Theists, Some Vexing Follow-up Questions?.?.?

[POI]

In a recent topic ---- > here (viewtopic.php?t=38559&start=60), I posed the following question:

"when one reads this Verse, was the punishment commanded by the consensus of humans, or, god himself?"

Placing this into context, the interlocutor argues that God's moral don't change, but the assigned punishment does --- for whatever reason (undefined).... The above question has yet to be answered or addressed by my debate opponent. So I thought I would offer it here.

For debate:

1) Let's suppose God's morals do not change. Okay, great... Then why in the heck does god command that a priest's daughter is to be burned to death, if she loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father, with NO caveats?

2) If there exists caveats, why are they not mentioned?

3) Was this command ultimately issued/inspired by God, or humans? And how do you know?

4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

5) How can you distinguish if any passages, at all, are inspired by any god?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #93]

You can make as many type 1 errors as possible, and remain alive. Type 2 errors, not-so-much. This is my point. Evolution has weeded out the ones who perpetually preferred no intention, verses intention. This is one reason why we have more god believers, verses not. Mix this up with some indoctrination, and these type 1 errors remain. Sure, you can say they are not errors. But you would never know, because they are unfalsifiable.

But you still are not showing that we made more type 1 errors. I gave 3 types of examples of type 2 errors that do not endanger our life.

false positives can harm us.

A cancer test says we have cancer, but is wrong. We don't know it is wrong so we kill ourselves.

Instead of a cancer test giving us a false positive the medicine man way back when serves the same purpose. We kill ourselves because of a false positive he gave us.

Allow me to elaborate further... I keep saying this is why evolutionary biology has weeded out all the type 2 error makers. Long ago, many/most were weeded out. And yes, your points are noted, but they do not address what I'm speaking about. And yes, we still commit both. However, my point is to answer your statement, that there will never be a huge increase in atheism. However, being we now 'know' more, atheism may grow....

However, my personal atheism came from NO LONGER invoking 'intentional agency', where I continually underwent identical situations. I ultimately had to let it go. And one of the reasons I stayed longer, was due to indoctrination.

Alright, fair enough. I could push back more, but I will take a different path.

Understanding more and more will not ever close the gap between metaphysics and physics, not unless science changes its methodology. It isn't that science just happens to lack an answer for metaphysical questions and one day it will have them. Rather, science cannot offer answers. Its methodology doesn't allow it. Science only tries to predict change in physical things, like matter, force, energy, etc.

It could offer indirect evidence for the metaphysical, but it could never offer evidence to the contrary.

So unless you can show that humans will stop caring about metaphysical questions like what is my ultimate purpose? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is change in itself? Then we will always turn to metaphysical answers or religion for the more simple-minded.

[Clownboat]

It isn't that science just happens to lack an answer for metaphysical questions and one day it will have them. Rather, science cannot offer answers. Its methodology doesn't allow it. Science only tries to predict change in physical things, like matter, force, energy, etc.

What mechanism do you propose for answering metaphysical questions? I would have thought they are unanswerable, but you seem to lament about science not being able to answer them, so I would like to know the prefered mechanims for metaphysical answers.

[AquinasForGod]

It isn't that science just happens to lack an answer for metaphysical questions and one day it will have them. Rather, science cannot offer answers. Its methodology doesn't allow it. Science only tries to predict change in physical things, like matter, force, energy, etc.

What mechanism do you propose for answering metaphysical questions? I would have thought they are unanswerable, but you seem to lament about science not being able to answer them, so I would like to know the prefered mechanims for metaphysical answers.

Mechanism is the wrong word. Science in general is not a mechanism. It is a methodology.

The methodology for metaphysical is natural philosophy. We start with observables or with facts that all agree to because they are obvious, then using reasoning we see if we can deduce anything from that. Can we deduce a first principle?

Aristotle looked the world and said, we all observe change. We all agree things change. There is change in the world but what is it in itself? He argues for change being a potential being actualized by something actual. Change cannot be purely potential otherwise nothing would happen. There must be potential for something new to happen in order for it to happen. Potential cannot change itself, so there must be something actual in order to act. The potential is actualized then by something that is actual.

We can then deduce other things if we accept that is what change is. What we deduce can answer those metaphysical questions.

No matter what, we must believe in first principles, otherwise no science can be done. Science for example assumes that change is happening. It assumes that things exist outside the mind, like trees. They assume there can be a correlation between things, and so on.

[POI]

Understanding more and more will not ever close the gap between metaphysics and physics, not unless science changes its methodology. It isn't that science just happens to lack an answer for metaphysical questions and one day it will have them. Rather, science cannot offer answers. Its methodology doesn't allow it. Science only tries to predict change in physical things, like matter, force, energy, etc.

It could offer indirect evidence for the metaphysical, but it could never offer evidence to the contrary.

Please recall the analogy I gave about Zeus, way back when... Maybe even in another thread, in which we have exchanged.... "Metaphysically", 'science' cannot disprove 'Zeus' either, even though we now know what causes lightening, (more or less). A Zeus believer can still argue that Zeus's 'hand' is involved in throwing or generating the lightening bolt(s). But we both 'know' it would be silly to continue to hold to a "Zeus" belief. However, 'metaphysically', can you "prove" this negative, that he does not still exist? And even if you felt you could, would such a Zeus-believer still believe in 'Zeus"? Maybe...?

Or please also refer back to the prayer study, about cardiac patients. 'Prayer' made some of their their conditions worse. What would be the most reasonable answer? You can apply excuses, because your god belief is unfalsifiable. However, the most rational answer is that such an asserted god, as told in the pages of the bible, is not really there (logically). And this cardiac discovery was conducted scientifically, alone.

So unless you can show that humans will stop caring about metaphysical questions like what is my ultimate purpose? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is change in itself? Then we will always turn to metaphysical answers or religion for the more simple-minded.

So because we have the ability to ask certain questions, then such 'god answers' must be real? I know this has been said a "bajillion" times, but I feel it still bares repeating...

The more we discover, the smaller the gaps for god become. At some point, when will the gaps become too small, for you to reasonably discard the necessity for a god?

[brunumb]

The more we discover, the smaller the gaps for god become. At some point, when will the gaps become too small, for you to reasonably discard the necessity for a god?

One then has to ask, is there a gap so small that even God can't fit in it?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #104]

Please recall the analogy I gave about Zeus, way back when... Maybe even in another thread, in which we have exchanged.... "Metaphysically", 'science' cannot disprove 'Zeus' either, even though we now know what causes lightening, (more or less). A Zeus believer can still argue that Zeus's 'hand' is involved in throwing or generating the lightening bolt(s). But we both 'know' it would be silly to continue to hold to a "Zeus" belief. However, 'metaphysically', can you "prove" this negative, that he does not still exist? And even if you felt you could, would such a Zeus-believer still believe in 'Zeus"? Maybe...?

Firstly, Zues is not a metaphysical being. He is generated by Kronos whom Zues killed. They are more like aliens. If someone today believed in Zues, I think it would be pretty easily to convince them Zues is not real. The Greeks started doubted the gods way back when. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle stopped taking them seriously because they had no philosophical grounding. But instead Plato came to believe in the One and Aristotle in the purely actual, which they concluded with natural philosophy, which is grounded in physical observations.

Or please also refer back to the prayer study, about cardiac patients. 'Prayer' made some of their their conditions worse. What would be the most reasonable answer? You can apply excuses, because your god belief is unfalsifiable. However, the most rational answer is that such an asserted god, as told in the pages of the bible, is not really there (logically). And this cardiac discovery was conducted scientifically, alone.

Supposing the study is accurate, which I question. I would like to know all the data exactly as it was gathered. But supposing it is accurate, there are a few reasons this would happen. If the person praying believes in God even a little, then he prays but lacks faith that he will get an answer, his mental condition this fear can make him more ill, like a reverse placebo.

So because we have the ability to ask certain questions, then such 'god answers' must be real? I know this has been said a "bajillion" times, but I feel it still bares repeating...

The more we discover, the smaller the gaps for god become. At some point, when will the gaps become too small, for you to reasonably discard the necessity for a god?

But this wasn't about if God is real, but if atheism will grow or always remain a small percentage of our population.

The gaps will never be too small for the reason already stated. Science cannot in principle ever answer these metaphysical questions.

[POI]

Firstly, Zues is not a metaphysical being. He is generated by Kronos whom Zues killed. They are more like aliens. If someone today believed in Zues, I think it would be pretty easily to convince them Zues is not real. The Greeks started doubted the gods way back when. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle stopped taking them seriously because they had no philosophical grounding. But instead Plato came to believe in the One and Aristotle in the purely actual, which they concluded with natural philosophy, which is grounded in physical observations.

The point went completely passed you. Prove Zeus is NOT up there, throwing lightening bolts.

Supposing the study is accurate, which I question. I would like to know all the data exactly as it was gathered. But supposing it is accurate, there are a few reasons this would happen. If the person praying believes in God even a little, then he prays but lacks faith that he will get an answer, his mental condition this fear can make him more ill, like a reverse placebo.

Same response as before... "You can apply excuses, because your god belief is unfalsifiable.".

Why discard the most reasonable answer, from the case study? You are always praying to yourself.

The gaps will never be too small for the reason already stated. Science cannot in principle ever answer these metaphysical questions.

If you admit 'science' has made the gaps smaller, then the follow up question "brunumb" posed still applies. When will the gaps be too small for god?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #107]

The point went completely passed you. Prove Zeus is NOT up there, throwing lightening bolts.

There is no need as Zues is not a possibly necessary being. Just like I don't waste my time with disproving vampires. But when I was atheists, I learned to take seriously the idea of a necessary being and I needed to provide positive evidence against it, which you lack altogether.

Same response as before... "You can apply excuses, because your god belief is unfalsifiable.".

The God of classical theism (which I believe in) is falsifiable. It is possible to disprove divine simplicity. If you do this, you prove my God is false.

Why discard the most reasonable answer, from the case study? You are always praying to yourself.

Because you have yet to convince me it is the most reasonable answer.

If you admit 'science' has made the gaps smaller, then the follow up question "brunumb" posed still applies. When will the gaps be too small for god?

I never said the metaphysical gaps used to be smaller than they are now. They are the same as they always will remain. The only gaps that were smaller are gaps of physical knowledge.

[POI]

There is no need as Zues is not a possibly necessary being. Just like I don't waste my time with disproving vampires. But when I was atheists, I learned to take seriously the idea of a necessary being and I needed to provide positive evidence against it, which you lack altogether.

(3) points to address here...

A) You know you cannot disprove it, so you redirect instead.
B) Zeus is necessary for lightening.
C) The 'universe' would likely function identically without a god.

The God of classical theism (which I believe in) is falsifiable. It is possible to disprove divine simplicity. If you do this, you prove my God is false.

Hmm.. Okay. Define your version of this entirely, and then start a new thread. But, I'm willing to bet the goal posts are not firmly planted, however

Because you have yet to convince me it is the most reasonable answer.

Yes I did, long ago. Depending on the particular topic --- (God does not exist) and/or (God is imaginary) and/or (you are praying/talking to yourself) requires the least amount of additional excuses/assumptions.

I never said the metaphysical gaps used to be smaller than they are now. They are the same as they always will remain. The only gaps that were smaller are gaps of physical knowledge.

You can spin it however you like. You already conceded that philosophy, in it's 2K plus years, has gotten no closer, to demonstrating a god. And yet, in just a few centuries, the Catholics have had to reconcile that Genesis cannot be literal

Meaning, of the two, what position of (faith/trust) seems more reliable...?

1) Science will continue to shrink the gaps, where "god did it" used to be the 'best answer'?
2) Philosophy will offer, really anything new, at all?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #107]

Your <gut> tells you something is 'wrong', 'cute', 'right', other... It does not matter what you are referring to (i.e.) rape, theft, kittens, other. The point being, the SAME feeling you have, that "rape is very wrong", originates from the SAME feeling you get, when you see a 'very cute puppy'. Meaning, your GUT REACTION dictates it's (really bad or really cute).

This is your opinion that I disagree with. I do not think our intuition of morals are a gut feeling. It is not a feeling at all more an emotion. It is a real sense of right and wrong because morals are objective. That is the whole point of my argument. We theists are not willing to pay the cost of believing right and wrong are merely feelings.

You are essentially arguing that God gives you your compass to 'know' this and that. This is why you 'just really know' something is X. As I stated, many responses ago, you must demonstrate that there exists some actual conscious external agency who is actually doing this. As it stands, we see no evidence for this. Your conclusion, that 'evil points to god', is nothing more than wishful and unfalsifiable thinking.

I do not need to do any of that because that is not the "work" this argument is doing. Rather it is showing that there are different views on morals, and only one grounds morals in such a way that we can say Rape is wrong and that is a fact.

And even if you wanted to demonstrate that some external agency is giving you your 'objective' gut reactions to situations, you would then have to explain why people's gut reactions DIFFER, when it comes to differing topics. Like homosexuality for instance... As I stated prior, god really hates it.

You have to represent the idea correctly first. Under my view that morals are objective and God is the cause of our existence, sustaining us, and in doing this his goodness is imparted to us to some degree, thus we have a sense of morality. I do need to offer an answer as to why we don't agree on everything. Why don't psychopaths agree that rape is wrong, for example?

Because we can push that little spark of God away. We can choose to be evil and ignore it. We can ignore it and claim, nah rape is subjective, broh.

Please do not hand wave this away. This analogy demonstrates a point. Economics cannot be 'objectified'. If it can, I would love to see how? And yet, you operate under the confines of economics probably daily. So WHY are you not expressing the same concern for economics as you are for morals?

It is amazing that I even have to point this out. I do not have within me this strong inclination about economics. I do about morals.

(P1) If the Monopoly Guy on the box does not exist, objective economics do not exist.
(P2) Objective economics do exist
Therefore, the Monopoly Guy on the box does exist.

It is laughable to be honest for the reason I just stated. I am honestly surprised you think this is even relevant to morals.

Is there a consequence, if you are caught in rape? Yes. There is an objective consequence, if caught in rape. Whether you have a serial rapist, a serial thief, or other; they could get away with it for a while. However, there is always the fear of being caught.

Not everyone has a fear of being caught. They don't fear the consequences, which is why they are psychos. Also, many believe they will not get caught. But it doesn't matter because nothing about consequentialism says that rape is wrong as a truth claim. We theists are not willing to accept a view that claims rape is subjective. We know that is not correct.

Just another unfalsifiable claim... And yet, you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that god exists, and further, that this god gives you anything. Instead, just faith-based assertions, and very weak arguments/assertions -- filled with hope/faith.

This thread or argument is not about if God exist or not, but about what view people will accept and why they will accept it, i.e. the cost they are or are not willing to pay. If like me, you know rape is wrong, then you cannot accept a worldview that can only show rape being wrong is subjective. If you then accept theism, the cost is accepting God.

You think this because you are arguing apples, and me, oranges.

I agree. You are not addressing the actual argument and are bringing up things that are not related.