a view which sets itself in direct opposition to God.Also, by taking on a view of morality in which morals are only guidelines for how one should act in different situations, a person sets himself directly in opposition to God and His Word: "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." (Romans 7:14); "So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God" (Romans 7:25). The Law is not merely a set of guidelines for human action, but something holy to be served in mind and body. It is also of a spiritual nature, so it is therefore not defined by human experience, nor for human experience: it is a tool of sanctification - "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:2) - and condemnation - "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Romans 3:19). It's use as a tool for sanctification and condemnation is not centered around man, but it is centered around bringing glory to God; "that every mouth may be stopped"..."There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:1-11)