Happy Atheist Forum

I have recently been studying arguments for and against the existence of God and would like to hear this communities arguments against the existence of a god. This is not a debate about the existence of the Christian God or any other specific god, rather the idea of a god, all loving or uncaring whatever way you wish to argue. I will attempt to debate each point provided, the sheer number of replies may prevent me though from arguing each one.

This is my first post here purely because as a Christian there really isn't any reason for me to visit this forum except for the opportunity to challenge my faith. I am not a troll as some of you may be thinking; I just believe that you cannot truly know your position in any argument until you challenge it. So let this debate get started and please, no flaming.

Where to start?

Well we can divide our arguments into

1) Arguments against the general concept of god.

Well for tens of thousands of years, we have had no better explanation for phenomena that we see than the supernatural. We didn't understand why thunder and lightening occured, so we blamed it on the men in the sky who were angry. Its not an argument against god per say (isn't that spelt differently? I've never typed it), but its an explanation for why religous memes have been sucessful...

The concept of god is dismissed firstly by the principle of Occams Razor, which says that if there are several otherwise equally valid explanations for a phenomena, the one which is simplest is more likely to be the successful one. While we have no specific formal logical disproof of god, this is an irrelevent distraction, for outside of formal mathmatics, we cannot define our hypothesis tightly enough to be ably to logically reduce them to absurdity or any other form of proof. That doesn't mean that we can't say something very strong about the probability that god exists, and that is what most atheists base their disbelief on (its called agnostic atheism.)

2) Arguments against a specific god.
Taking the christian god for instance.
Check out http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for a guide to the many contradictions, absurdities and immoralities of your so-called "word of god."
Specific gods like the christian god are far less likely than the general concept of god (which is unlikely enough in its own regard,) because of contradictions they have with the findings of rigorous human study, sciences. And of course with themselves, although theologians usually attempt some kind of theological gymnastics at this point to get around this.

I'm sure there will be plenty of people to expand and improve upon my points, but that is a start!

From my experience of debating christians, nobody is going to convince anyone of their point of view, but as long as both are prepared to stick to the topic and keep away from personal or petty trolling, then we will hopefully find it a constructive discussion. And good on you for having the bravery to come over to the "other side." I'm pretty new here, but I'm pretty sure that the community in general would like to encourage theists to discuss, leaving aside the ignorant trolls. So welcome!

Without a more specific example being brought up, my argument against gods is that every time we thought they were necessary to explain the so-called supernatural, whether it be lightning, or weather, or volcanic eruptions, or supernova, it has turned out that the events were natural occurrences, with no need for the gods.  Why, then, would I expect this to be any different for the soul, who's operation appears to be nothing but functioning of the brain, or spiritual uplifting that appears to be totally emotional?

Why should I expect a god, nevermind an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving one to be necessary to explain the universe's existence?  If I have no reason to explicitly expect a god's necessity, why would I take on faith?

Quote from: "Uriel"So let this debate get started and please, no flaming.

Guess I'd better stay out of it, then.  :nerd:

Are you wanting arguments against the existence of your God or just a god in general?  I think you were speaking generally but was not sure.  I don't think it is possible to argue against an undefined god aside from pointing out logical errors in arguments for one.

Quote from: "Whitney"Are you wanting arguments against the existence of your God or just a god in general?  I think you were speaking generally but was not sure.  I don't think it is possible to argue against an undefined god aside from pointing out logical errors in arguments for one.

I don't think that it is either.

I haven’t heard of this “failed hypothesis” argument before so my ideas need a little polishing but here they are three arguments against it.

1)   The argument mainly is that if the god explanation has consistently been wrong why should I expect it to ever be right. Consistent failure doesn’t always equal complete failure. Some sources give the chance life existing in the universe to be 1/10 to the 282 power. Despite this improbability, life exists, I’m not saying that God exists because life exists but rather that the God explanation is not refutable because it has been consistently wrong in the past. Take this thought experiment, for example.
[spoiler:16hvy4ns]Imagine that you are a robot that has been traveling around the universe visiting a new galaxy every year since the beginning of the universe looking for living organisms. (A recent super computer simulation has estimated that there are more than 500 billion galaxies in the universe; the universe is only 14 billion years old.) Certainly after the first 2 billion years you would stop and ponder if there is life in the universe at all. You may come to the conclusion that if all the other galaxies you’ve visited had no life in them why should you assume that any other galaxies have life in them. I mean, you have not seen any life before; there has been no evidence for life, why should you assume that there is life in the universe.[/spoiler:16hvy4ns]You can apply this same approach to failed hypothesis argument.

2)   The second argument against the failed hypothesis argument is that the entire argument only deals with the western idea of God, a god that is involved with human affairs. Hinduism has Brahman, a non-moral being beyond good and evil and incapable of deliberate action. Taoism has the Tao which is the ultimate realty that all Taoists attempt to achieve union with.

3)   Thirdly I would argue that the Christian view of God doesn’t deal with explaining seemingly supernatural events rather it deals with our relationship with God. If the idea of a god cannot be totally refuted as most people agree on, what is our relationship with God? That is what most religions attempt to explain. I guess this argument can be summed up as, “The failed hypothesis argument has a misguided view of religion.”

EDIT: Sorry didn't translate right from Microsoft word. changed 1/10282 to 1/10 to the 10282 power

Couple things that pop out at me...

1) 1/10282 (btw I'd like to see the source on this; sounds interesting) seems like a very small chance, but if you consider the vastness of space and the sheer number of galaxies, solar systems and theoretically inhabitable planets, 1/10282 could still account for 1,000,000,000,000,000 chances.

2) Never claimed to be talking about Eastern thought, but the theory works just the same. Instead of using God as a hypothesis to explain natural phenomena, superstition is used to help people come to terms with loss or gain (like ancestor worship or a failed crop).

3) This is when you need to look at the anthropology and sociology of religion, rather than Christian apologetics. I never tried to explain how people relate to God, only why they needed God. The point, which Nietzsche put so bluntly: God is dead and we have killed him. We're better for it.

Quote1) 1/10282 (btw I'd like to see the source on this; sounds interesting) seems like a very small chance, but if you consider the vastness of space and the sheer number of galaxies, solar systems and theoretically inhabitable planets, 1/10282 could still account for 1,000,000,000,000,000 chances.

Check the edit, sorry about that didn't double check it. I typed it up in Microsoft word and didn't double check to see if the forum translated it correctly.

Quote2) Never claimed to be talking about Eastern thought, but the theory works just the same. Instead of using God as a hypothesis to explain natural phenomena, superstition is used to help people come to terms with loss or gain (like ancestor worship or a failed crop).

I'm not saying that the argument doesn't have some merit when applied to folk religion and certain branches of paganism. I'm just saying that most religions now a days deal with the individuals relationship to God or to help the individuals reach enlightenment.

Quote3) This is when you need to look at the anthropology and sociology of religion, rather than Christian apologetics. I never tried to explain how people relate to God, only why they needed God. The point, which Nietzsche put so bluntly: God is dead and we have killed him. We're better for it.

[/quote]

I can respect that, major research would have to be done, though, to measure the effects of theism and atheism on a society to reach a conclusion on either side.

Quote from: "Uriel"Check the edit, sorry about that didn't double check it. I typed it up in Microsoft word and didn't double check to see if the forum translated it correctly.

I'd still like to see that source you're referring to. Seems like a misleading number, considering the Drake equation (even adjusted conservatively) returns 2.31 civilizations in our galaxy, alone. Know how many galaxies there are? :lol:  Here's a short list of articles on related topics.

[spoiler:3tojssxw]Apple, M. W. (2008). Evolution versus creationism in education. Educational Policy, 22(2), 327-335.

Ashford, E. (2007). Schools grapple with legality of prayer rooms for muslim students. Education Digest, 73(3), 40-42.

Askarova, G. B. (2007). The religious and ethical education of students in a secular school. Russian Education & Society, 49(1), 34-46.

Barker, E. (2003). And the wisdom to know the difference? freedom, control and the sociology of religion. Sociology of Religion, 64(3), 285-307.

Barrett, J. B., Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Frank, K. A. (2007). Adolescent religiosity and school contexts. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 88(4), 1024-1037.

Binder, A. (2007). Gathering intelligence on intelligent design: Where did it come from, where is it going, and how should progressives manage it? American Journal of Education, 113(4), 549-576.

Blumenfeld, W. J. (2006). Christian privilege and the promotion of "secular" and not-so "secular" mainline christianity in public schooling and in the larger society. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(3), 195-210.

Burns, J. (2001). Why do bad things happen? Campus Life, 60(2), 20.

Coleman, J. (2003). School choice, diversity and a life of One’s own. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 101-120.

Coleman, L. (2008). Preferences towards sex education and information from a religiously diverse sample of young people. Health Education, 108(1), 72-91.

Court, D. (2006). How shall we study religious school culture? Religious Education, 101(2)

D'Andrea, L. M., & Sprenger, J. (2007). Atheism and nonspirituality as diversity issues in counseling. Counseling & Values, 51(2), 149-158.

D'antonio, W. V., & Hoge, D. R. (2006). The american experience of religious disestablishment and pluralism. Social Compass, 53(3), 345-356.

Donelson, E. (1999). Psychology of religion and adolescents in the united states: Past to present. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 187.

Downey, A. B. (2007). The godless freshman. Free Inquiry, 27(5), 56-57.

Duriez, B., & Hutsebaut, D. (2000). The relation between religion and racism: The role of post-critical beliefs. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 3(1), 85-102.

Duriez, B. (2003). Vivisecting the religious mind: Religiosity and motivated social cognition. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 6(1), 79.

Duriez, B. (2004). Are religious people nicer people? taking a closer look at the religion-empathy relationship. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 7(3), 249-254.

Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2005). Drawing the line: Views of atheists and moral boundaries in america. Prepared for Submission to the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association,

Edgell, P., Gerteis, J., & Hartmann, D. (2006). Atheists as "other": Moral boundaries and cultural membership in american society. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 211-234.

Edgell, P., & Tranby, E. (2007). Religious influences on understandings of racial inequality in the united states. Social Problems, 54(2), 263-288.

Elkind, D. (1999). Religious development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2)

Furrow, J. L., King, P. E., & White, K. (2004). Religion and positive youth development: Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 17-26.

Good, M., & Willoughby, T. (2006). The role of spirituality versus religiosity in adolescent psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 35(1), 39-53.

Hand, M. (2003). A philosophical objection to faith schools. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 89-99.

Hardy, S. A., & Raffaelli, M. (2003). Adolescent religiosity and sexuality: An investigation of reciprocal influences. Journal of Adolescence, 26(6), 731.

Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S. (2002). Why more americans have no religious preference: Politics and generations. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 165-190.

Iannaccone, L. R., & Makowsky, M. D. (2007). Accidental atheists? agent-based explanations for the persistence of religious regionalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(1), 1-16.

King, P. E., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2004). Exploring adolescent spiritual and religious development: Current and future theoretical and empirical perspectives. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 2-6.

King, P. E., & Furrow, J. L. (2004). Religion as a resource for positive youth development: Religion, social capital, and moral outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 703-713.

Krause, N., & Wulff, K. M. (2004). Religious doubt and health: Exploring the potential dark side of religion. Sociology of Religion, 65(1), 35-56.

Lehrer, E. L. (1999). Religion as a determinant of educational attainment: An economic perspective. Social Science Research, 28(4), 358-379.

Lehrer, E. L. (2004). Religion as a determinant of economic and demographic behavior in the united states. Population & Development Review, 30(4), 707-726.

Levison, A. (2005). Are nonreligious teenagers really deficient? Humanist, 65(5), 5-47.

Markstrom, C. A. (1999). Religious involvement and adolescent psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 205.

May, C. M. (2006). Religion's legal place in the schoolhouse. School Administrator, 63(9), 32-35.

McKinney, J. P., & McKinney, K. G. (1999). Prayer in the lives of late adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 279.

Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 699-723.

Noddings, N. (2008). The new outspoken atheism and education. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 369-390.

Norman, R. (2006). The varieties of non-religious experience. Ratio, 19(4), 474-494.

Perl, P., & Gray, M. M. (2007). Catholic schooling and disaffiliation from catholicism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2), 269-280.

Regnerus, M. D. (2000). Shaping schooling success: Religious socialization and educational outcomes in metropolitan public schools. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 363.

Regnerus, M. D., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Staying on track in school: Religious influences in high- and low-risk settings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(4), 633-649.

Revell, L. (2008). Spiritual development in public and religious schools: A case study. Religious Education, 103(1), 102-118.

Riley, N. S. (2006). Keeping out the christians: Evangelical high schools meet public universities. Education Next, 6(3), 50-56.

Rizzo, T. R., Rizzo, E., & Empie, K. M. (2005). Yielding to deviant temptation: A quasi-experimental examination of the inhibiting power of intrinsic religious motivation. Deviant Behavior, 26(5), 463-481.

Rosenblith, S. (2008). Beyond coexistence: Toward a more reflective religious pluralism. Theory and Research in Education, 6(1), 107-121.

Rostosky, S. S., Wilcox, B. L., Comer Wright, M. L., & Randall, B. A. (2004). The impact of religiosity on adolescent sexual behavior: A review of the evidence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 677-697.

Seifert, T. (2007). Understanding christian privilege: Managing the tensions of spiritual plurality. About Campus, 12(2), 10-17.

Sherkat, D. E. (2008). Beyond belief: Atheism, agnosticism, and theistic certainty in the united states. Sociological Spectrum, 28(5), 438-459.

Short, G. (2002). Faithâ€"Based schools: A threat to social cohesion? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(4), 559-572.

Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2004). Identifying the mechanisms whereby family religiosity influences the probability of adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35(4), 547-563.

Smith, C., Denton, M. L., Faris, R., & Regnerus, M. (2002). Mapping american adolescent religious participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 597-612.

Streib, H. (1999). Off-road religion? A narrative approach to fundamentalist and occult orientations of adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 255.

Strike, K. A. (2007). Common schools and uncommon conversations: Education, religious speech and public spaces. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 693-708.

Thornton, A., & Camburn, D. (1989). Religious participation and adolescent sexual behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marriage & Family, 51(3), 641-653.

VanZanten Gallagher, S. (2007). Speaking of vocation in an age of spirituality. Change, 39(3), 32-37.

Warnick, B. R., & Fooce, C. D. (2007). Does teaching creationism facilitate student autonomy? Theory and Research in Education, 5(3), 357-378.[/spoiler:3tojssxw]

QuoteI'd still like to see that source you're referring to. Seems like a misleading number, considering the Drake equation (even adjusted conservatively) returns 2.31 civilizations in our galaxy, alone. Know how many galaxies there are? :lol:  Here's a short list of articles on related topics.

I'll look into some of those, could be some good reading. Finding a copy of the Journal of Marriage and Family from 1989 may prove difficult though.  

No one knows the probability of life arising in the universe, or even the conditions by which live can arise, it is wholly speculation beyond counting the planets and solar systems that are analogous to our own.

We don't quite understand how abiogenesis works, or if there are other circumstances by which it can occur, based on different chemicals and circumstances than our own origins.

That said, commonness is always a more justified assumption than uniqueness. Uniqueness is always less probable, so less justified to assume. All things being equal, the most probable conclusions is always more justified to assume.

Quote from: "Uriel"I haven’t heard of this “failed hypothesis” argument before so my ideas need a little polishing but here they are three arguments against it.

1)   The argument mainly is that if the god explanation has consistently been wrong why should I expect it to ever be right. Consistent failure doesn’t always equal complete failure. Some sources give the chance life existing in the universe to be 1/10 to the 282 power. Despite this improbability, life exists, I’m not saying that God exists because life exists but rather that the God explanation is not refutable because it has been consistently wrong in the past. Take this thought experiment, for example.
[spoiler:f6ltsj60]Imagine that you are a robot that has been traveling around the universe visiting a new galaxy every year since the beginning of the universe looking for living organisms. (A recent super computer simulation has estimated that there are more than 500 billion galaxies in the universe; the universe is only 14 billion years old.) Certainly after the first 2 billion years you would stop and ponder if there is life in the universe at all. You may come to the conclusion that if all the other galaxies you’ve visited had no life in them why should you assume that any other galaxies have life in them. I mean, you have not seen any life before; there has been no evidence for life, why should you assume that there is life in the universe.[/spoiler:f6ltsj60]You can apply this same approach to failed hypothesis argument.

You cannot.  The argument is that there is no reason to expect god, at least my version is.  There has yet to evidence of any gods, but I cannot say definitively that it doesn't exist, and you can't say definitively Russell's Teapot doesn't exist.  That isn't the argument, though.  The argument is "I have yet to see plausible evidence of a god, and all up to this point has been found to be explainable via materialistic means, ergo I have no reason to expect an external creator (the simplest version of a god)."  We might deal with the physical absence of gods if miracles could be proven - that is uncaused events - or if any kind of prayer was consistently answered.  And we all would accept the existence of a god that made itself apparent.  It just seems miserably unlikely, afloat in a sea of other options of which no one knows the correct choice.  But a god of the gaps in the form of a deist prime mover is not something I'd endorse.  It's also not anything that would care if I endorsed it, so I have absolutely no reason to without evidence.

Finally, the robot presumably has until the end of time to fulfill its sole purpose, so it cannot justify discontinuing its search.  Even when it finished surveying all of the universe, it must do it again, as life may have developed in its absence.  If it was programmed to discontinue, you put its free will off on something else, something else decided what a reasonable sample size was, whereas the implication is that it decides based on its own faulty reasoning, which would be faulty for it is immortal and has no need of inductive reasoning apart from protecting itself.  The only reason humans make assumptions about the state of the rest of the universe is because we are limited in time and capability.  Some things, though, can be assumed safely to be consistent across the whole universe.  The absence of 8-cornered spheres, for example.  So some things, like the all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving, prime mover may be discarded out of hand, lest we be sophists and anything, even bald-face contradictions, be possible.

Quote from: "Uriel"2)   The second argument against the failed hypothesis argument is that the entire argument only deals with the western idea of God, a god that is involved with human affairs. Hinduism has Brahman, a non-moral being beyond good and evil and incapable of deliberate action. Taoism has the Tao which is the ultimate realty that all Taoists attempt to achieve union with.

All of which are unevidenced unless we equate these concepts with actual observations.  Take Taoism.  I know little about it, but it's based on a duality, yes?  If we say all dualities are Tao, then all we've done is create a synonym for duality.  If I say my god is the sun, with no supernatural aspect, only claiming the observed functioning of the star as the functioning of god, then my god surely exists, but why would you call it god?  It's just an observed mechanic, and I don't doubt those.  In the case of any eastern idea of a prime mover, its assumption is still equally unwarranted by the evidence as any western one.

Quote from: "Uriel"3)   Thirdly I would argue that the Christian view of God doesn’t deal with explaining seemingly supernatural events rather it deals with our relationship with God. If the idea of a god cannot be totally refuted as most people agree on, what is our relationship with God? That is what most religions attempt to explain. I guess this argument can be summed up as, “The failed hypothesis argument has a misguided view of religion.”

I may be putting words into your mouth.  If I am, I'm sorry.  It sounds to me like you're saying all the god myths are just exploration of the possibility that there's a god out there, and what it would mean for us.  In that case, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is also exploration of this concept.  But I wouldn't call the IPU an exploration of god.  I'd call it a machination of fantasy, much as I wouldn't call Harry Potter a study in the possibility of wizards.  There may be boundless speculation if we're willing to isolate reality, to say where it starts and stops, but we've yet to see anything but reality, so why would we assume there is anything else?

Finally, using religion as a catch-all term, you are correct, but we're not arguing against whether religion strikes us as existing, or if it might server a purpose, but a god.  I'd like to see justification for why the failed hypothesis argument doesn't apply to any particular concept of god, though, if I'm misunderstanding you, and you meant religion as a synonym for a belief in god, because you still haven't demonstrated that there is a reason to assume deities.

Even though I wanted to stay out of this, I can't help but point out the problems with the robot scenario. Firstly, to say that we have no reason to assume that the future will resemble the past is to reject induction, which is the foundation of science, and is simply required to function in the world.

Humans, as well as many animals understand that the future resembles the past. It isn't provable -- Hume showed that -- and there is always the possibility that things should change, but that doesn't render inductive assumptions unjustified. To say that implies countless absurdities. People don't jump off of cliffs without knowing that they will fall, they certainly don't think that all because in all of their past experience things fall down, it in no way implies that they will fall down this time when they jump.

When we establish any amount of probability, it relies on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, as probability is established by examining the reiteration of similar events, and projecting the statistics onto future similar events. One cannot simultaneously reject inductive reasoning, and use probabilistic arguments, like you have. That is a contradiction.

The robot had to have been created by someone, as robots are artificial entities, and thus its creators, and designers were living things that evolved -- so the robot is aware of life arising in the universe, and thus the assumption that it arose more than once, or will arise more than once is always justified by the inductive inference from the knowledge that it has happened in the past. So life is verified, and the robot knows that it can exists, and can arise in the universe, it just isn't aware of the probability, but it knows that if it happened once, then it stands to reason that it will happen again.

The argument being presented is that 100% of the time natural explanations have come out on top, and a supernatural phenomena, entity, or event has never been identified nor verified.

It is a false analogy for this reason.

Now, I'm not attempting an argument against a god, or the supernatural, I am merely pointing out the problems with the robot scenario.

Uriel, I have many arguments against god but in reality none of them are needed. The burden of proof is on the theists.

Quote from: "Sophus"Uriel, I have many arguments against god but in reality none of them are needed. The burden of proof is on the theists.

QFT.  It really is that simple.

It's all well and good as long as you aren't claiming it to be false, that would be different.

"I'm unconvinced, ergo it's false" certainly doesn't follow. The thread appears to be in search of people that think it's wrong, and thus should have arguments to support that it is false, and the fact that it has not been demonstrated true to their personal satisfaction is by no means such an argument.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"It's all well and good as long as you aren't claiming it to be false, that would be different.

"I'm unconvinced, ergo it's false" certainly doesn't follow. The thread appears to be in search of people that think it's wrong, and thus should have arguments to support that it is false, and the fact that it has not been demonstrated true to their personal sanctification is by no means such an argument.

No, but we haven't been given a definition of god so the best we can do is say we've seen no evidence, so your ubercreator either doesn't exist, is very hard to find, or is deliberately absent.  If Uriel wants to give us something more specific, we can possibly show issues with that conception of god.  It's just asserting something external to reality in most cases, where I might assert the whole universe is just a thought of a cowboy in cowboyland.  You don't tell me I'm wrong, you ask what reason there is for me or you, to believe I'm right.  "We exist, so the cowboy is thinking of us," would be specious.

But no, you're right, saying I haven't seen any reason for god to exist is no more an argument than someone telling someone else to "prove it."  We'll address the finer details when we have a finer description.  

I wouldn't get that far. One can't form an argument against an undefined entity X.

Sorry I haven't been able to post. Been preparing for Easter.

Quote from: "Uriel"Sorry I haven't been able to post. Been preparing for Easter.

No worries.  You probably won't be able to reply today.  We'll all get by somehow.  

Whenever someone asks me to disprove their god(s), I just ask them to disprove unicorns or leprechauns and echo what they say back at them  

The debate seems to be boiling down to that God may or may not exist but there is no evidence to point to his existence so why believe in him. I've decided to make a list of evidence of God's existence.

1. The existence of good and evil. Without an absolute moral compass good and evil cannot exist. Plato argued something along these lines when trying to pinpoint the definition of piety. He ran into the problem that what one of the Greek gods would consider pious another would consider impious. For goodness to exist there would have to be something that is ultimately and always good.
Murder, rape, and child abuse are justifiable if good and evil do not exist. Most atheists I know would say that these things are evil. In their belief system, though, morality can only arise from the agreement of society on certain moral laws. We can all agree, though, that entire societies have been wrong on certain subjects ex. slavery, the role of women, and racism.

2. The fact that the universe has certain laws that cannot be broken. If I drop a rock it will fall to the earth do to gravity; 2 + 2 will always equal 4; hydrogen reacts with oxygen to form H2O. There is no reasonable reason why these laws should exist. The only argument for these laws is the laws themselves. But you cannot argue that something happens because it happened. Something always has to have a cause; this leads me to my second point.

3. If all events have a cause the universe must have had a cause.

P.S. The robot scenario is an analog; it is not to be taken literally. I was not talking about the probability of life or the literal idea of a robot existing out in the universe somewhere. I'll give some other examples to make the idea a little easier to understand.
Ancient Europeans would not be right if they assumed that the Americas don't exist despite the lack of evidence for them back then. Indigenous Amazon tribes wouldn't be right if they assumed that the U.S. doesn't exist despite lack of evidence for it from their perspective.
Simply what I was trying to say was that the lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Quote from: "Uriel"Simply what I was trying to say was that the lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Quote from: "Uriel"1. The existence of good and evil. Without an absolute moral compass good and evil cannot exist. Plato argued something along these lines when trying to pinpoint the definition of piety. He ran into the problem that what one of the Greek gods would consider pious another would consider impious. For goodness to exist there would have to be something that is ultimately and always good.
Murder, rape, and child abuse are justifiable if good and evil do not exist. Most atheists I know would say that these things are evil. In their belief system, though, morality can only arise from the agreement of society on certain moral laws. We can all agree, though, that entire societies have been wrong on certain subjects ex. slavery, the role of women, and racism.

Euthyphro dilemma refutes this -- but only that a god could be the moral standard. It doesn't refute moral absolutism, though, can you demonstrate a single moral absolute?

Quote2. The fact that the universe has certain laws that cannot be broken. If I drop a rock it will fall to the earth do to gravity; 2 + 2 will always equal 4; hydrogen reacts with oxygen to form H2O. There is no reasonable reason why these laws should exist. The only argument for these laws is the laws themselves. But you cannot argue that something happens because it happened. Something always has to have a cause; this leads me to my second point.

Miracles claim to break natural laws, so to sustain this argument you must reject theism. Theism entails an interventionist god who works by way of miracle which violate natural laws, and thus refute your argument that they cannot be violated.

That aside, this comes from a misunderstanding of what a "natural law" is, and even conflates it with a tautology, 2+2 equaling 4. Natural laws are not the same as authoritative, or judicial laws, they are bound up within scientific theories, and science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Also, natural laws often turn out to be violated. Newtonian physics is violated at high speeds, and Einsteinian physics are violated on the quantum scale. We merely adjust, and adapt our laws and theories for the new discoveries, and then work out new ones to describe the new phenomena, and observations.

Quote3. If all events have a cause the universe must have had a cause.

This is a compilation fallacy. It is fallacious to infer things about a whole based on its individual parts. Also, all events do not have causes, events on the quantum scale violate causality, and casualty is observer depended, and does not apply to things moving at speeds greater than light. It also is reliant on chronology, and thus it is illogical to talk about a cause of time itself, as an event cannot precede time itself.

QuoteAncient Europeans would not be right if they assumed that the Americas don't exist despite the lack of evidence for them back then.

Still a false analogy. Europeans knew that continents, islands, and such existed. You are attempting to parallel this with something that we don't have any evidence that anything like it at all exists. It isn't just more of something we already know exists.

QuoteIndigenous Amazon tribes wouldn't be right if they assumed that the U.S. doesn't exist despite lack of evidence for it from their perspective.

The US is a concept, and not actually a thing. It would be difficult for them to deny that the area that corresponded to the US did not exist if they themselves occupied part of that area.

QuoteSimply what I was trying to say was that the lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

No, it does not. Absence of of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though your analogies appeared to be attempting to establish that assuming the positive would be reasonable, as all of the subjects were things that were true. This is also not the case. If there is no evidence either way, then suspension of judgment until further notice is the most reasonable course of action.

Quote from: "Uriel"Simply what I was trying to say was that the lack of evidence for something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Prove it.  

No, I agree. But when there's no evidence for something and reason leads us to believe something else - why believe in that something? People don't just believe in things for no reason.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Classic

QuoteEuthyphro dilemma refutes this -- but only that a god could be the moral standard. It doesn't refute moral absolutism, though, can you demonstrate a single moral absolute?

I understand the argument that the Euthyphro dilemma presents; I just don't believe that it's that persuasive. We only accept moral absolutes and good and evil as unchangeable and logical because that is how our world runs. We can not accept moral absolutes any different than they are know, than can we accept a universe without light and gravity. The Euthyphro dilemma is purely based on our unwillingness to accept our own limits as humans. We are unwilling to accept a God that is greater than us; no one can fully understand something greater than themselves.

QuoteMiracles claim to break natural laws, so to sustain this argument you must reject theism. Theism entails an interventionist god who works by way of miracle which violate natural laws, and thus refute your argument that they cannot be violated.

First off, not all theist beliefs believe in miracles or a intervening God. Check what I said earlier about Eastern religions. Secondly I said that the laws exist, never did I say that they can't be broken, especially by an omnipotent God. God created the laws, he can break the laws. Put it this way, a programmer writes the code, the code can not break its own design, the programmer certainly isn't restricted to his code's design.

QuoteNatural laws are not the same as authoritative, or judicial laws

And I'm arguing that minus the enforcement part scientific laws may be authoritative or judicial laws.

Quotethey are bound up within scientific theories, and science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Meant scientific laws, not natural laws. A scientific law is an observation of a predictable event. A scientific theory is a conclusion conclusion drawn from these observations.

QuoteAlso, natural laws often turn out to be violated. Newtonian physics is violated at high speeds, and Einsteinian physics are violated on the quantum scale.

I was not arguing that we already know all that there is to know about science. The current laws we have come up with are probably wrong under certain circumstances we don't know about. This doesn't change the fact that the universe is guided by laws.

The basic premise of my argument is that the universe is logical, there is absolutely no reason that the universe should be logical, but it is. The universe could be chaotic and illogical and we would have no argument against it being that way.

QuoteNo, it does not. Absence of of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though your analogies appeared to be attempting to establish that assuming the positive would be reasonable, as all of the subjects were things that were true. This is also not the case. If there is no evidence either way, then suspension of judgment until further notice is the most reasonable course of action.

So we agree that rejection is not the reasonable conclusion. I agree that acceptance without evidence is not either, that is why I'm presenting evidence for it.

Quote from: "Uriel"I understand the argument that the Euthyphro dilemma presents; I just don't believe that it's that persuasive. We only accept moral absolutes and good and evil as unchangeable and logical because that is how our world runs. We can not accept moral absolutes any different than they are know, than can we accept a universe without light and gravity. The Euthyphro dilemma is purely based on our unwillingness to accept our own limits as humans. We are unwilling to accept a God that is greater than us; no one can fully understand something greater than themselves.

Am I to understand you are accepting moral absolutes which you cannot define?  Aside from being way too convenient for my tastes and applicable to whichever god you like, it still doesn't count as demonstration of any moral absolute.

QuoteFirst off, not all theist beliefs believe in miracles or a intervening God. Check what I said earlier about Eastern religions. Secondly I said that the laws exist, never did I say that they can't be broken, especially by an omnipotent God. God created the laws, he can break the laws. Put it this way, a programmer writes the code, the code can not break its own design, the programmer certainly isn't restricted to his code's design.

You believe in an intervening god, though, yes?  We'll address that.  God should be able to break the laws, he just shouldn't need to.  A programmer only rewrites code when it wasn't right the first time, or to add features they hadn't thought of previously.  God's code shouldn't require this micromanagement, but rather everything should already be accounted for.  After all, the code wouldn't be perfect, otherwise, and if you claim that sin broke God's code, then the program did rewrite itself!  The analogy isn't any good.

QuoteAnd I'm arguing that minus the enforcement part scientific laws may be authoritative or judicial laws.

Being no expert on the judicial system, I don't feel qualified to hammer out the differences, other than to say I don't like how this argument sounds.  But semantically, you could be right.

QuoteMeant scientific laws, not natural laws. A scientific law is an observation of a predictable event. A scientific theory is a conclusion conclusion drawn from these observations.

The observations are still descriptive, but through induction we may apply them to the future.  Scientific observations are still accounted for by the over-arching theories.  I'm not really sure this is important, though, as it seems like a semantic disagreement.  But hey, I just woke up, so I might be missing a broader implication.

QuoteI was not arguing that we already know all that there is to know about science. The current laws we have come up with are probably wrong under certain circumstances we don't know about. This doesn't change the fact that the universe is guided by laws.

(I put on my robe and sophist hat) The universe isn't necessarily guided by any laws, it could just be the most epic coincidence ever that it's looked like it is this whole time.  Tomorrow the sun may rise purple as the salad reverses the 3-sided circle.  (sophist hat off, robe stays on) But that's ridiculous beyond all credibility, and I'm just playing around.   :D

Quote from: "Uriel"I understand the argument that the Euthyphro dilemma presents;

I don't think that you do, given that you completely failed to address it. The argument is simply: is something moral because god says so, or does god say it because it is moral? If the former, then morality is arbitrary, and if the latter, god is superfluous.

There is no third option. It is logically impossible that god be the standard of absolute morality, as if morality is merely based on what a god thinks, and nothing objective, then it is arbitrary, and anything at all could be moral or immoral solely based on its dictates. Genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, homophobia, xenophobia, and all of those nice things that appear in the bible would then be moral, solely because god says so. This is an evil and tyrannical king, not an absolute moral standard.  

QuoteFirst off, not all theist beliefs believe in miracles or a intervening God.

Yes, they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)

QuoteCheck what I said earlier about Eastern religions.

There are no eastern theistic religions. There are some polytheistic ones, and some nontheistic ones.  

QuoteSecondly I said that the laws exist, never did I say that they can't be broken, especially by an omnipotent God.

Actually that is exactly what you said: "2. The fact that the universe has certain laws that cannot be broken."

QuoteGod created the laws, he can break the laws. Put it this way, a programmer writes the code, the code can not break its own design, the programmer certainly isn't restricted to his code's design.

I was only going by what you said about the laws of nature. Something that "cannot be broken" is not breakable be definition, if you want to say that they can be broken now, then that is different than what you said before.

QuoteAnd I'm arguing that minus the enforcement part scientific laws may be authoritative or judicial laws.

They aren't. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. I suggest that you engage yourself in some philosophy of science.  

QuoteMeant scientific laws, not natural laws. A scientific law is an observation of a predictable event. A scientific theory is a conclusion conclusion drawn from these observations.

This is just false. A scientific law is a general principle stipulated in a hypothesis, and if lucky will someday be included in a scientific theory. Laws are more old school science though, modern science doesn't really create laws very often anymore.

QuoteI was not arguing that we already know all that there is to know about science. The current laws we have come up with are probably wrong under certain circumstances we don't know about. This doesn't change the fact that the universe is guided by laws.

This isn't a fact... what laws are you talking about then if not scientific ones, and what do you mean by "law" in this context? You specifically said you were talking about scientific laws. What are you talking about then? I'm aware of no other relevant laws. How can it be a fact, if we are not aware of them? Facts are things we know.

QuoteThe basic premise of my argument is that the universe is logical, there is absolutely no reason that the universe should be logical, but it is. The universe could be chaotic and illogical and we would have no argument against it being that way.

Logic is a formalized system of reasoning, and is extrapolated from our natural reasoning faculties that has evolved over billions of years. Besides that, the universe does not work by logic, logic is abstract, and deals with ideas, semantics, and the rules of a formalized system. Logic cannot establish anything true about the world. It can only establish negatives which are denied because they break semantic rules. For example, you can say that there are no square-triangles, because it is not logically possible for an objective to simultaneously be three-sided, and four-sided. But the universe doesn't work by logic, as there is nothing logically impossible about having a coin you flipped turn into a dragon and fly away, or the moon being made of cheese. Logic governs the systems, and principles we create, not the universe.    

Also, the universe is largely chaotic, and every so gradually moves further and further towards chaos, or maximum entropy.  

QuoteSo we agree that rejection is not the reasonable conclusion. I agree that acceptance without evidence is not either, that is why I'm presenting evidence for it.

You've presented none. Even if everything you said was true, was true -- which it wasn't -- you offered nothing more than a personal interpretation of it, that gives you an intuitive feeling. That is not evidence. Though I don't even know what you are actually arguing for, you have refrained from defining or describing what you mean by god, so you can't offer me evidence for something that I don't know what you're talking about.

You need to first develop a god model before you can start looking for evidence. It reminds me of ghost hunters I see on TV sometimes, with all of these gadgets, and cameras and what not, and saying that it helps locate ghosts... How do they know that? Where did that get that idea? On what basis do they assume that those things will help them find ghosts any better than a roll of soggy toilet paper?

You can't find evidence to support something that has not even been outlined, or established what would constitute evidence for it.

Quote from: "Uriel"I understand the argument that the Euthyphro dilemma presents;

I don't think that you do, given that you completely failed to address it. The argument is simply: is something moral because god says so, or does god say it because it is moral? If the former, then morality is arbitrary, and if the latter, god is superfluous.

There is no third option. It is logically impossible that god be the standard of absolute morality, as if morality is merely based on what a god thinks, and nothing objective, then it is arbitrary, and anything at all could be moral or immoral solely based on its dictates. Genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, homophobia, xenophobia, and all of those nice things that appear in the bible would then be moral, solely because god says so. This is an evil and tyrannical king, not an absolute moral standard.  [/quote]

forgive me for the intrusion, but I seem to be hung on your comment. It seems to me as though Euthyphro's dilemma is merely a dilemma for the Polytheist. By attacking a theists view of god you must meet the theist where he stands. Most theists view god as the greatest conceivable being. It is greater to be the paradigm or standard of morality than to conform to it. Which entails the theistic god ( if existing) to be necessarily morally perfect. god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality. god’s moral character would be essential to him, which is why most theists think that god can serve as the foundation of necessary moral truths, i.e., moral truths which hold in every possible world. (by saying that a property is essential to god I am saying that there is no possible world in which the theistic god could have existed and lacked that property ect.)
most theists I know think that morality/immorality is determined by conformity or lack thereof to his nature, (which is essential to His being.) making the dilemma false.

QuoteYes, they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism)

I could be wrong but isn't Deism a branch of Theism?

Philly, you say a theistic god has to be morally perfect, but how would one judge this perfection? If the standards it is judged against are external to it, then the god's say in moral matters is redundant, if the standard used to judge the god is internal to it, then the perfection becomes meaningless, as the god's perfect morals just mean it it is consistant in it's own, arbitrary moral standards.

How can you say a being is morally perfect without having some standard to judge it with? Saying "this is the perfect chair" means it either confroms to all the tenents of chairness, or that it is the standards of chairness and all other chairs should aspire to be like this chair. In the first instance the standard is external to it, and in the second, the standard is arbtirarily based on one, random, chair.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"forgive me for the intrusion, but I seem to be hung on your comment. It seems to me as though Euthyphro's dilemma is merely a dilemma for the Polytheist.

What part of the argument as I presented it presupposes polytheism?

QuoteBy attacking a theists view of god you must meet the theist where he stands.

I wasn't attacking a view of god, I was criticizing a view of morality.

QuoteMost theists view god as the greatest conceivable being.

Which is a subjective value judgment, like the greatest possible meal, or the greatest possible vacation spot. It is my opinion that the greatest possible entity should have bunny-ears, ergo, god has bunny-ears.

QuoteIt is greater to be the paradigm or standard of morality than to conform to it.

Opinion, though irrelevant. The dilemma does not attempt to disprove god, or show that it cannot be the standard, it just reveals that it is not logically possible for god to both be the standard of morality, and for morality to be non-arbitrary.

QuoteWhich entails the theistic god ( if existing) to be necessarily morally perfect...

By what standard? If god is the moral standard, then god is morally perfect by definition. If I were the moral standard, then I would be morally perfect by definition. That isn't saying much.

Quote...god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality...

Non sequitur, this in no way follows from anything that you've said.

Quote...god’s moral character would be essential to him, which is why most theists think that god can serve as the foundation of necessary moral truths, i.e., moral truths which hold in every possible world (by saying that a property is essential to god I am saying that there is no possible world in which the theistic god could have existed and lacked that property ect.)

My moral character is essential to me. If I existed with a different character in any other possible world, then I would not be "me", I would be a different persona. Though I can't serve as an absolute moral standard, and I don't see you even remotely addressing how any agent could without rendering morality arbitrary.

Instead of actually addressing the dilemma, you have merely trailed off into non sequiturs and red herrings.

Quote...most theists I know think that morality/immorality is determined by conformity or lack thereof to his nature, (which is essential to His being.) making the dilemma false.

Appeal to the people fallacy. It matters not how many people think that a square-triangle is a possible entity, it doesn't then magically render the concept logically possible.

QuoteI could be wrong but isn't Deism a branch of Theism?

No it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism)

It is however derived from theology, but "theology" is the study of (a) god(s), and is not limited to theism. The words probably have etymological relation, but that is not relevant to their current meanings, and etymology often isn't.

Quote from: "pastafarian"Whenever someone asks me to disprove their god(s), I just ask them to disprove unicorns or leprechauns and echo what they say back at them  :P

QuoteWhat part of the argument as I presented it presupposes polytheism?

Nowhere does it "presuppose" polytheism, from what I can tell it only seems a problem for a polytheist. Most polytheists have no being that is necessarily morally perfect.

QuoteWhich is a subjective value judgment, like the greatest possible meal, or the greatest possible vacation spot. It is my opinion that the greatest possible entity should have bunny-ears, ergo, god has bunny-ears.

I don't think you got what I was trying to communicate (probably my mistake) I'll give it another go.
If you are attacking a view of morality (a theistic view) you must show why that view is incompatible/inconsistent with a view of (for this example) a theistic god which is what the ED tries to do, or what it most widely used for anyways. If you were to attack a god which has bunny ears you would be attacking a straw man as most theists don't believe god to have bunny ears.

I did not commit the people fallacy, I was attempting to communicate that if most theists believe god to be the greatest conceivable being,then that is the being you must show to be logically incompatible with objective morality.

QuoteOpinion, though irrelevant. The dilemma does not attempt to disprove god, or show that it cannot be the standard, it just reveals that it is not logically possible for god to both be the standard of morality, and for morality to be non-arbitrary.

I don't recall saying it tries to disprove god. Please let me know what you are referring to.

QuoteBy what standard? If god is the moral standard, then god is morally perfect by definition. If I were the moral standard, then I would be morally perfect by definition. That isn't saying much.

your right, if you were the moral standard you would be morally perfect; however, you do not by necessity have to be morally perfect (get where im going?) If the theistic god existed, he would be by necessity be morally perfect, because he would necessarily be the moral standard.

QuoteNon sequitur, this in no way follows from anything that you've said.

I was attempting to show how the two horns of the dilemma could be split, giving a third option by using the argument which I listed.

QuoteMy moral character is essential to me. If I existed with a different character in any other possible world, then I would not be "me", I would be a different persona. Though I can't serve as an absolute moral standard, and I don't see you even remotely addressing how any agent could without rendering morality arbitrary.

correct, your moral character isn't perfect though, theists think that gods character is which is why any semi intelligent one sees no problem in the dilemma.

QuoteI could be wrong but isn't Deism a branch of Theism?

No it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism)

It is however derived from theology, but "theology" is the study of (a) god(s), and is not limited to theism. The words probably have etymological relation, but that is not relevant to their current meanings, and etymology often isn't.[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong but Theism is merely the belief in one or more gods. Deism is the belief in an impersonal god who has no interaction with the world ect. Theism never specifies which god exists or what that god is like, just that a god exists.

taken from the theism wiki page you gave me
"While a specific definition of theism may exclude deism, it is included by the most general definition."

QuotePhilly, you say a theistic god has to be morally perfect, but how would one judge this perfection? If the standards it is judged against are external to it, then the god's say in moral matters is redundant, if the standard used to judge the god is internal to it, then the perfection becomes meaningless, as the god's perfect morals just mean it it is consistant in it's own, arbitrary moral standards.

How can you say a being is morally perfect without having some standard to judge it with? Saying "this is the perfect chair" means it either confroms to all the tenents of chairness, or that it is the standards of chairness and all other chairs should aspire to be like this chair. In the first instance the standard is external to it, and in the second, the standard is arbtirarily based on one, random, chair.

It cannot be judged and it doesn't need to be judged, you seem to want to argue moral semantics. the first horn "the standard is external to it" is obviously false, to reiterate what I said god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality. god’s moral character would be essential to him

sorry for the spelling errors, I'm a bit rushed but I'll try to go into more detail a little later.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"I don't think you got what I was trying to communicate (probably my mistake) I'll give it another go.
If you are attacking a view of morality (a theistic view) you must show why that view is incompatible/inconsistent with a view of (for this example) a theistic god which is what the ED tries to do, or what it most widely used for anyways. If you were to attack a god which has bunny ears you would be attacking a straw man as most theists don't believe god to have bunny ears.

You clearly completely misunderstood my objection. That was a reductio ad absurdum, to show the ridiculousness of the line of reasoning you were employing.

QuoteI did not commit the people fallacy, I was attempting to communicate that if most theists believe god to be the greatest conceivable being,then that is the being you must show to be logically incompatible with objective morality.

The concept is nonsensical for the aforementioned reasons, but I don't have to do any such thing, the ED demonstrates that no agent can be an absolute moral standard, and a agent cannot be an objective moral standard by definition, "objective" (in the relevant sense) means that it is true regardless of what any agent thinks or feels. God is a subject, which necessarily makes morality subjective if a subject is the source, by definition.

QuoteI don't recall saying it tries to disprove god. Please let me know what you are referring to.

You were attempting to formulate an argument by asserting that god must be the source of morality, and not adhere to it because that would be greater. I was telling you that that is irrelevant, as god could be the source of morality, but then it is arbitrary. Then I explained why it is irrelevant, as the only reason you could reasonably state what you did was either because you thought I was say there is no god, or that it can't be the standard of morality, when I was not. Otherwise stating what you did would be entirely pointless.

Quoteyour right, if you were the moral standard you would be morally perfect; however, you do not by necessity have to be morally perfect (get where im going?) If the theistic god existed, he would be by necessity be morally perfect, because he would necessarily be the moral standard.

This is circular, god is morally perfect because god is the moral standard, and god is the moral standard because god is morally perfect. I certainly don't see where you are going with this, and I must ask if you are going to continue to completely avoid the issue and not address the dilemma?

QuoteI was attempting to show how the two horns of the dilemma could be split, giving a third option by using the argument which I listed.

Regardless, you failed. I honestly find it a little comical that you think you can dissolve this dilemma that predates Christianity, when no theologian or philosopher to date has.

Quotecorrect, your moral character isn't perfect though, theists think that gods character is which is why any semi intelligent one sees no problem in the dilemma.

Clearly you just don't grasp the dilemma, or you don't consider the last two and a half millennium worth of philosophers and intellectuals "semi-intelligent". You do not seem to understand that it means nothing to say that god is morally perfect if god is the moral standard. Whatever god does is morally perfect, no matter what it does, and what it says to do.

Also, hardly every theist agrees with objective morality, or divine command theory. Which is actually rendered a significantly minority view by your attempts to include polytheism and deism into the definition.

Quote"While a specific definition of theism may exclude deism, it is included by the most general definition."

As I said, they are etymologically related, but if you read the first sentence of the wiki page it says "Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a specific sense in current usage, theism generally refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe." and if you look to the post that you quoted, you will see that I specified "current usage".

Historically, and necessarily, it does not involve an interventionalist god, but in modern usage it does, and theism and deism are considered mutually exclusive in modern usage:  "the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism )." -dictionary.com

In any case, this is a minor and irrelevant semantic quibble.

QuoteIt cannot be judged and it doesn't need to be judged, you seem to want to argue moral semantics. the first horn "the standard is external to it" is obviously false, to reiterate what I said god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality. god’s moral character would be essential to him

You don't seem to understand that you are just making incoherent assertions that you don't seem to think you even remotely have to explain, or argue for. They are just to be accepted because you, and theists that agree with you say so.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"[
It cannot be judged and it doesn't need to be judged, you seem to want to argue moral semantics. the first horn "the standard is external to it" is obviously false, to reiterate what I said god would be moral neither because of the way he happens to be nor because of his fitness with reference to an external standard of morality. god’s moral character would be essential to him

sorry for the spelling errors, I'm a bit rushed but I'll try to go into more detail a little later.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Are you saying that god is perfect morally becuase he is god? Does god have some quality ( be definition of god ) that makes him morally perfect? By essential, do you mean that to be god, he has to be morally perfect?

If god cannot be judged, then how do you know he is morally perfect, other than saying "he is morally perfect bcuase he is god"?

Sorry for the delayed response, I have quite the busy schedule this semester.

 

QuoteYou clearly completely misunderstood my objection. That was a reductio ad absurdum, to show the ridiculousness of the line of reasoning you were employing.

No, it was obvious what you were doing, I don't think you understood my objection to your objection.
for you to attack a theists view of morality you must attack HIS view. This seems blatantly obvious and horribly redundant. Let me lay out a classical theists position on morality for reference sake.
1. Believes in an omni god.
2. Believes that morality is objective.
3. Believes god to be the standard by which we tell right from wrong.

(note: not all theists believe this, especially if you include deists and polytheists :] )

from now on any of my references to a theist will be a theist according to the model.
Any theist who believes in an onmi god believes god to be the greatest conceivable being, for if there were greater, he would not be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and so on.

Now, for the sake of clarity let me lay out my argument

P1: It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to it

P2: If God is the greatest conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.

P3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect.

C: Therefore since His nature is perfect, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths

All this has shown is that IF the theistic god exists (according to our model) he must be morally perfect.
The job of anyone posing the dilemma is to show why this isn't the case.
If you want to argue that not all theists believe god to be the greatest conceivable being you would be right, but it would be irrelevant to the present discussion. The one posing the dilemma must accept P2 for the sake of discussion, otherwise he is arguing a strawman.

QuoteThe concept is nonsensical for the aforementioned reasons, but I don't have to do any such thing, the ED demonstrates that no agent can be an absolute moral standard, and a agent cannot be an objective moral standard by definition, "objective" (in the relevant sense) means that it is true regardless of what any agent thinks or feels. God is a subject, which necessarily makes morality subjective if a subject is the source, by definition.

The ED attempts to demonstrate that no agent can be an absolute moral standard. I laid out an argument attempting to show why I think one can. The onus is on you to find one or more flaws in my argument.

QuoteYou were attempting to formulate an argument by asserting that god must be the source of morality, and not adhere to it because that would be greater. I was telling you that that is irrelevant, as god could be the source of morality, but then it is arbitrary. Then I explained why it is irrelevant, as the only reason you could reasonably state what you did was either because you thought I was say there is no god, or that it can't be the standard of morality, when I was not. Otherwise stating what you did would be entirely pointless.

My whole point was to show how god could be a standard without the standard being arbitrary. Not only can he but according to the theist he must be.

Quotegod is morally perfect because god is the moral standard, and god is the moral standard because god is morally perfect. I certainly don't see where you are going with this, and I must ask if you are going to continue to completely avoid the issue and not address the dilemma?

You are right it is circular, my job is merely to offer an option where god can serve as the foundation for objective moral values.

QuoteRegardless, you failed. I honestly find it a little comical that you think you can dissolve this dilemma that predates Christianity, when no theologian or philosopher to date has.

You my friend need to catch up with the times, most contemporary christian philosophers have similar arguments to the one I laid out. Whether or not they "dissolve" is for you to decide, but I have yet to see any adequate refutation.
In this short piece the Author simply argues that God's commands are not arbitrary, but metaphysically necessary.
http://tinyurl.com/ca3ep3
it's a good read if you get the chance.

QuoteAlso, hardly every theist agrees with objective morality, or divine command theory. Which is actually rendered a significantly minority view by your attempts to include polytheism and deism into the definition.

Your right, I never said they all did. Notice the use of "most" in my posts. I was going by your definition of a theist to avoid confusion but as I can clearly see, that was a bad idea. Regardless of this, it shouldn't matter if it is only believed by one, or by a million.

QuoteYou don't seem to understand that you are just making incoherent assertions that you don't seem to think you even remotely have to explain, or argue for. They are just to be accepted because you, and theists that agree with you say so.

I should hope that moral semantics be common knowledge for any "semi intelligent" being. If you don't understand something I'm happy to try and clarify but my claims are elementary.
My assertions are coherent, I would kindly ask you to avoid making rash statements. I do not think you are understanding my argument as all of your responses have been misrepresentations, please prove me wrong and correctly asses my argument.
Thanks.

QuoteI'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Are you saying that god is perfect morally becuase he is god? Does god have some quality ( be definition of god ) that makes him morally perfect? By essential, do you mean that to be god, he has to be morally perfect?

If god cannot be judged, then how do you know he is morally perfect, other than saying "he is morally perfect bcuase he is god"?

the title God is one which most Christians/Muslims ect. use to refer to the greatest conceivable being (see P2). if P1 is true than god must be morally perfect (or so my argument claims). God being morally perfect is essential in the sense that if he wasn't morally perfect, he wouldn't be the standard of morality, which means he would be under a different standard of morality, meaning there would be something greater than he which he would have to conform to. Its circular, but true (accepting my definition).

I hope no one is trying to "win" here, especially at the cost of civility and common humanity. Good people start by finding common ground, not by nitpicking and parsing every word. So to anyone, no names mentioned, who is having a hard time with that, please take a few deep breaths, first try to understand before trying to win an argument, and then post.

(remember...Happy Atheist Forum)

 :D

Quote from: "McQ"I hope no one is trying to "win" here, especially at the cost of civility and common humanity. Good people start by finding common ground, not by nitpicking and parsing every word. So to anyone, no names mentioned, who is having a hard time with that, please take a few deep breaths, first try to understand before trying to win an argument, and then post.

(remember...Happy Atheist Forum)

 :D

thanks McQ  
I apologize If I came off as nitpicky, or offended anyone.
I enjoy this sort of discussion, it can get heated but that's part of the fun! What would life be like without any drama?
If I wanted to convince others of my position I promise I would not be on an online forum

thanks again for the reminder.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Now, for the sake of clarity let me lay out my argument

P1: It is greater to be the standard of morality than to conform to it

Opinion. I certainly disagree, I would not want to be the moral standard, would you? I'd much rather employ reason and evidence, as opposed to whimsy.

QuoteP2: If God is the greatest conceivable being then he must be the standard of morality.

This contradicts your previous statement that god cannot be judged. Now you are saying that god can be judged by you as the greatest conceivable being. Which is it? Though since theists are doing the judging, it renders god to be subservient to what they personally think is great. I gave my opinion about what was great, and it was dismissed for not being what theists think, so y'all must consider yourselves to be the objective standard, as you get to dictate to god what is and isn't great.

QuoteP3: If God is the standard of morality His nature is necessarily morally perfect.

Tautology.

QuoteC: Therefore since His nature is perfect, God can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths

Non sequitur. If I am the moral standard, I would be morally perfect, but it still doesn't follow that I could be the foundation for objective morality, because I am a subject, and morality would then be based on what I thought and felt, making it arbitrary, and subjective. Objective means that it is true independent of agents.

QuoteAll this has shown is that IF the theistic god exists (according to our model) he must be morally perfect.
The job of anyone posing the dilemma is to show why this isn't the case.

The dilemma doesn't set out to show why god isn't the moral standard, isn't morally perfect, or doesn't exist. It demonstrates that if god is the moral standard, then morality is arbitrary and subjective.

QuoteMy whole point was to show how god could be a standard without the standard being arbitrary. Not only can he but according to the theist he must be.

Well, you have manifestly failed to do that. Unless you think that asserting that that is what theists believe, and it just must be true is a demonstration.

QuoteYou are right it is circular, my job is merely to offer an option where god can serve as the foundation for objective moral values.

You can't offer such a thing unless you change the definition of "objective", and then your demonstration would be meaningless. If the source of morality is a subject, then it is logically impossible that it be objective. Objective means that it is true independent of agents. It is true regardless of what agents think and feel. For instance: methane is combustible is objectively true, it is true no matter what anything thinks or feelings, and would be true supposing no agents existed. Methane, and what it means to be combustible would have to change in order for this to not be true. If however it was true because of what an agent thought, then the state of affairs of the world would not need to change for the truth value of the statement to change -- that renders it subjective, and arbitrary.

QuoteYou my friend need to catch up with the times, most contemporary christian philosophers have similar arguments to the one I laid out. Whether or not they "dissolve" is for you to decide, but I have yet to see any adequate refutation.

You have not laid out that argument. You have laid out a series of assertions, which you state just must be true because you believe they are. They don't even follow to your conclusion if they were true. Even I could give you a syllogism that would be logically valid to show that god is the objective moral standard, it is trivial to formulate an argument that is at least logically valid. I can prove anything like that.

1)Objectivity: true regardless of what any human thinks or feels
2)Morality: the source of objective moral truths
3)god: the source of objective reality
4)god is the source of objective moral truths.

I have to stipulate an ad hoc definition of objectivity, but at least my syllogism isn't a non sequitur. Though these types of arguments are useless if my premises are controversial, an argument must be both valid, and sound, the premises must be true. If my premises are controversial, then my argument is of no importance. You can prove anything if you don't have to demonstrate you premises, or get everyone to accept your stipulated terms.  

QuoteRegardless of this, it shouldn't matter if it is only believed by one, or by a million.

You're right, because who believes what is entirely irrelevant to its logical, or truth value.

QuoteI should hope that moral semantics be common knowledge for any "semi intelligent" being. If you don't understand something I'm happy to try and clarify but my claims are elementary.

Well excuse me for being so intellectually inferior to you that I require your points to be explained and argued for. I want all of your points explained and argued for, and I am not interested as to how obviously true you think that they are.

QuoteMy assertions are coherent...

Argument by assertion certainly is easy. Anything is true if all that is required is that you say that it is.

QuoteI would kindly ask you to avoid making rash statements. I do not think you are understanding my argument as all of your responses have been misrepresentations, please prove me wrong and correctly asses my argument.
Thanks.

I have done so repeatedly. My criticisms are just brushed aside, and I am told that it is just true because you say so, and that is what theists believe. You have not tried to render them coherent, or intelligible. You have not explained how it can be so, you have just said that it is.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I must say the concept of a being (God if you will) that participated in the creation of the universe is just as easily won by theists in an Occam's Razor argument against all other viewpoints. So whether this is the first iteration of a physical universe or the billionth plus one, I don't find the God Creator notion any more or less believable. That is the first and only point I will cede to theists.

Beyond the notion of God the Creator: God the moral authority (pick your religion) or God the almighty or God the source of goodness is less credible than the wildest UFOlogy. In fact, it is important to note that most theists have less to go on by way of evidence than any UFO abductee story.

God the moral authority has so many widely differing codes of conduct as recorded by human religions it defies coherence. And if that God wanted a single moral code to be known, we'd have probably heard or seen by now in a much more obvious and continuous  way than a 40 day wait from the top of a mountain, etc.

God the source of all goodness, by definition must also be the source of all badness. So if you blame free will, he gave it. If you blame the devil, he made it. If you blame the tugging gravity of the cosmos, that's his too.

God the almighty is irrelevant. Having power without any intelligible moral code is without value and offers no insight into the affairs of the world or its inhabitants. In addition, if the almighty is a planner and intercessor, can anyone defend such sloppy management?

So theists, take heart, there may be or may have been a God. It just ain't the one we've been hearing about so far as we scramble around trying to explain the universe and relating it to our mortality.

Jim

QuoteOpinion. I certainly disagree, I would not want to be the moral standard, would you? I'd much rather employ reason and evidence, as opposed to whimsy.

Just because it may be undesirable does not mean it isn't true, If one must conform to an external set of rules that person is subjected to follow whatever rules he must conform to. Which is greater, one who is the rule or one who must follow the rule? A standard is greater as it is not forced to conform to anything. When you have to conform it is assumed that their is something greater that you must conform to. The greatest conceivable being wouldn't be greater than whatever it has to follow.

QuoteThis contradicts your previous statement that god cannot be judged. Now you are saying that god can be judged by you as the greatest conceivable being. Which is it? Though since theists are doing the judging, it renders god to be subservient to what they personally think is great. I gave my opinion about what was great, and it was dismissed for not being what theists think, so y'all must consider yourselves to be the objective standard, as you get to dictate to god what is and isn't great.

god cannot be judged by an external standard of morality, if he could then he wouldn't (by the definition I began with) be god. Now if you want to argue definitions you are welcome to but as I mentioned before, the one posing the dilemma must accept for the sake of argument the theists definition. It matters not if others see greatness as something different than the theists, the one posing the dilemma is attacking the theists understanding of objective morality and as such must attack the theistic view of god's relation to morality.

QuoteTautology.

I'm just trying to walk through the steps as slowly as possible.

QuoteNon sequitur. If I am the moral standard, I would be morally perfect, but it still doesn't follow that I could be the foundation for objective morality, because I am a subject, and morality would then be based on what I thought and felt, making it arbitrary, and subjective. Objective means that it is true independent of agents.

I don't think you are understanding what it means when I say that god by necessity must be morally perfect. God's moral nature is  necessarily perfect, that is to say if God (according to the theists definition) exists he must be morally perfect, if god must be morally perfect by virtue of his existence than why can't he serve as a standard for objective moral values?  If god must be the moral standard than morality would not be subjective to arbitrary decisions, rather gods nature, which is essential to his being.

QuoteWell, you have manifestly failed to do that. Unless you think that asserting that that is what theists believe, and it just must be true is a demonstration.

I'm not sure I follow, please clarify. If you are claiming that I am asserting whatever theists believe to be true must be true you are making a false accusation. If you meant something else then please let me know.

QuoteYou can't offer such a thing unless you change the definition of "objective", and then your demonstration would be meaningless. If the source of morality is a subject, then it is logically impossible that it be objective. Objective means that it is true independent of agents. It is true regardless of what agents think and feel. For instance: methane is combustible is objectively true, it is true no matter what anything thinks or feelings, and would be true supposing no agents existed. Methane, and what it means to be combustible would have to change in order for this to not be true. If however it was true because of what an agent thought, then the state of affairs of the world would not need to change for the truth value of the statement to change -- that renders it subjective, and arbitrary.

QuoteWikipedia: Objectivity (Philosophy) a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"â€"that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

The dilemma correctly recognizes that if god's invented morality than he could have invented a different sort of morality. As the wise Bertrand Russell once said, "If the only basis for morality is God's decrees, it follows that they might just as well have been the opposite of what they are”.
My claim that god can serve as the foundation for objective moral truths is based upon the fact that since his being is by necessity morally perfect, things can be declared objectively right or wrong based upon their conformity or lack thereof to his perfect standard. gods moral standard didn't just happen to be the way it is, nor did he decide it to be the way it is, rather it is an essential quality of his.

QuoteYou have not laid out that argument. You have laid out a series of assertions, which you state just must be true because you believe they are. They don't even follow to your conclusion if they were true. Even I could give you a syllogism that would be logically valid to show that god is the objective moral standard, it is trivial to formulate an argument that is at least logically valid. I can prove anything like that.

1)Objectivity: true regardless of what any human thinks or feels
2)Morality: the source of objective moral truths
3)god: the source of objective reality
4)god is the source of objective moral truths.

I have to stipulate an ad hoc definition of objectivity, but at least my syllogism isn't a non sequitur. Though these types of arguments are useless if my premises are controversial, an argument must be both valid, and sound, the premises must be true. If my premises are controversial, then my argument is of no importance. You can prove anything if you don't have to demonstrate you premises, or get everyone to accept your stipulated terms.

I have never claimed that anything must be true because I believe they are. Ever.
I don't see how my argument is a non sequitur, if god must be the morally perfect standard, than objective moral values have a base. Right and wrong can be determined based upon their conformity to his perfect nature

QuoteWell excuse me for being so intellectually inferior to you that I require your points to be explained and argued for. I want all of your points explained and argued for, and I am not interested as to how obviously true you think that they are.

I hope I have not given you an "elitist" impression, if I have I apologize, If you want me to clarify what I meant regarding moral semantics I am happy do so.
The argument is simply this: "If goodness is what god must be, why call bother calling Him good? Calling god good is merely saying that god is consistent with his nature."
 Regardless of its truth, this argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and as the theist William Craig states that “The claim that moral values and duties are rooted in God is a meta-ethical claim about moral ontology, not moral semantics […] It is fundamentally a claim about the metaphysical status of moral properties, not a claim about the meaning of moral sentences” In addition most theists see no problem in accepting that goodness and morality are merely words used to describe god. Arguing semantics has its place and time, but as far as this discussion is concerned it is irrelevant, not that anyone was even going to argue this, I just had my suspicions  :]

QuoteI have done so repeatedly. My criticisms are just brushed aside, and I am told that it is just true because you say so, and that is what theists believe. You have not tried to render them coherent, or intelligible. You have not explained how it can be so, you have just said that it is.

I apologize if you don't understand my arguments, it probably is my fault and I will do my best to lay arguments out as simply and plainly as I can, with that being said these sorts of things take a lot of thinking to grasp. Just because one may not understand something, does not mean that something is false. Not an accusation, just a reminder...for myself as well as anyone else.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"I'm not sure I follow, please clarify. If you are claiming that I am asserting whatever theists believe to be true must be true you are making a false accusation. If you meant something else then please let me know.

This is precisely what you're doing. You have repeatedly taken the stance that the dilemma is some kind of straw-man because theists believe god is an objective moral standard, somehow not able to see that it is irrelevant what theists think, the dilemma shows that they are wrong. Just repeatedly saying that that is what theists think is not addressing the dilemma, nor does the dilemma misrepresent the theistic position, as it doesn't address a specific one, it addresses all forms, and shows how no agent can be the moral standard without morality being subjective and arbitrary.

All you have to do to dissolve the dilemma is to offer a third option, "things are good because god say so, or god says them because they are good". You need to give a third option by which a "goodness" analyzes is being made by god. By saying that god's nature is perfectly good, you have not offered how the analyzes was made that it was good, and when pressed you say that that is how theists have defined it, which by no means explains how god's nature has been established to be good, and by whom.
 
This is the major contention, which I need you to address, or this cannot go anywhere. If you cannot explain how it was determined that god's nature is good, then you have not offered a third option for how "what is good" is determined. If you cannot offer anything beyond tautology (i.e. "god is morally perfect because I and other theists who agree with me have defined it that way") then our conversation can go no where, and I would prefer that it ended it as opposed to wasted more of our time.

QuoteThis is precisely what you're doing. You have repeatedly taken the stance that the dilemma is some kind of straw-man because theists believe god is an objective moral standard,  somehow not able to see that it is irrelevant what theists think, the dilemma shows that they are wrong. Just repeatedly saying that that is what theists think is not addressing the dilemma, nor does the dilemma misrepresent the theistic position, as it doesn't address a specific one, it addresses all forms, and shows how no agent can be the moral standard without morality being subjective and arbitrary.

Most theists believe god to be an objective moral standard but that is by no means the reason the dilemma does not apply. It is doesn't apply because most theists believe god to the the greatest conceivable being. Which as I have been arguing makes him necessarily morally perfect and thus able to be standard for objective morality. Simply believing god to be the standard for objective moral truths by no means dissolves the dilemma, i'm not sure where you got that idea from.

QuoteAll you have to do to dissolve the dilemma is to offer a third option, "things are good because god say so, or god says them because they are good". You need to give a third option by which a "goodness" analyzes is being made by god. By saying that god's nature is perfectly good, you have not offered how the analyzes was made that it was good, and when pressed you say that that is how theists have defined it, which by no means explains how god's nature has been established to be good, and by whom.

The third option I offered was that morality is not based on arbitrary decrees, nor is it merely recognized by god, rather an action is considered moral or not based upon its conformity or lack therof to gods essential moral character. Remember I said that a property is considered essential to god if god could not have existed without that property. God didn't just happen to be morally, he is that way necessarily, by virtue of his very existence.

QuoteThis is the major contention, which I need you to address, or this cannot go anywhere. If you cannot explain how it was determined that god's nature is good, then you have not offered a third option for how "what is good" is determined. If you cannot offer anything beyond tautology (i.e. "god is morally perfect because I and other theists who agree with me have defined it that way") then our conversation can go no where, and I would prefer that it ended it as opposed to wasted more of our time.

I hope that you don't feel obliged to continue discussion for my sake, I enjoy this kinda stuff but I realize that many don't.
In any case thanks for your responses and the time you put into them.