Debate with Logic

1 February 2006

The following is an e-mail exchange between myself and one who calls himself Logic. Only relevant portions of this exchange will be posted (personal commentary and the many e-mails leading up to the actual discussion will not be posted.)
————————————————————————————————————————

Opening Argument

Ok, here I will start my discussion about the existence of God.

First, however, a few issues must be cleared up. First of all, I don’t mind you putting this transcript on your website, as long as you allow me to do the same should I so choose. My website is located at:

www.skepticalchristian.com

I would appreciate it if you would inform me of your website’s address. I’d like to check it out. Thanks in advance.

Anyways, on to the issue at hand. It is my contention that belief in the existence of God is vastly more rational than belief in no god. In order to support my contention, I will offer three supporting arguments, in order of least convincing to most convincing. In my mind, the cumalative case made by these three arguments is quite impressive. (NOTE: In this round, I am going to give fairly simple explanations of the arguments I propose. I will not discuss a whole lot of potential objections. Rather, I would like YOU to come up with objections and we can see where it goes from there.)

ARGUMENT 1: FOUNDATION OF MORALITY

You and I can both agree that killing babies is wrong. Based on this shared premise, we must ask ourselves one question- “Why is it wrong to kill babies?”

At first, this question may seem silly. What rational man would deny that it is immoral to kill a child? Indeed, it is quite obvious that killing a child is wrong. Why is it so obvious?

It is my contention that the reason you and I are apalled at the idea of killing a child is because we have a basic moral code imbedded within us. This moral code thus guides our actions and allows us to distinguish between good and evil.

You may ask, “Why do we need to believe in God to have a foundation for morality?” At this point I must clarify that when I say “morality”, I mean “objective morality”. Objective morality I would define as a system of standards of right and wrong that are true irregardless of the opinions of human beings.

Now, an individual like Hitler may believe that killing babies is alright because it is for the greater good. However, despite Hitler’s opinion, an objective moral code would destroy his claims.

However, God has the ability to create an objective moral code that humans should be inclined to follow. Consequently, killing babies is wrong irrespective of a certain person’s opinion on the matter.

Now, the only reason I think this Morality argument is not more powerful is the fact that you can deny that objective morality exists. You are certainly within your logical rights to do so, but that is a choice you must make for yourself.

ARGUMENT 2: DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE

Why does life exist? It is actually quite an amazing reality if you think about it. The very fact that intelligent life exists is reason to take the God hypothesis seriously.

If no God exists to design the universe, there is no reason to suppose that the universe we are stuck with would be hospitable to life. William Lane Craig, noted theologian, has compiled numerous examples of cosmological constants that- if changed but slightly- would result in a lifeless universe:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

The very fact that the universe is hospitable to life is a good reason to believe in the existence of God. On top of this, the existence of life at all is also a monumentous acheivement. Even operating under the assumption that evolution is true, the chances of the abiogenesis of the first cell are so minute as to be ridiculous. Thus, we are justified in believing in God becuase of the existence of life and the existence of a life-supporting universe.

ARGUMENT 3: THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

The final reason I will provide for believing in God is by far the most convincing. It is such a basic question, such a profound mystery, and it is answered easily and swiftly by the postulation that God exists.

Now, you and I can both agree that the universe exists. Also, I will assume that you and I both agree that the universe could not pop out of nothing for no reason. So, the universe had to be created by something, right?

Well, you may object that the universe could have existed forever. Yet, scientific data has totally undermined this theory. For example, the science of thermodynamics thoroughly dismantles hopes of an eternal universe. Thus, we know that the universe did in fact begin to exist, and it must have a cause for it’s existence.

So, what is the cause? Well, the cause must exist eternally, or else it itself would require a cause, ad infinitum. Unless we want to postulate an infinite regression of causes, which is illogical, we are forced to acknowledge that the creation of this universe requires something that has existed eternally.

Moreover, the cause would have to be above and beyond the laws of the universe, since the universe CONTAINS laws, whatever created the universe also created those laws. We can therefore see that the cause of the universe must be above and beyond the laws of the universe (unless you want to postulate that the universe created itself!)

Finally, and most importantly, the cause of the universe would have to be able to make decisions. The cause would need to consciously decide to create the universe. On the other hand, a naturalistic cause existing for an eternity would not be able to spontaneously cause the universe to come into existence, because it already would have done so an infinity of years ago.

Looking over the three necessary criterion I have mentioned, you may notice that these form a basic defintion of what I mean when I say God. Therefore, there is no way for one to uphold atheism in light of the fact that atheism doesn’t even provide a rational basis as to how the universe exists. The most important question ever asked is unanswerable by atheism but easily solved by theism. Therefore, we are totally justified in believing in God.

CONCLUSION:

I believe any one of these arguments would be good enough for us to consider belief in God rational. The cumulative case, however, is quite overwhelming. In the absence of reasons to DISBELIEVE in the existence of God, it seems irrational to deny that He exists.

Sincerely,

Kyle.
————————————————————————————————————————

First Response from Logic

Ok heh… http://logicx.sphosting.com (It’s just a d2 page right now….because I haven’t gotten around to coding the other parts for web viewing yet, when i do that the opening page will be a jump point to them – This will most likely be under a Philosophy or Literature heading).

Before I start:
I’ll assume you mean god as in a “greater being or beings” – instead of just a monotheistic argument – unless you want to specifically define what you are referring to as “god” – (I assume this because I can see the support for both monotheistic and polytheistic arguments)

Ok….I’ll start off with basic counter-arguments…

Argument 1: – Point 1: While I personally disagree with the killing of children, I can see the logic of some cultures performing this action, be it in cerimonial manner, or in cold-blood manner. These “moral codes” can be argued to have been created through society (there is a reason arguments between “tabula rasa” and the thought that morals/instincts/etc. are genetically/spiritually born into us)

– Point 2: You place god as a key point in an argument to prove there is a god… this is flawed logic. One cannot prove the theory of existence using the theory itself. (Objective morals are more logically argued as societal institutions – example given below with the china/japan argument) – Common Counter-Argument: Survival prevents you from killing your young – some species do this but it is usually just one of the parents, and it provides as a balancing mechanism. – Arguing “Survival Instinct” is a god given part of us isn’t useful, because by that argument then we’d all be either killing our babies or not, and animals do both (yes, we ARE animals – just stopping that argument before it starts….had people bring it up before). – Another Counter-Argument: Same argument could be made for people killing other grown people. But not all societies live by this (Cannibalistic Tribes come to mind – and also there was a period of time where people in china/japan would kill their children if they weren’t male because there was a mandate on the number of children they could have – females were seen as inferior – this practice has ended and moved to foster care).

Argument 2:
Roll a Dice infinite times, you will get infinite of every side.
Roll Infinite Dice infinite times, you will get infinite occurances of infinite combinations of infinite sides.

Laws of Probability state that infinite objects (parts of universe, divided however you will) being acted upon infinitely, will result in all possible outcomes occuring infinitely. – thus it is not so far fetched that intelligent life would occur.

With this, it isn’t even so far fetched that there are infinite beings, just like you, reading a message just like this, at the exact same moment you are, just at a different location in the universe.

Also you have to consider the actual definition of “intelligent life” or even “life” in general. Just because we define it so precisely doesn’t mean it can’t/doesn’t exist, we are not the ones who choose what is alive or what is intelligent no matter how much we write down on our pieces of paper.

Saying things like “it’s so rare that these specific things could happen” doesn’t mean they didn’t (refer back to Law of probibility) – And who’s to say there aren’t Infinite Universes, of Infinite Size, with infinite origin points for Universes, Galaxy Clusters (IE our big bang theory thing, who’s to say there aren’t infinite “big bangs” or other origins in the universe we are in), Galaxies, Star Systems, Planetary Systems, Planets, Life Forms, Molecules (or other base sections), Atoms, Protons/Electrons/Neutrons, etc. etc. Theorizing this is no more far fetched than theorizing there is a god setting specific things to do this.

Argument 3:
Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy – The Universe CAN have existed forever because of this scientific LAW.

This law states that the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant. This law was created when Albert Einstein Discovered the equation: E=mc^2. This combined the “Law of Conservation of Mass” – discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785, and the “Law of Conservation of Energy” (Ironically called the “First Law of Thermodynamics”) – discovered by Julius Robert Mayer.

Matter and energy can interconvert, but the total remains constant.

So I will argue that the Universe is infinite, be it in a form of matter or energy. Therefore there doesn’t need to be a creator or instigator of the universe – it could just “be”.

Even without that Law to back me up I could state:
The External Cause could be a loop using Time (Universe exists through effect of universe itself or through the progression of external universes – this is no more illogical than an eternal external creating a universe arbitrarily).

The “Laws” could be random occurances, a pot shot that makes it still in fact makes it. Time in fact could be theoretically warped to create itself and thus would force anything trapped in the flow of it to be part of that loop (flowing into itself).

Conclusion:
While I do believe a greater force is behind the creation of time/universe/etc. I think there is no way to prove it without counterproof being able to be presented…I always lay the burden of proof upon the person saying “X is the way it is” – if “X” is key in disproving “Y” then unless they can prove “X” there is no logical progression to even compare it to “Y”. (This is also the reason I discount any, and I do mean ANY religious text as being “just a book” and nothing more – I will not base my beliefs solely on the word of another without irrefutable proof)

Signed,
Logic X
————————————————————————————————————————

My First Rebuttal

First of all, it is true that all three of my arguments work for monotheism OR polytheism. However, my goal right now is not to establish the truth of a particular religion, but merely to establish the existence of God/gods.

ARGUMENT 1: FOUNDATION OF MORALITY

Your first objection is that morality codes are not necessarily the same across cultures. This may be true, but do you really think that these people don’t know in their heart that killing an innocent child is wrong? One could argue the same thing that Hitler was merely “raised in different social situations”, and therefore he actually thought that what he was doing was right. However, I sincerely doubt that these people do not realize that what they are doing is evil. (NOTE: In this argument, you are basically stating that objective morality does not exist. As I stated earlier, you are within your rights to claim this if you wish, but I personally don’t see how you could deny that certain things are definitely wrong.)

In your second objection, you claim that my argument is circular. Not so. Here is my argument, in premise form:

1. If objective morality exists, then God/gods must exist.
2. Objective morality exists.
3. God/gods must exist.

There is certainly no circular reasoning involved in this argument, whether or not it is valid.

Your third argument seems to be along the basis of claiming that evolutionary instincts form the basis for morality. However, this is rather dubious (killing children is hardly advantageous to the survival of the species, while rape could be an effective means of producing more offspring). Once again, you are denying that objective morality exists, which I think is a suspect denial.

Your final point is about cannabilistic tribes and the practice of killing infants in China. However, all you are doing is listed horrible acts by people- not proving that these acts are not somehow inherently evil.

ARGUMENT 2: DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE

In order to overcome the argument of design, you apparently postulate a universe that is infinite in size.

Now, it is true that- if the universe is infinite in size- you would overcome the objection of abiogenesis. However, an infinitely sized universe does not overcome the difficulty of explaining WHY the universe has the fundamental constants to even allow life in the first place.

Next, you object that we have no right to declare what “life” is. Well, by “life” I mean self-aware entities such as you or I. It may be true that trees have “life”, but they certainly are not self-aware and they have no ability to right down their thoughts on the matter even if they were. As such, the fact that this universe allows self-aware life forms with the ability to express themselves is quite amazing and evidence of God’s existence.

Next, you make the objection that there could be an infinite number of universes. It is true that this objection would solve the question of abiogenesis AND fundamental constants. However, the claim that there are multiple universes is quite dubious. Here, I will shortly defer to William Lane Craig:

??”Various theories, some of them quite fantastic, have been offered for generating a World Ensemble. For example, Wheeler proposes a model of the oscillating universe in which each cycle emerges with a new set of physical laws and constants.{19} Linde suggests an inflationary model according to which our observable universe is but one of many different mini-universes which inflated from the original larger Universe.{20} One of the most widely discussed World Ensemble scenarios is Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics, according to which all possible states of a quantum interaction are actualized, the observer himself splitting off into each of these different worlds.{21}??

Now it needs to be emphasized that there is no evidence for any of these theories apart from the fact of intelligent life itself. But as John Leslie, the philosopher of science who has occupied himself most thoroughly with the Anthropic Principle, points out, any such evidence for a World Ensemble is equally evidence for a divine Designer.{22} Moreover, each of the above scenarios faces formidable scientific and philosophical objections.{23} Wheeler’s theory, for example, not only succumbs to the problems generic to oscillating models,{24} but insofar as it posits singularities at the termini of each cycle, it is not even a model of an oscillating universe at all, but of just a series of unrelated worlds. Inflationary models not only face the problems of how to get the inflation started, how to get it to end without excess turbulence, and how to get it to allow galaxy formation, but more importantly they themselves require an extraordinary amount of fine-tuning prior to inflation, so that the appearance of design is not eluded. The Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics is so fantastic that philosopher of science John Earman characterizes its postulated splitting of space-time as a “miracle.” “Not only is there no hint as to what causal mechanism would produce such a splitting,” he complains, “there is not even a characterization of where and when it takes place.”{25} In fact, Quentin Smith indicts the theory as incoherent, since the many worlds are supposed to exist in a timeless superspace, which is incompatible with the stipulation that they branch off serially as quantum interactions occur.{26}”

Taken from: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html

If you wish to claim that there are multiple universes, I would think that you would shoulder the burden of proof. Even if you don’t, however, there is enough evidence against multiple universes to reject this hypothesis anyway.

ARGUMENT 3: THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

In order to object to this premise, you bring up the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. I don’t see how this helps your case, as the law only refers to this universe AS IT IS NOW, and does not dictate whether or not this universe has always existed.

You claim that the universe could be infinitely large. However, this does not solve any problems unless you also propose that the universe has EXISTED for an infinite amount of time. For this to be true, however, you would have to contradict all sorts of science, like backround radiation.

Not only this, but there really is no satisfactory theory for a proposed eternally existing universe. As you can see in my article on the Cosmological Argument, the Steady-State model has been rejected by all and the oscillating model is contradicted by thermodynamics, lack of a mechanism, etc.

On top of this, philosphers have for a long time argued that it is logically impossible for an infinite amount of events (or time) to occur in this universe. Here, I will quote myself from my own article:

The problem of an actual infinite number of things becomes obvious when one considers an analogy. Say, for instance, that there was a line of people waiting to ride a roller coaster that was infinitely long. In other words, an infinity of people are anxiously waiting to ride this new attraction. Now, let’s say that half of the people in this line decide that the wait is too long and they all head over to wait in the line for the Merry-Go-Round. Now, several inconsistencies appear. Even though half of the people left, the line for the roller coaster is still infinitely long! Additionally, the Merry-Go-Round also has an infinite number of people waiting in line! So now, there are two rides with an infinite number of people, instead of only one, even though the only thing that has happened is the transfer of half of the people from the roller coaster to the Merry-Go-Round. As is easily seen, this scenario has lead to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.

CONCLUSION: I agree with you that theists have the burden of proof. I have no problem with that. And, of course, “counterpoints” can be made to just about everything. In the end, however, the case for the existence of God reigns supreme.
————————————————————————————————————————

Second Response from Logic

Argument 1:
1. You assume everyone believes that it is wrong, which not everyone does – In fact in some cultures of the past it was considered a great honor for the child to be sacrificed to their god/gods (although the child may not have liked it), just like you may consider the taking of sacrament to be respectful of your god.

2. It wasn’t neccessarily Hitler, it was those who followed him that did the actual killing (Hitler did the ordering of them to kill) – so they were performing under societal pressure, and some actually claimed to be proud of what they had done – It’s the same state of mind that racists have, they don’t consider the others “human”.

3. In your argument you claim that: “God has the ability to create an objective moral code that humans should be inclined to follow.” – and “Objective morality I would define as a system of standards of right and wrong that are true irregardless of the opinions of human beings.”

Therefore it is to be concluded that you’re saying:
“God has the ability to create a code for a system of standards of what is right or wrong that are true irregardless of the opinions of human beings.”

And you also argue against these being determined by societal norms – so where do they come from, you say “god”.

BUT, this makes it part of the argument making the actual succession of ideas:
1. God Creates Objective Morality.
2. Objective morality exists – but is not from society.
3. God/Gods must exist.

This strikes me as very similar to the argument of “miracles happen so thus god must exist”.
This is based on the idea that god creates miracles.
1. “Miracles” happen (could just be luck of the draw, but religion claims miracles).
2. Only god can create miracles.
3. Therefore there is a god.

4. Killing children can be advantageous to instinctual survival, lack of food sources creates competition, less offspring creates less competition. As for rape, that actually occured before “civilization” (I use the term loosely) came about, and enforced laws upon the people (it even still occured after that where kings/princes would choose some of their subjects and force them to have sex).

5. Cannabilistic tribes followed customs (they wouldn’t eat their own tribal members, but they would eat other tribes’ members), it wasn’t seen as “bad” or “evil” and I would like you to prove to me that it was considered “bad” or “evil”.

I’m not trying to prove that they’re inherently evil or good, I’m proving that they are all depending on how you look at it – evil is in the eye of the beholder. (IE while some see shooting someone in the face as an “evil” action – what if he was defending his child… it would all of a sudden become a “good” action).

Argument 2:
You’re thinking single monoplanar with this view as in infinite universes would be existent on a single accessable plane. It is just as far fetched thinking an entity exists seperate from this plane. – Graig’s ideas are monoplanar requiring interaction between universe/universes on a single plane resulting in conflict of rules or cause for a change in rules. If they are seperate planes non-interaction would allow them to differ or be similar regardless of the state of other planes.

Also noone can say anything is a constant, especially when it comes to dealing with the concept of multiple universal planes ( IE plane (1,2,3) has infinite planes it does not interact with – parallel planes of existence, while this may be limited to our dimensional thought there is no way to prove or disprove that an existence of a parallel plane of existence could be occuring at this very moment – thus preventing the passing of this beyond a theory, and preventing it from being discounted as a theory)

The proof of multiple universes is no more a burden than the proof of a god on a seperate plane (which is the only thing external to this universe that could be explained by finite minds). And the evidence against the multiple universe theory is monoplanar, thus ignoring the possibility of an “exterior” thus preventing a “god” from being exterior unless you’re willing to add another plane which will result in effectively allowing either theory.

Argument 3:
If matter cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot be created or destroyed – if it wasn’t created, it always was be it in one form or another. Or do you want to argue that god created matter – which wouldn’t work because you’d have to find some way to prove that it was created (it’s less far fetched that there is an eternal cycle of mass-energy conversion that just constantly recycles itself – ie when it would reach a zero point it reaches a point of impact which reacts with a massive reignition – noone knows because there is no evidence to prove either way).

As for stating that the law refers to the universe “as it is now” that’s all our “laws” can do – even in the sciences you use to defend your argument.

As for your analogy – the infinity question:
Finite cannot define infinite….(IE we cannot comprehend infinity, because we have never known infinity, and it will be impossible for us to know infinity until we will have existed for an infinite amount of time, which is impossible because we’re already missing a infinite amount of infinity – we can but experience a ray, not the line).

A bone to pick with your line analogy though – to divide an infinite line in people in half, you must first define infinite, which makes it a finite. Infinite does not have a half, merely locations along it that we may try and call “half” but truly is not – it is merely that random ·A. This is due to the fact that there is no maximum or minimum points to determine a midpoint.

As for dividing infinity by 2 (splitting between lines) – you would have to divide it as every other person in a never ending line, which would result in 2 neverending lines, which isn’t “inconsistent” – remember, infinite is not a static term (it cannot be defined like x can be), it is an all inclusive term. In your example you’re assuming a static/constant term instead of this all inclusive.
A computer program to show the idea of an infinite ray (when defining infinity, even the highest number you choose can have 1 added to it):
while(x+1>x){
x=x+1;
}
is an easy way to define positive infinity in terms of x
To define it in 2 lines you merely make it:
y=x/2;
z=x/2;
while ((z+1)*(y+1)>z*y){
z=z+1;
y=y+1;
}
with z being line at the roller coaster, and y being the line at the merry go round. (since these lines are actually rays they are single-direction infinities – IE all [1,+infinity) numbers). This logically will count all the quantity of infinity in the lines – if the computer were never to reach a limit (I could send you this program and have it print it out on screen if you really wanted…..it would lock up you computer eventually though). Basically the argument doesn’t lead to “numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.” unless you try and define infinite with a finite term.

Also – it’s more illogical to think that infinite occurances couldn’t occur in an infinite universe. I refer back to Laws of Probability – everything that can happen has happened, is happening, or will happen infinite times when it comes to unlimited chances of occurances.

As to your conclusion: The case of the existence of “god” or “gods” does not reign supreme – because there are other just as plausible explanations of occurances. Given 2 solutions to 1 problem, in which both could be correct by all available proof leads it to be that neither reigns supreme. (I’m not here to prove there is no god, I’m here to prove there is no way to prove there IS a god).
————————————————————————————————————————

My Second Rebuttal

ARGUMENT 1: FOUNDATION OF MORALITY

“You assume everyone believes that it is wrong, which not everyone does – In fact in some cultures of the past it was considered a great honor for the child to be sacrificed to their god/gods”

You assume that they DON’T know, deep down, that doing such is wrong. However, even if they truly don’t believe it is wrong, it is still obvious to me that it is wrong. In my mind, the man that says killing a child is a morally neutral act is as wrong as the man that says 2+2=5. But, by your view, might makes right. Therefore, if the majority of humans believed that slaughtering innocents was “moral”, then it was indeed “moral”. That view seems untenable to me.

In your reply, you seem to imply that you believe “social norms” are a form of “objective morality”. However, social norms are the exact OPPOSITE of objectivity- they are merely the subjective opinions of the collective human population.

“I’m not trying to prove that they’re inherently evil or good, I’m proving that they are all depending on how you look at it – evil is in the eye of the beholder.”

“Evil is in the eye of the beholder” means that objective morality does not exist. If “evil” is a subjective, personal feeling, then it really has little basis in reality. I, however, have a hard time believing that those who support infanticide “could” be right. They are wrong, because killing innocent children is inherently evil.

Anyhow, you have the opinion that objective morality does not exist, so I will not use the Morality Argument to support the existence of the God hypothesis anymore.

ARGUMENT 2: DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE

“[C]raig’s ideas are monoplanar requiring interaction between universe/universes on a single plane resulting in conflict of rules or cause for a change in rules.”

I think you have misunderstood Craig. He was merely offering objections to theories PROPOSED by advocates of the World Ensemble. They are therefore not “his” ideas at all.

In any case, how do you know that it is even possible for a universe to exist on a “different plane”? What do you even mean by this?

Also, in order to make the existence of our universe probable, there would have to be billions or possibly trillions of universes. These universes (supposedly on a “different plane of existence”- according to you) would be unknown and unknowable. So, they cannot possibly fare any better than the God hypothesis. In fact, the God hypothesis only involves one entity, and thus is vastly more simple than the postulation of billions of alternate universes in a different “plane of existence” (whatever that means). Furthermore, God is coherently defined by theists, whereas the “World Ensemble” proposed by you and others is not. Thus, the God hypothesis is much better than the World Ensemble hypothesis, and the existence of God remains the best explanation for the fine-tuned universe we live in.

ARGUMENT 3: ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

“Or do you want to argue that god created matter – which wouldn’t work because you’d have to find some way to prove that it was created (it’s less far fetched that there is an eternal cycle of mass-energy conversion that just constantly recycles itself – ie when it would reach a zero point it reaches a point of impact which reacts with a massive reignition – noone knows because there is no evidence to prove either way).”

Your eternal cycle of mass-energy presupposes an eternal universe, which is itself refuted by scientific and philosophical analysis (as I will show below).

In your objection to my point about the impossibility of an infinite number of things, you mention that one could define infinity as x+1 and there is no problem. However, you fail to realize that what you are describing is a POTENTIAL infinite, not an ACTUAL infinite. The difference is quite critical.

You even say yourself: “when defining infinity, even the highest number you choose can have 1 added to it”

However, that is the whole point. Since you can ALWAYS add one to the number, you will NEVER reach infinity. There is simply no way around this.

As for your objections to my scenario, I agree that it is not all that impressive. I plan to rewrite that section of my article with a more detailed scenario. However, for the time being, I would like to refer to Craig, who discusses the “Hilbert Hotel”:

Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, “Sorry, all the rooms are full.” But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. “But of course!” says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest’s name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. “Of course, of course!” says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many times and yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before.

But Hilbert’s Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave it out to be. For suppose some of the guests start to check out. Suppose the guest in room #1 departs. Is there not now one less person in the hotel? Not according to the mathematicians-but just ask the woman who makes the beds! Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out. In this case an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according to the mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel-but don’t talk to that laundry woman! In fact, we could have every other guest check out of the hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet there would never be any less people in the hotel. But suppose instead the persons in room number 4, 5, 6, . . . checked out. At a single stroke the hotel would be virtually emptied, the guest register reduced to three names, and the infinite converted to finitude. And yet it would remain true that the same number of guests checked out this time as when the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . checked out. Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality? These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things.”

Taken from: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

“Also – it’s more illogical to think that infinite occurances couldn’t occur in an infinite universe. I refer back to Laws of Probability – everything that can happen has happened, is happening, or will happen infinite times when it comes to unlimited chances of occurances.”

I never said that infinite occurrences couldn’t occur in an infinite universe. Therefore, I agree with your statement about the Laws of Probability.

CONCLUSION: I still feel that the case for the existence of God is vastly superior to any other option. This is especially impressive considering that the theist has the burden of proof. Despite opposition from many corners, the case for the existence of God, quite amazingly, finds itself on top.

Sincerely,

Kyle.
————————————————————————————————————————

Third Response from Logic

Argument 1:

Basically without assumption you can’t say if it does or doesn’t exist, there is however no evidence that one could use to provide its existence, while there is evidence that could be used that could point to at least a semi-lacking of objective morality (although I do admit, it is impossible to know thoughts of people, the thing is, I am not trying to argue that it does or doesn’t exist, merely that it’s not admissible due to its inherant flaw of being able to have someone say “no, i don’t think this is wrong” destroying it)

Heh…i’ll consider argument 1 closed and null in the argument too , I’ll leave my stance as morality is subjective not objective. :).

Argument 2:

“In any case, how do you know that it is even possible for a universe to exist on a “different plane”? What do you even mean by this?”

Planes: mathematical term (ie you can have 2 lines on seperate planes, in this sense I’m referring to them being on seperate planes…another term albeit an incorrect one would be dimension)... have a lot of this kind of stuff on my mind because I’m working on concepts involving time at the moment.

I’m not placing the theory out there as a superior, merely as an alternative, I’m not trying to prove “no god”, merely that “god is not the only answer” – infinite planes/universes is equally as plausable as a single seperate universe/god. Just because one answer is simpler than another, does not allow it the position of being better than another answer. And I am not using the “world ensemble” theory as you claim (which fundamentally is multiple universes within a master universe) – I propose multiple universes existing independently on seperate planes, each a single entity unto itself – not contained within one master entity (think a koosh ball, remove one of the rubber things from it….the others remain the same, unchanged, the new one still exists, unchanged for the most part, now it is in a different place, but it still exists whether on the koosh or off the koosh). Neither answer is superior, but one cannot be pinpointed as correct due to NEITHER having evidence (definitions serve not as evidence, merely the isolation of that which you’re trying to prove)

Argument 3:

Full and empty are terms that relate to the finite only, which completely destroys the hotel.

Infinity is non-defineable, merely potential infinity. X+1 is the potential infinity, we have no terms to define something that is never ending…..of course x=infinity could be used where x=all reals and all unreals, but that is not able to actually be comprehended by the mind (no matter how hard you try, your mind will impose limits..your preverbial mental line of sight).

Conclusion: No argument is superior, the answer of God is equivalent to all other options. If you declare one answer superior when going into a debate, your argument is already inately flawed (as you start inputting opinions as “facts” or beliefs as “facts” – where there can be other beliefs and opinions that are just as easy to accept for other people). Summary: God is not the only answer, therefore no answer is superior, the only correct answer is “there are too many possible answers”.

Signed,
Logic
http://logicx.sphosting.com
————————————————————————————————————————

My Third Rebuttal

Hello Logic. This discussion is going well so far but it seems that we are winding down on the current issue. That said, the discussion as to whether or not God exists is still important, and I will do my best to ‘wrap up’ the loose ends. Feel free to continue discussing this, but I feel we need a new shift in the direction of our debate.

CHRISTIANITY: THE RATIONAL RELIGION

Even if it is concluded that God/gods exist, it is by no means established that Christianity is the true religion. Hundreds upon hundreds of religions exist in this world today. It seems that the rational man, having come upon the realization that God exists, faces the formidable and perhaps impossible task of determining which religion is most likely correct.

However, the situation is not as bleak as it may seem. This is because, out of all the world religions, only a miniscule minority of them are rational beliefs at all! When I mean rational, I mean “subject to critique and evaluation”. Obviously, a belief that makes unfalsifiable and mysterious claims (with no way to evaluate the truth or falsity of such claims) cannot be considered rational.

Consider the man who believes in invisible fairies that communicate only to him. Is this belief rational for others to accept? Of course not! Nobody else is in a position to evaluate the claims of the man, by definition. The belief MAY be true, but his belief is certainly not rational for others to accept.

The man and the invisible fairies closely parallel a wide variety of religions. For example, Buddhism wants us to follow the path of “enlightenment”. However, Buddhism is nothing more than a concoction of spiritual ideas and ‘feel-good’ types of doctrines. There are no historical facts to defend, nothing that could potentially falsify Buddhist beliefs. It is therefore not a rational religion.

Christianity, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. As any Christian will tell you, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a must, or else Christianity is not true. The resurrection (whether it happened or not), was depicted as an HISTORICAL event, subject therefore to falsification in the broad sense. Christianity therefore makes a positive historical claim which must be true or else the religion is false. It is quite hard indeed to find another religion with enough nerve to do something like that.

Now, my point of all this is that Christianity is rational EVEN IF ALL EVIDENCE IS AGAINST IT. This is because Christianity, unlike other religions, at least subjects itself to such evidence, and is thereby superior by definition.

THE “PROBLEM” OF MIRACLES

However, the skeptic may respond that miracles in the Christian account make it irrational. Of course, if miracles are irrational then we can flush just about every religion down the toilet! However, skeptics are deeply mistaken when they claim that miracles are irrational by definition.

Once the existence of God is accepted, it becomes obvious that God’s action in history (or in the present, for that matter) are perfectly possible. In addition, if a God that cares about human beings is accepted, it becomes LIKELY that He would do SOMETHING to help us out of the ‘human condition’. Therefore, when it is conceded that God exists, I don’t think the conclusion that “miracles are possible and perhaps even likely” is far away.

With that out of the way, I am going to briefly respond to the issues you bring up about the existence of God.

ARGUMENT 2: DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE

“Planes: mathematical term (ie you can have 2 lines on seperate planes, in this sense I’m referring to them being on seperate planes”

Unfortunately this doesn’t really answer my question. I know what planes are, but the important question is whether or not it is even possible to be on “separate planes of reality”. Is that concept defined, or even coherent? You might as well say “God didn’t cause the beginning of the universe, unies did!” Unless you defend your belief that “separate planes of reality” are a possibility, the God hypothesis fares better because God is defined and coherent. Your theory appears to be neither unless you show otherwise.

For example, one definition of reality I have found is:

“The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.”

Obviously, if this is the definition of ‘reality’ you are using, then you’re postulation of ‘different realities’ is absurd. In conclusion, I believe that you must support the coherence of your objection.

Furthermore, it seems to me that you have not yet answered my argument dealing with the origins of life, which is another important issue for discussion.

ARGUMENT 3: THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

You continue to pick bones with the analogies I provide. Well, here I will provide another one:

William Craig, in his book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, explains why it would be absurd for an actual infinite to exist in reality (p. 82-83). He draws the example in the reader’s minds that to imagine a library, with an infinite number of books. He continues, “Suppose further that there were only two colours of books, black and red, and every other book was the same colour.” Craig then asserts that the numbers of black books and the number of red books are the same. But Craig asks us, “But would we believe someone who told us that the number of red books in the library is the same as the number of red books plus the number of black books?” Now I think Craig has showed why this is absurd, but he continues by asking us to imagine a many colours of books, or even a hundred colours of books—”...Can we honestly believe that there are in the total collection of books of all colurs no more books than in the collection of a single colour?” Craig goes further in asking his readers that if there were an infinite number of colours of books, would we believe that there was one book per colour in the collection. To continue, Craig states, “Would we beli8eve anyone who told us that for each of the infinite colours there is an infinite collection of books and that all these infinites taken together do not increase the total number of books by a single volume over the number contained in the collection of books of one colour?” Craig however continues this absurdity in his book by prompting readers to suppose further that each book had a number printed on its spine so as to create a one to one correspondence with the natural numbers. “Because the collection is actually infinite,” Craig states, “this means that every possible natural number is printed on some book. Therefore, it would be impossible to add another book to this library.

Taken from: http://www.angelfire.com/art/apologetics/Kalam.html

I don’t really think you can continue to pick at little things you think are wrong with these analogies. The reasonable conclusion is that infinity is a valid mathematical concept but is impossible in the real world.

“Infinity is non-defineable, merely potential infinity. X+1 is the potential infinity, we have no terms to define something that is never ending…..of course x=infinity could be used where x=all reals and all unreals, but that is not able to actually be comprehended by the mind (no matter how hard you try, your mind will impose limits..your preverbial mental line of sight).”

You admit that infinity is “non-definable” and you admit that you have no terms to describe it. Take these facts, add to it the fact that Craig and others have shown infinity to be impossible in the real world, and explain to me WHY I should believe that an actual infinite number of things is possible in this universe.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

“No argument is superior, the answer of God is equivalent to all other options.”

Not so. All other “options” are either non-options or ridiculously contradictory.

“you declare one answer superior when going into a debate, your argument is already inately flawed (as you start inputting opinions as “facts” or beliefs as “facts” – where there can be other beliefs and opinions that are just as easy to accept for other people).”

Not true. Some answers ARE better than others. Perhaps they explain the data better, perhaps they are more likely to be true given human experience, or perhaps they are the ONLY answer available that is well-defined and coherent (as is the case here).
————————————————————————————————————————

Fourth Response from Logic

Here goes –
“Christianity: The Rational Religion” – response postponed – but I will point out a few small things – 1. buddhism “feel good” mentality – Buddhism is the source of the quote “Life is suffering” – 2. Many religions are historical – even buddhism (although not as heavily as basing on 1 historical figure – albeit Jesus was thought of as insane by his family during his lifetime). What seperates Islam from christianity – both base their religions heavily on prophets (Jesus was in fact considered a prophet of islam). – 3. Mysticism – mystic religionous practices (casting of a circle, candle magick, runes, etc. are no more far fetched than the idea of prayer – both ways of contacting one’s deity to ask and sometimes procure assistance. – the majority of “mystic” religions aren’t as wacko as you seem to think, study them for a bit, there are some outlandish ideas, but no more than thinking kneeling, speaking ritualistic phrases, and asking for aid from a supernatural being is normal).

Existence of God – (I’m writing this mainly in response to your last argument, since it’s kinda late, and I have to get back to working on my paper soon heh….just needed a break from research)

Argument 2:
Intro Notes:
~~Planes – Different Plane, seperate existence, not necessarily seperate reality.

~~Seperate Planes of Existence within a “reality” – using your definition of reality – all realities (that which we realize, and that which we don’t) are in one large encompassing reality. – but I my aim is to claim seperate planes of existence, not necessarily reality.

~~The concept of reality people tend to cling to (even when saying a definition similar to yours) is actually in fact:
“The totality of all things PERCEIVED TO BE possessing actuality, existence, or essence”
————————————Quote:
“Is that concept defined, or even coherent? You might as well say “God didn’t cause the beginning of the universe, unies did!” Unless you defend your belief that “separate planes of reality” are a possibility, the God hypothesis fares better because God is defined and coherent. Your theory appears to be neither unless you show otherwise.”

Concept of seperate planes is defined – see above. God is defined – see religious scriptures (defined different ways by different societies). Neither is adamantly coherant. Both have loopholes. The major one of these loopholes is blatant, large, and has been proven many times again – “I don’t believe.” – and hence, it is a non-real, non-coherant, theory in one person’s eyes. With the many definitions of god, it is actually less coherant than that of multiple planes of existence. And if you choose to limit our “reality” to one plane of existence, god could not have existed – god would have been created with the universe, not creator of the universe (or do you admit s/he/it was external to our universe – and thus you must accept that existence is in place beyond our plane).

If there is nothing outside of the circle, and the circle was created with all its contents, then the circle was self created – no god, no other planes, no squares, no triangles, just the circle. – if there are things outside the circle, which we cannot percieve, who are we to say it’s god, a frog, or 3 albino monkeys playing peanuckle.

Origins of Life: Can be any answer from laws of probability dealing with infinites, or VERY large numbers (if you refuse to accept conceptual infinity) – throw a bunch of minerals/gasses/etc. in with a ton of carbon, mix, let it simmer a few billion years – poof – life.—————————————-
Argument 3:

picks bones at analogy
There is no limit to natural numbers

As for the math – I say count them. You will never find the first number to compare to the second, much less the many colors. Infinite books of Infinite colors, do not increase the quantity of books, because there is no end to the number of books, be they 1, 2, or 20billion colors. Concept of infinity is not meant to be applicable through the use of FINITE resources, capacities, etc. etc. – the concept of infinity is that which deals with the limitless (although yes, in an infinite universe, there are infinite of each resource, and infinite beings to assemble, count, etc. – but there would be no end to this production – infinite in a second, infinite in a millinium, infinite for infinity – no end, no limit).

Anywho, Infinity being a valid mathematical concept is in fact the basis of it’s use in this argument – mathematics are in fact, the very core of all proofs of physical reality. If it exists, and is perceivable, mathematics can supply an answer. The line never touches the asymptote, it continues for infinity, getting infinitely closer, but never touching.

Existence of infinity nearing 0 – application in the physical world:
Cut a piece of paper in half
Cut that half in half
Repeat infinite times.

This can be done, not necessarily with the tools we presently have – but you can always halve something, but it will never reach nothing (it will be beyond normal human perception, but will still exist in a form).

For positive infinity – application in theoretical world:
make a stack of paper
add 1 sheet to the stack – for every sheet added to any stack this way, create another stack, and add a sheet to every existing stack.
add infinite sheets to each stack as it is created.
infinite piles, infinite sheets in each pile is the result.

only thing that keeps the piles for growing is the limit of resources – since infinite has no end – the piles will have no end, the number of stacks will have no end. Infinities aren’t necessarily equal, just neverending, stack A will always be B+1, stack B will always be C+1. A will be C+2. Where C is any number natural number. There is a reason for solution sets. If you deny infinities – you deny calculus, and before you do that be sure to check in the many places calculus is applied.

Basically – you have yet to disprove infinity, so that will remain a valid part of my argument until disproven (but take note – you will need to do more than prevent examples of where it wouldn’t apply in the real world, you will basically have to take the burden of disproving a good portion of mathematics).
————-

All arguments are equal, god is not a better answer due to simplicity or the amount/type of definitions applied to it. God may be an answer, but as I said before, if God’s an answer – so are 3 supernatural Albino monkeys playing peaknuckle.
————A lion stood up, roared with his loudest voice across the land, “I am king, I am your lord, I am the superior beast.”
A man shoots the lion, yelled in his loudest voice, “I have killed the lion, I am king, I am your lord, I am the superior beast.”
An elephant tramples the man, and trumpets in his loudest voice, “I have killed the man, who killed the lion, I am king, I am your lord, I am the superior beast.”
A spider bites the elephant, and whispers in its loudest voice, “I have killed the elephant, who killed the man, I am king, I am your lord, I am the superior beast.”
A mouse eats the spider, and squeaks in its loudest voice, “I have killed the spider, who killed the elephant, I am king, I am your lord, I am the superior beast.”
A lion eats the spider, and roars in its loudest voice across the land, “I have killed the mouse, that killed the spider, I am king, I am your lord, I am the superior beast.”———-
————————————————————————————————————————

My Fourth Rebuttal

CHRISTIANITY- THE RATIONAL RELIGION

In your response you point out that some other religions are historically-based. This is true to a certain extent. Namely, Judaism and Islam are, for the most part, based on historical realities. However, if my argument can reduce the number of “viable” options for religion to the three monotheistic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), then I will have succeeded in narrowing the field significantly. I no longer need to worry about the other “thousands” of religions- for they are not even rational to consider. (By the way, though Buddhism has historical events, it does not rely on them in the same way that Christianity does.)

ARGUMENT 2- DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE

You continue to advance the “separate planes of existence” objection to the design argument. However, I think it is absurd to propose “other planes of existence”. Perhaps you mean something like “other dimensions” or something. But even if there were other planes of existence, why should we suppose that there are enough to make the design argument no longer plausible? There would have to be millions upon millions of “other planes of existence”- a fairly bloated ontology to be sure.

Furthermore, let us assume that there really are all these separate planes of existence. Would that mean that our universe’s existing with just the right properties to support life is no longer a mystery? Not really. Consider the following example.

…………………………………………............
………………………………………….............
……………………….........…………………....
……………… 2 ………………...
……………… ………………...
……………… . ………………...
……………… 1 ………………...
……………… ………………...
………………………………………….............
………………………………………….............
…………………………………………..............

In this diagram, our universe is the little spot in the center. All of the other dots are universes that exist, as you say, in “separate planes of existence”. Since they don’t even exist in our own plane of existence, they are necessarily far removed and thus quite a bit different than our own universe. They are qualitively quite different.

Now, all of the blank spaces in the middle box represent universes that could exist but are inhospitable to life. For, there is a possible universe (labeled on the diagram as “1”) where the fundamental constants are fairly similar to our own, but yet are not hospitable to life. Universe 2, likewise, is a universe fairly similar to our own but lacking the constants that make life possible.
Now, let us suppose that a person fires a shot at our diagram, and the shot lands exactly on the center dot. Should we suppose that it was a lucky shot? No, it is much more likely that the man took aim at the dot and hit it. Likewise with the universe we live in. It is most likely, given the huge amount of potential lifeless universes surrounding our actual universe, that the existence of our actual universe is due to design.

“Origins of Life: Can be any answer from laws of probability dealing with infinites, or VERY large numbers (if you refuse to accept conceptual infinity) – throw a bunch of minerals/gasses/etc. in with a ton of carbon, mix, let it simmer a few billion years – poof – life.”

I feel that this speculation does not do justice to the extreme improbability of life’s origin.

As for the math – I say count them. You will never find the first number to compare to the second, much less the many colors. Infinite books of Infinite colors, do not increase the quantity of books, because there is no end to the number of books, be they 1, 2, or 20billion colors. Concept of infinity is not meant to be applicable through the use of FINITE resources, capacities, etc. etc.

This is the very problem with infinity. If there are a literally infinite number of books, there is nothing stopping you from taking a book off the shelf. But even though you take a book off the shelf, there are no less books present! This is obviously absurd. Also, if there are a literally infinite number of books, then it is actually impossible to add another book. But just what is keeping you from shoving another book on the shelf? Nothing! That is why the concept of infinity breaks down when applied to the real world. If you keep saying “well, that doesn’t imply, because it’s infinity”- then you are just begging the question. Fact of the matter is, these sort of puzzles DO show infinity to be problematic.

“Anywho, Infinity being a valid mathematical concept is in fact the basis of it’s use in this argument – mathematics are in fact, the very core of all proofs of physical reality.”

Mathematics aren’t always applicable to the real world:

“Suppose we want to find the number of men required for a certain job under certain conditions. Every schoolboy knows such problems, and he knows that he must begin by saying: ‘Let x = the number of men required.’ But that substitution introduces a whole range of possibilities that the nature of the original problem excludes. The mathematical symbol x can be positive, negative, integral, fractional, irrational, imaginary, complex, zero, infinite, and whatever else the fertile brain of the mathematician may devise. The number of men, however, must be simply positive and integral. Consequently, when you say, ‘Let x = the number of men required’ you are making a quite invalid substitution, and the result of the calculation, though entirely possible for the symbol, might be quite impossible for the men.

“Every elementary algebra book contains such problems that lead to quadratic equations, and these have two solutions, which might be 8 and –3, say. We accept 8 as the answer and ignore –3 because we know from experience that there are no such things as negative men, and the only alternative interpretation-that we could get the work done by subtracting three men from our gang-is obviously absurd….

“So we just ignore [one] of the mathematical solutions, and quite overlook the significance of that fact-namely, that in the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate.” [Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (London: Martin, Brian and O’Keefe, 1972) pp. 31-32.]

“Existence of infinity nearing 0 – application in the physical world:
Cut a piece of paper in half
Cut that half in half
Repeat infinite times.”

This is only a potential infinite- because it is never completed.

“Existence of infinity nearing 0 – application in the physical world:
Cut a piece of paper in half
Cut that half in half
Repeat infinite times.”

But you will NEVER reach infinity- that is the very problem! If you stacked papers for 1,000,000 years, you would still be no closer to infinity than when you started. It is ridiculous to suppose that you could create an infinite number of things by successive addition.

“If you deny infinities – you deny calculus, and before you do that be sure to check in the many places calculus is applied.”

Even my Calculus teacher agrees that infinity is not a real number, it is a concept. I am not denying the concept, I am denying the actual possibility of infinity existing in the real world. Infinity is fine as a concept, but once we try to say that an actual infinite number of things can exist in the real world, we run into the various problems I have enunciated.

“Basically – you have yet to disprove infinity, so that will remain a valid part of my argument until disproven (but take note – you will need to do more than prevent examples of where it wouldn’t apply in the real world, you will basically have to take the burden of disproving a good portion of mathematics).”

No, this is a mistaken notion on your part. I am not, in any way, trying to “disprove” mathematics. I am merely arguing that the idea of an actual infinite number of things in the real world is absurd.

“All arguments are equal, god is not a better answer due to simplicity or the amount/type of definitions applied to it. God may be an answer, but as I said before, if God’s an answer – so are 3 supernatural Albino monkeys playing peaknuckle.”

Actually, simplicity is regarded by most scientists and historians as at least one marker of credibility. But your final argument, that it could as well be a monkey as God, misses the point. For, the Cosmological Argument proves that there exists a being who is personal, eternal, timeless, above and beyond the laws of the universe, and powerful enough to create the universe as we know it. Whether you construe this being as a “God” figure or as some sort of albino monkey is irrelevant. The point is that atheism, as traditionally defined, is incorrect- and theism, as traditionally defined, is correct. Once we have determined that theism is correct we can begin speculation about His nature, but surely it is absurd to expect the Cosmological Argument to prove all of the divine attributes of the Christian God in one fell swoop.






——————————————————————————————————————

  1. Interesting that the existence of “objective morality” is actually a subjective oppinion with no proof…

    1. If objective morality exists, then God/gods must exist.

    2. Objective morality is an assumption.

    3. God/gods is an assumption.


    kahlusha    Mar 14, 10:22 PM    #
  2. I disagree. Think of it like this… those who are objecting to there being an objective morality are in fact asserting that there is no absolute truth. The problem is that the assertion that there is no absolute truth is a paradox!

    “The is no absolute truth”, except the absolute truth that “there is no absolute true.”

    Objective morality is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God.


    Ryan Ballantyne    Jan 16, 07:08 AM    #
  3. Argument 2 devolved into a discussion of multiverses and planes, but I’d like to have seen them discuss the common theistic assertion that the universe seems perfectly tuned to allow for life to exist. Douglas Adams’ made a great point when he said:

    ”...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

    Maybe this universe seems “designed” because it fits us so well, when in fact it is we, like the puddle, who fit into the universe. It is no surprise that beings who evolved from this universe while subject to its physical laws should “fit” this universe. If the cosmological constant were different, or gravity were stronger, or any number of other physical characteristics of the universe were different, who is to say that different forms of life couldn’t have evolved that were perfectly suited to those conditions?


    — Stutz    Dec 21, 11:43 AM    #
  4. @ Stutz
    From what I understand, “life” is not referring to our specific case. It is referring to an organisms ability to take in matter, convert it to usable energy, reproduce, etc…
    So to say, for example, that if gravity were different we would have evolved differently would be misleading.


    Kody    Jul 21, 12:30 PM    #
  5. I’d venture to guess that if you slapped Mr. Logic in the face or raped his child he would feel deep down (rightly so)that you were absolutely and undoubtedly wrong. If there’s wrong, there’s right.


    James    Mar 25, 09:03 PM    #
  Textile Help