Attention: This will be a long post. It will be long because there is much to say. These questions do not have two sentence answers. They is much to think about and setup required to properly go over the topics. If it is too long then by all means stop reading. But I just want to let everyone know I don’t just right stuff for fun and because I am bored. I am writing this because I feel it is important and that trying to put it into 4 little paragraphs and 300 words would not do the topic justice. “---------------------------------------------------------“
Why I am writing this:Before I get to the topic at hand I would like to say (or write) a few things.
I will get to explaining myself and viewpoint again but with hopes to do it more clearly. I will go over all my sections again. I think that my new responses will be able to answer any of MeDeFe’s questions from his post. If not, I will go back and answer them as well. And also Player, our posts tend to get “quote” crazy (lol). So instead of re-quoting our 45 quote post, I will try to answer your questions in my writing below. Many of your responses were short and very specific and I will try to get them all. But in case I do miss any, please don’t think I am trying to ignore the response.
And while I know many of you might think I am crazy or delusional for holding my beliefs, I try not to ignore any question. I do disagree with many of you and what you believe but not blindly disagree. It has come to my attention and understanding (after much posting) that I am not going to convince any of you differently about your beliefs. You don’t know me, I don’t know you. We don’t have the same type of relationship as growing up friends, coworkers, or family does. It is very hard to convince other people on an internet forum that they might be wrong. Automatically a shield goes up and we all defend out belief and don’t stop to think or really read what the other person is saying. It takes trust and time to be able to listen to a person and question whether they are right or wrong.
All I am trying to do is express my reasoning and rational towards why and what I believe. If you choose to listen then great, but if you choose to ignore then ok as well. Whether I am right/wrong or you are right/wrong or we are both wrong, we are only responsible for ourselves. We need to look at others viewpoints and see if they make sense. We should view others ideas and compare them to ours and see if our views hold up. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t but we owe it to ourselves in every facet of life to understand why we believe and make sure we can explain that to others. That is what I am attempting to do.
I don’t want you to think I just am stating things I was told as a child and have not thought them through. While many of my beliefs stem from my childhood, the reason that I have them now is due to the fact that I have made them my own. Not by ignoring others opinions/views or trying to shut out things I disagree with, but by looking at everything I come across and seeing if it checks out with what I see around me (reality, nature, my mind, etc). There are numerous topics from the discussion here at CC that has made me question my faith and ideas of how the world works. I have spent much time researching and reading alternative perspective and viewpoints of various topics. I believe what I believe, not because my parents, friends or church told me but, based on experiences and looking at all the facts.
Why do you believe things:-What makes the most sense? Why?
-When I look at the ENTIRE picture of a topic, do my views and beliefs fit all that we see?
-Am I being honest with myself in how I view different scenarios?
-Do I ignore views that might have merit because I don’t wish them to be true?
-Are there other explanations that I refuse to look at because the compromise my previous beliefs?
-Do I try to sit back and view things for what they are or do I try to bend things to what I want?
And I, by NO MEANS, am exempt from these questions above! If I am honest with myself I always need to be open and fair to alternative opinions. It is the only way that I can learn and truly understand if I really should believe what I believe. We all need to approach these topics this way, with respect and an open mind. Not to attack each other but to present and contrast views for better understanding.
But not everyone can be correct. There are some views that, based on their makeup, do not allow alternative views to exist. These we need to make special care to understand for ourselves. Because disagreeing with a view because you don’t like it, does not make that view wrong. Dislike for a view does not render that view wrong. And thus here we are to this discussion. One side is right and one is wrong. There either is a supernatural or there is not.
So while I do enjoy this debating and discussion about various topics that I feel (and you do as well) are important, I don’t want to keep going round and round rehashing the same stuff.
I plan, to the best of my ability, to state my purpose for this post and then let it be.
We can still keep talking but my 10,000 word posts are done (I know I already said that before). I just don’t want to be perceived as a guy who just wants to mentally fight and cause problems for the sake of problems.
Ok, onto the discussion.
“----------------------------------------------------------------“
I am going to try and answer all posts with this post. I probably did not state my post thesis well enough initially and that might have caused some confusion.
Thesis:The atheistic naturalism/materialism view our universe cannot account for all things that we know to exist when analyzed and walked through step by step.i.e. it does not account for everything we can know, feel, experience, conceive, imagine, morality, etc.
There just are things that are beyond this realm of the physical.
“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Definitions:My purpose for all these definitions was not to take up more posting space or waste your time reading. It was to make sure we are all on the same page as far as what I am trying to say. There have been too many times that opinions vary from person to person due to a differing view on the definition of words used in the discussion. My hope is that by listing these out and referring to them as I go through my argument, any confusion towards what I specifically mean will be averted.
Atheism is commonly described as:
(1) the position that there are no deities.
(2) the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
(3) the absence of belief that any deities exist.
Naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that:
(1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural;
(2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, mathematical laws, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain but are still somehow immanent in the physical structure of the universe;
(3) nature operates by natural processes that follow natural laws and can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and
(4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernatural is not real.
Materialism holds that:
(1) the only thing that exists is matter;
(2) that all things are composed of material and
(3) all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.
logic 1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2. A system of reasoning
ReasoningThe cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings.
Cognition1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.
3. The process of thought.
Thoughts1. Forms created in the mind, rather than the forms perceived through the five senses.
2. Thought and thinking are the processes by which these imaginary sense perceptions arise and are manipulated.
Moral relativismis the philosophy that maintains that:
(1) morality is relative and that people should try to be good, but only by following their own consciences.
(2) the view that moral or ethical statements, which vary from person to person, are all equally valid and no one’s opinion of “right and wrong” is really better than any other. Moral relativism is a broader, more personally applied form of other types of relativistic thinking, such as cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism is the view that
(1) no culture is superior to any other culture when comparing systems of morality, law, politics, etc.
(2) all cultural beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the cultural environment.
immaterial 1. not material; incorporeal; spiritual.
2. not made up of matter and energy
“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Logic:1.Can logic be explained with an atheistic naturalism/materialism (ANM) viewpoint? As stated in the definitions above, an atheist believes there is no god and a naturalistic/materialistic person says that all there is nature (matter/energy) and that all that happens can be explained with the physical structure of the universe.
Based on my time here (and with other atheists) this seems to be the main viewpoint of them in regards to their beliefs. Nothing outside nature, science can explain and account for everything.
Per the definitions above, logic is a study of reasoning that uses mental processes of the mind. So does logic exist if minds don’t? Did logic exist before man evolved? If all of mankind died right now, would logic stop existing? If there are aliens out there and all of them died, and all other life was burned up in a giant explosion, would logic still exist?
Basically if nothing existed that had the capacity to have a mind and thus thoughts (i.e hydrogen or cobalt or other elements of compounds) would logic cease to exist?
The answer is no. Logic is not depended on humans or aliens or any other thing in our universe in order for it to exist.
Here again are the 3 laws of logic. They are concepts. According to the ANM view, they somehow exist in the physical universe we live in. But if all that existed in our universe was 1 hydrogen atom, they would still be valid. They would not very useful to us since we would not be here but still, no the less, valid.
3 Basic Laws of Logic1. The law of identity: p is p
2. The law of non-contradiction: p and not-p cannot be true at the same time (i.e. It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time cannot be true)
3. The law of the excluded middle: p or not-p must be true (i.e. either it is raining or it is not raining)
So…..
-The Laws of Logic exist -The Laws of logic are immaterial, they are not the product of the universe Logic is not made of matter or energy
-The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists.
-The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature Logic is a process of the mind
-The Laws of logic are transcendent The laws of logic are not dependent upon the universe since they are true whether or not the universe exists.
They are true no matter where you go in the universe and they are true no matter when you exist in the universe.
The laws of logic are conceptual, and transcendent.
Since the laws of logic are conceptual, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is transcendent.
Therefore, there is a transcendent mind in existence.How do you account for logic? If you hold a ANM view then you must figure out how to explain the existence of logic in the physical realm. How do you do that? What makes up the laws of logic. What physical process developed them? Why are they here?
“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Math:2.Can mathematics be explained with an atheistic naturalism/materialism (ANM) viewpoint? Math is very similar to logic in that:
-Principles of math are immaterial i.e. not a product of our universe (matter/energy)
-The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds They exist whether we do or not. The concept of 2+2 = 4 existed before us and will exist after us.
-Principles of math are conceptual.Math is found in nature but the concept is a process of thought which is based on a mind.
-Principles of math are transcendentThey are true whether or not the universe exists. i.e. 2 things + 2 things always = 4 things
It is always said that mathematics is the universal language. That can only be possible if it is always the same. Which it is.
Math is conceptual, and transcendent.
Same argument as logic.
Since the principles of mathematics are conceptual, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the principles of mathematics is transcendent.
Therefore, there is a transcendent mind in existence.How do you account for math? If you hold a ANM view then you must figure out how to explain the existence of logic in the physical realm. How do you do that? What makes up the principles of math. What physical process developed them? Why are they here?
“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Science:3.Can the laws of nature (physical science) be explained with an atheistic naturalism/materialism (ANM) viewpoint? Now before I go deep into this point I want to make myself clear. I am not trying to say that science cannot explain how stuff works and why it works. I mean that is crazy. We can all do science every day. We can observe and understand why things work.
What I am trying to say that the ANM view cannot explain where science comes from and why it IS repeatable.
According to the ANM view, our universe and all in it came about by chance. There was no direction or intelligence involved.
So basically my questions are, why don’t the laws of nature (science) change randomly and why did they stop changing (since they came from randomness) to make our universe possible?
-Well if everything started randomly, why did it stop being random?
-Why do we have consistent laws of science?
-Why do certain quantities of elements make compounds?
-Why does light work the way it does? Not how does it work but why?
-Why is it that so many things just happened randomly and then stopped being random and fit in such a perfect way that the universe can exist?
-What keeps them from changing?
-What program or information at the beginning, setup the laws in which they are today?
-How could random chance produce (out of “nothing”) an ordered system that obeys the laws we see today?
And how could something come out of nothing. If there was truly nothing and I mean nothing. No quantum vacuum, no foam, no particles, nothing, how could anything ever come out of that? A vacuum is something. Particles are something. Space is something. According to the ANM view, we still need something, no matter how small, to get things going. Quantum mechanics and all that stuff still requires that there be energy or quantum fluctuations to start the process. That does not sound like nothing to me.
It makes no sense that order and structure from “nothing” could happen. Based on that it only makes sense to think that the order, structure and rules from which the physical universe operates and functions must have been planned. And if it was planned it could not have been planned inside the universe that it functions in. Therefore whatever planned, ordered or designed the laws of science and how they work, must exist outside of them.
Therefore an intelligence (i.e. mind) beyond science must exists outside our universe.
The laws of science are ordered and intelligently put in place.“----------------------------------------------------------------“
Morality:4.Can morality be explained with an atheistic naturalism/materialism (ANM) viewpoint? I know this has been beat to death and covered in many areas. But since it was part of my post to explain why I believe there is a God out there, I will continue.
These two definitions have been posted above,
Moral relativism and
Cultural relativism. Basically these state that morals vary from person to person and from culture to culture. No viewpoint is better or worse than any other. Do you agree with this?
By stating that there are no absolute morals then, by elimination of options, there are only relative morals. Many people in posts have said this. I know that the ANM view is that there are no absolutes and that society decides what is right and wrong. So there we have the setup. All things moral are relative to people and places and times and not absolute.
The problem I have with this is that it is not practiced by ANYONE. If everyone was truly honest with themselves they would agree that there are things that a person could (or has) done to them that they objected to. Has anyone ever lied to you? Stole from you? Hit you? Hurt you? Slandered you? Has anything ever been done that you object to but the other party does it anyway?
How do you explain your dislike for these actions against you? If morals are relative and that person wants to do something, how can your view (which is also relative to you) contradict the opposing view and be correct? You see if both parties feel they are correct and based on the actions, only 1 party is happy or pleased with the outcome, how can both views be correct? It makes no sense
EXAMPLE 1: Let’s look at the expansion of North AmericaDid the settlers do good or ill towards the native Americas? Was it ok for the Europeans to kill them to expand their territories in the New World? If so, then the native Americans must have agreed that it was OK. But we all know they did not. Their view was opposed to the Europeans. They did not want to be killed and have their land taken. Why not? Who was right and who was wrong? Was it wrong for the government and settlers to kill native Americans for land? The government said it was good. The settlers said it was good. Society said it was good. So it must have been good correct?
EXAMPLE 2: World War 2Why did everyone make such a big deal about Hitler attacking Poland. Germany was obviously a stronger government and power. They felt it was OK and within their right to take the land. Was that ok? NO!!!! They also felt it was OK to kill 6 million Jews. Was that OK? NO!!!!! Why not? Hitler had views that it was. Other people had views that it wasn’t. Who was right? Again, we have two views on the same issue that cannot exist together at the same time. Once of them must not be true.
EXAMPLE 3: September 11thWhy was the USA so angry with the plane crashes? It was angry because over 3,000 people died and New York was in chaos. Terrorists attacked the USA on their home soil and to say we were angry does not give the actual emotion justice. But they were justified in their beliefs to kill us and we are justified in our beliefs to be against our destruction. Who was correct?
There are many more examples of war and opposing sides killing, stealing and causing destruction throughout human history. There are always at least two sides to a conflict. Both sides can justify themselves whether it be the aggressor or the defender. But the common things are that the views of what is right and wrong are not shared. And if the views of what is right and wrong are not shared, then there we have a relativistic viewpoint of the situation. SO is anyone wrong ever?
-Does strength determine correctness?
-Does the majority determine correctness?
-Does evolution determine correctness?
If any of these can be said to be true, then as long as you are part of the stronger majority, you can justify anything.
Is slavery wrong? I say yes. I would not want to be put into slavery thus I need to hold that I cannot think it is good for another to be put into slavery.
Is rape wrong? I says yes again for the same reason about slavery. I would not want it to happen to me thus don’t want it to happen to others.
Is stealing my land wrong? Again yes for the same reasons.
Is my family being killed by a bomb or overtaking army wrong? Yes again.
See some things are wrong, regardless of your social status, origin of birth, language you speak, food you eat, job you have, whatever. Some things are just always wrong. But why are these things always wrong?
(ALSO: If you still think that these things are ok and that nothing is ever absolutely wrong, please explain and justify why. And remember if you believe that nothing is absolute and all things can be justified, don’t get mad if you are ever stolen from or attacked or hurt in any way by another individual)
But if we all agree that the things above are always wrong, then where did those ideas of wrongness come from?
MEN: They can’t be wrong because a man or group of men said so because a man or group of men can disagree. Hence all the wars and killing and stealing and disagreements throughout history. So men's views cannot be the source of the absolute morality we have.
EVOLUTION: Nope. There is no way that a random thing could produce a set of absolute morals. Evolution at its core is not specific or guided in any way. So there is no way to show that this random thing could have produced a common absolute thing inside of each one of us. Because if it was, then we could expect that humans could evolve to grow out of our current set of ethics. Thus in the future it would be ok (from both sides of the arguments) for slavery, murder, rape, etc. I am pretty sure that regardless of the time in history (past/present/future), the person getting the action towards them would not feel happy or satisfied with the arrangement.
THE GENERAL UNIVERSE (Space/Matter/Energy): There seems to be no reason that the universe is the source of our morals. Pretty easy to say that.
To summarize:
1).There are actions and choices people make that we all agree are wrong. (slavery, rape,murder)
2).If there are things we all agree as to be wrong, they are absolutes.
3).If Men and evolution and the ANM view cannot account for the absolute morals, they must come from somewhere else.
Absolute morals exist.I believe they exist because God exists.
“----------------------------------------------------------------“
SUMMARY:So finally to summarize the entire post I feel that based on what we see in logic, math, science, and morality, there must be a supernatural being out there.
1)The laws of logic are conceptual, and transcendent.
2)Math is conceptual, and transcendent.
3)The laws of science are ordered and intelligently put in place.
4)Absolute morals exist.
None of these can be explained within the confines of the ANM viewpoint.
If we combine these aspects of just 4 things, we see that something is beyond out universe. Only a transcendent, mindful, intelligent, ordered, logical, absolute being could account for all of these 4 things to exist.
They exist, therefore I say God exists.
Thank You.
To MeDeFe:I do believe that I answered your 4 questions quite well but just in case
1)Where do they come from if not from a supernatural source?
2)I did explain what I meant immaterial. I hope I cleared it up.
3)I think I did a better job of explaining what I meant about the laws of science.
4)Can’t say much more than I already did in section 4.
Hope I was able to answer your questions.
And I think most of Player's were answered as well.