Godless morality

[harriet_tubman]

If you don't want to sound like you are always assuming a creator then say uncaused when talking about a universe without a god.

ok

They theoretically could...atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god.  While most people who believe in ghosts and other similar nonsense don't tend to self describe as atheist if they didn't think a god existed they would still be an atheist.  Being an atheist doesn't make one rational; it's simply a lack of belief in a diety.

well if you believe in ghosts and don't believe in deities it's a rather contradictory position.  if you believe in ghosts then you believe that the physical body has a spirit which lives beyond death.  if you believe that the immaterial (spirit) can manipulate the material, then it doesn't take too much logic to conclude that the immaterial (God) manipulates the material

Most atheists fall into the "I don't know how the universe got here but I see no reason to assume a god had a hand in it" camp.

in this case, some atheists do not understand what the word God means.  God refers to that intelligence responsible for the universe's creation.  many theists try to attach attributes on to God, such as he dictated the koran but this is false.

to say that yes the universe was created but God did not do it is a contradiction.  that would be like saying these words were written but they were not written by a writer.

  Not sure what any of this has to do with what I said....
[/quote]
you said:
"I don't know how the universe got here but I see no reason to assume a god had a hand in it" camp
which i interpreted as a variation of the argument if the universe is created why does it have to be God? why can't it be the flying spaghetti monster?  this is where atheists really don't understand that when we talk about God we are just talking about that being that designed the universe.  it's as if we find a paper and the atheist says ok it's written but why does it have to be written by a writer? it's the same with a creation.  if you see a creation we at least know that it was made by a creator.  

If an alien race from another universe created our universe then that alien race would be a creator but not supernatural or god....so it's not a contradiction.

then we would just be debating who created the aliens. God is immaterial, pure consciousness.  i do not have a good explanation for how something came from nothing, but then again neither do you.  to me it sounds more rational that we go from nothing, to immaterial, then to material, rather than just jump from nothing, to ordered material.

In order for something to fit the intention of the word god it must be a supernatural being that created everything that exists.

true

[harriet_tubman]

So right and wrong come from humans deciding what is right and what is wrong.

no, read my post: if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient. i believe in a designed universe. good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

so what is right and wrong is dependent on that which furthers the goals of the designer, which is that his design should continue.  

the question a human must ask himself is: does this action help the design as a whole? if you help a part that harms the whole (such as pleasing napoleon at russia's expense) then the action is bad.

[Cecilie]

[spoiler:23kmzn36][/spoiler:23kmzn36]

[pinkocommie]

So right and wrong come from humans deciding what is right and what is wrong.

no, read my post: if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient. i believe in a designed universe. good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

so what is right and wrong is dependent on that which furthers the goals of the designer, which is that his design should continue.  

the question a human must ask himself is: does this action help the design as a whole? if you help a part that harms the whole (such as pleasing napoleon at russia's expense) then the action is bad.

I contend that you are the designer of this designer you are talking about, so ultimately Davin is correct.   :bananacolor:  

[Davin]

So right and wrong come from humans deciding what is right and what is wrong.

no, read my post: if you believe in a designed universe then good is that which furthers the original objective of the designer, namely, that the design should continue, resist destruction, sustain itself, grow and become larger, more complex, less painful, more efficient. i believe in a designed universe. good is that which helps the larger objective of the universe.

so what is right and wrong is dependent on that which furthers the goals of the designer, which is that his design should continue.  

the question a human must ask himself is: does this action help the design as a whole? if you help a part that harms the whole (such as pleasing napoleon at russia's expense) then the action is bad.

Yes exactly, you're a human (I'm assuming), and you're creating a concept of right and wrong.

[Whitney]

Harriet, you know what they say happens when you assume right?

Anyway...

to me it sounds more rational that we go from nothing, to immaterial, then to material, rather than just jump from nothing, to ordered material.

Just because you personally think something sounds more rational doesn't mean that it is.  Rationally there is no reason why the following could not be true 1) that the natural state of things is existence and energy cannot be created or destroyed holds true no matter how far back we go or 2) Something can come from nothing.  In quantum physics this is theoretically possible....they are finding out some really odd things with quantum and so far what they can test has been verified as true.

There is especially no reason to think that immaterial (something) coming from nothing is any more reasonable than material (something) coming from nothing.  Both involve there being some sort of entity where there was not one before.  

In fact, given what we know about the natural laws we would have to assume 1 if we wanted to stand at a conclusion (though I'm not inclined to fell the need to jump to a conclusion since I know there is a lot we don't know about the universe).  Unless you have pantheist leanings, you aren't likely to find it proper to call energy god.  So, this is a valid example of why an atheist doesn't have to say that something came from nothing.

[harriet_tubman]

Harriet, you know what they say happens when you assume right?

i'm just as guilty of assuming as you are, whitney.  we do not have rock-solid evidence to prove everything, therefore where evidence is lacking we have to make a leap of faith, especially when it comes to morality.  all of us have to decide whether or not to lie, cheat and steal and that decision is based on our worldview.  


Anyway...

to me it sounds more rational that we go from nothing, to immaterial, then to material, rather than just jump from nothing, to ordered material.

Just because you personally think something sounds more rational doesn't mean that it is.

exactly, that's why i said it sounds more rationally to me, rather than it is true that

Rationally there is no reason why the following could not be true 1) that the natural state of things is existence and energy cannot be created or destroyed holds true no matter how far back we go or 2) Something can come from nothing.

whatever is the true case most likely we'll never know

In quantum physics this is theoretically possible....they are finding out some really odd things with quantum and so far what they can test has been verified as true.

i always thought string theory could not be tested.  these people are at least debating it
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science- ... ience.html
in any case, neither you nor i are able to evaluate the claims of the quantum physicists

There is especially no reason to think that immaterial (something) coming from nothing is any more reasonable than material (something) coming from nothing.  Both involve there being some sort of entity where there was not one before.  
In fact, given what we know about the natural laws we would have to assume 1 if we wanted to stand at a conclusion (though I'm not inclined to fell the need to jump to a conclusion since I know there is a lot we don't know about the universe).  Unless you have pantheist leanings, you aren't likely to find it proper to call energy god.  So, this is a valid example of why an atheist doesn't have to say that something came from nothing.

you see you're just as guilty of assumption as i am

[harriet_tubman]

Yes exactly, you're a human (I'm assuming), and you're creating a concept of right and wrong.

wrong, newton did not create the concept of the laws of motion, they were always there and he discovered them.  

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.  i've already stated what that is numerous times, so no need to repeat myself.

[philosoraptor]

There is especially no reason to think that immaterial (something) coming from nothing is any more reasonable than material (something) coming from nothing.  Both involve there being some sort of entity where there was not one before.  
In fact, given what we know about the natural laws we would have to assume 1 if we wanted to stand at a conclusion (though I'm not inclined to fell the need to jump to a conclusion since I know there is a lot we don't know about the universe).  Unless you have pantheist leanings, you aren't likely to find it proper to call energy god.  So, this is a valid example of why an atheist doesn't have to say that something came from nothing.

you see you're just as guilty of assumption as i am

Actually, no.  That whooshing sound?  That's a missed point, flying over your head.

[KDbeads]

Yes exactly, you're a human (I'm assuming), and you're creating a concept of right and wrong.

wrong, newton did not create the concept of the laws of motion, they were always there and he discovered them.  

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.  i've already stated what that is numerous times, so no need to repeat myself.

Are you saying that moral law is mathematically provable?  I would like to see an actual real example of that, mathematics and all.
Laws of motion, gravity, etc are provable by mathematics.  Moral laws are subjective to the cultures in which they are derived and evolve over time.

[Asmodean]

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence

BS. Moral law is subjective and is created by an individual or a group of individuals depending on its purpose and circumstances.

[elliebean]

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.

You know this....... how?

[pinkocommie]

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.

You know this....... how?

Haha, is there really a point to asking this question anymore?

[KDbeads]

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.

You know this....... how?

Haha, is there really a point to asking this question anymore?

Not thinking there is, no real empirical proof has been provided as of yet........

[elliebean]

the creator of the universe has created a moral law independent of man's existence.

You know this....... how?

Haha, is there really a point to asking this question anymore?

Nope....

[spoiler:1ak92ffn][/spoiler:1ak92ffn]