Outside of God
by Lee
Over the years on this blog we’ve had countless arguments about the nature of morality. The Christians will say that without God there can be no morality; others (like me) claim that morality is an inherent part of socialization of a species, which is why we see wild animals exhibiting clearly altruistic behavior. But a reader at Sullivan’s (not me this time) just posted something which, literally, blew my fucking mind.
[T]here’s a very serious problem for this view, one which philosophers have known about since Plato wrote his dialogue Euthyphro. Unfortunately, it never gets mentioned in popular discussions of theism and morality.
The problem is simple. Ponnuru claims that human rights - and moral values more generally - derive their authority from the fact that God has ordained them. (This is the position philosophers call “theological voluntarism” or “divine command theory.") But what if God had ordained murder and rape as the morally obligatory ways of treating others? If Ponnuru is correct and rights and values have moral authority merely because God ordains them, then murder and rape would be morally obligatory. Note well: you can’t protest here and say that since God (who is perfectly morally good) would never ordain anything as immoral as murder and rape, murder and rape couldn’t have been morally obligatory. If you say this, you’d be appealing to a moral standard independent of (not ordained by) God.
So: either human rights and moral values have an authority independent of God’s commands or they derive all of their authority from the fact that God has ordained them.
Chew on that one. Better if you smoke a big fat fucking bowl first.
Comments
Well, the Bible does say that God created both good and evil and it was up to us to choose since he/she/it also gave us free will. I agree that notions of right and wrong don’t necessarily have to come from religion, but simply because it makes more sense for hairless apes to treat each other in a civilized manner if they want to keep their society from falling apart.
I always liked the explanation God gave Bender: Do too much, and people become dependent on you. You need to use a light touch, like a pickpocket or a safecracker, or the guy who burns down his building for the insurance money…
Note well: you can’t protest here and say that since God (who is perfectly morally good) would never ordain anything as immoral as murder and rape, murder and rape couldn’t have been morally obligatory. If you say this, you’d be appealing to a moral standard independent of (not ordained by) God.
One does need to say that God would never.
Here’s why. The logic is fallacious. It attempts to set up a paradox that plays at our lack of understanding of the infinite. I could put it another way: If God is infinitely powerful, can he create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?
The answer is no. God is subject to his own nature, just as we are subject to ours. God can no more violate the laws of his own nature any more then we can.
To the human mind, God cannot exceed his own definition. (Just like in the stone example above.) If morality is defined by God, then God is also defined by morality. Our perception of God then becomes the same as the definition of morality.
That isn’t to say that God can not suddenly define a once immoral act as moral. We couldn’t perceive it if he did. That’s because we’re constrained by our own definition. Our perception of God would just change, with us just as oblivious to the change as we are to the full concept of the infinite.
If God is infinitely powerful, can he create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?
The answer is no.
Then God is NOT infintiely powerful as that there is something that he cant do.
That isn’t to say that God can not suddenly define a once immoral act as moral. We couldn’t perceive it if he did. That’s because we’re constrained by our own definition. Our perception of God would just change, with us just as oblivious to the change as we are to the full concept of the infinite.
I for one was NOT ‘oblivious’ to contast in morality between the old and new testaments.
fucking religious idiots.
Isn’t this just play on Anselm’s Ontological argument, except that it comes out disproving the existence of God?
And contains the same logical fallacies....
This is why there are branches of philosophy dedicated to defining morality outside of religion. The argument, in its essence, is “If your religion doesn’t say something is wrong, can it still be wrong?” For example, if “Thou shalt not kill” was never mentioned in the Bible, I would suspect that people would still consider murder to be morally wrong.
Saying an it is immoral because a religion defined it as such, (aka “Because God said so") seems arbitrary and specious, and not a lot different from when a parent says “Because I said so” to a child.
(Not philosophy, exactly, but there is an interesting philosophical discussion of the evolving relationship between God and man (from something like parent-child to something more like equals) in Dan Simmons’ “Hyperion”. (Plus the book kicks ass...the Shrike is one of the all time great sci-fi villians, IMHO...) )
Then God is NOT infintiely powerful as that there is something that he cant do.
I always enjoy the discussions that arise from the claim “God cannot be all-powerful AND all-good.” :-)
I for one was NOT ‘oblivious’ to contast in morality between the old and new testaments.
Yup, I think you are.
Then God is NOT infintiely powerful as that there is something that he cant do.
It’s clear that you don’t understand the concept of the infinite. The very first principle of logic is that something cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time. An infinity cannot be both infinite and finite. That does not mean that there is a limit to the infinite. Quite the opposite… At any rate, this is why the logic is fallacy.
Granted, it’s circular fallacy that grant me no more proof of opinion on the matter, but that’s beside the point. I was only attempting to respond to the logic in the argument presented above.
For me, the argument for God’s morality lie in the fact that human morality is subjective. Only an infinite judge of morality can be concrete, and only God can create an infinite judgment of morality.
Without God, there’s only the morality of the present. That thought, carried to its conclusion, leads to a rather bleak and hopeless view of our purpose in life. I don’t believe we live in a universe in which good and bad is subjective.
Good discussion. My general sentiments reflect those of fangbeer, so I will respond to some specific points:
Gripeboy--I’d like to know on what basis you make that assessment. Seems like more of a convenient conclusion to avoid the reality that there is something greater than ourselves.
West Virginia Rebel--God did not create evil, He created good. It was our own decision to bring evil into this world.
Ed Kline--You’re darn right there was a contrast between the Old and New Testaments. In part, Christ came because we missed the point of the law of the Old Testament. Christ specifically rejected the legalism of the Pharisees, who followed the letter of the law, but not the Spirit of the law. God decided to send Christ to fulfill the law and establish a new covenant--one of salvation by grace through faith, instead of adherence to extensive legal codes and elaborate rituals. So DUH there’s a difference!
Mark M--I believe God created us with an innate understanding of what we ought to be. In other words, we all have an internal compass--some, like myself, believe this comes from God. Others remove God from the equation. Regardless, this compass exists, although it has broken by sin/selfishness.
This is the old age debate, best summarised as:
“Is God good because he does good things or are things good because God does them”.
If you think the former, then you appealing to a sense of morality that is not dervied from God, ie is external to them - and also to the possibility that God could do bad things.
If you accept the later, it makes absolutly no sense to praise God or thank him for anything he does as good, because the things he do are good only by virtue of him doing them.
Without God, there’s only the morality of the present. That thought, carried to its conclusion, leads to a rather bleak and hopeless view of our purpose in life. I don’t believe we live in a universe in which good and bad is subjective.
Why? Do you think a unverise with no sentient life in it, would still have “morality”?
Do you believe in relativity?
How could a universe without any sentient life in it exist without anyone to perceive it?
If there’s no one to perceive the morality, does it exist?
Gripeboy--I’d like to know on what basis you make that assessment.
If you do a comparative analysis of different religions and mythologies throughout history, you’ll see that the parallels are striking. Every civilization has had their creation myth, for instance. Everyone has a different projection of a deity and, amazingly, the deity resembles the people who believe in it.
So, humans created the concept of God to help them relate to the natural world. These myths were then abused throughout the ages to manipulate populations. Isn’t is odd that a lot of the rules or morality defined by religion has nothing to do with our innate sense of right and wrong? Take cheeseburgers, for example.
Then God is NOT infintiely powerful as that there is something that he cant do.
There are many things God the Father cannot do, such as die. God the Father can create a stone too big for God the Son to lift, but God the Father can still lift it. God the Father cannot die, but God the Son can (and did).
Neither God the Father nor God the Son can lie or steal.
I for one was NOT ‘oblivious’ to contast in morality between the old and new testaments.
Do you know why that contrast exists?
fucking religious idiots.
Real helpful.
Then God is NOT infintiely powerful as that there is something that he cant do.
I thought of another way to explain this that speaks to the definition of an infinity.
Let’s say I have an infinite number of jelly beans. Being the nice guy that I am, I decide to give you exactly half of my jelly beans.
How many jelly beans do you end up with?
How many jelly beans am I left with?
We both end up with an infinite number of Jelly beans. Just because there exists an infinite number of jellybeans that I don’t have, that does not mean I don’t still possess an infinite number of jelly beans.
If God’s power has no limit, that still does not exclude possibility of an infinite amount of power that he doesn’t have.
Without God, there’s only the morality of the present. That thought, carried to its conclusion, leads to a rather bleak and hopeless view of our purpose in life. I don’t believe we live in a universe in which good and bad is subjective.
I almost always end up getting this from religious people. Bottom line, they just dont like the alternative to a universe with a God. It apparently doesnt matter that there is no evidentiary reason to believe in God. They seem to make a ‘choice’ to believe because they dont seem to have the minerals to stomach the ‘rather bleak and hopeless’ alternative. Which is generally why I am so contemptuous of otherwise intelligent religious people. I just cant stand the cowardice.
There is simply no evidence that runs contrary to the notion that we are nothing more than an insignificant accident of physics. That none of this ( us exisiting) has any importance other than its importance to us, and that in our rather pathetic attempts to elevate our stature in this universe, we invented God ( at least the God who gets his little monkey feelings hurt when we boink out of wedlock).
It is the absolute height of egoism to think for one second that creatures as unimpressive as we, could mean all that much to an intellect that could create the very universe we exist in. And of course its just a coincidence that Gods supposed absolutes in morality seem to run very much in step with a particularly antrhopomorphihc view of the universe, right up to not coveting someones wife.
I thought of another way to explain this that speaks to the definition of an infinity.
Let’s say I have an infinite number of jelly beans. Being the nice guy that I am, I decide to give you exactly half of my jelly beans.
How many jelly beans do you end up with?
How many jelly beans am I left with?We both end up with an infinite number of Jelly beans. Just because there exists an infinite number of jellybeans that I don’t have, that does not mean I don’t still possess an infinite number of jelly beans.
If God’s power has no limit, that still does not exclude possibility of an infinite amount of power that he doesn’t have.
Actually, the mathematics of infinity is not always that simple, for example the infinte sets of a series of n+1 and n+0.1 are different and one is larger.
I think the point of calling something God with infinite power is that God has every logically possible power there is. An infinite being would also require that lack of existance of another infinite being.
Bottom line, they just dont like the alternative to a universe with a God.
Bottom line, atheists just don’t like the alternative to a universe without a God.
It apparently doesnt matter that there is no evidentiary reason to believe in God.
It doesn’t matter because it isn’t true. There is evidence, but one’s mind has to be open enough to accept it.
There is simply no evidence that runs contrary to the notion that we are nothing more than an insignificant accident of physics.
Except common sense, of course. It takes more faith to believe we are the result of millions of “accidents” filtered by natural selection that it does to believe we were created through a deliberate act. It takes a lot of faith to believe we “won the lottery” that many times.
It is the absolute height of egoism to think for one second that creatures as unimpressive as we, could mean all that much to an intellect that could create the very universe we exist in.
It is the absolute height of egoism to think for one second that creatures as unimpressive as we represent the pinnacle of evolutionary development, the best this Universe has to offer.
This is the old age debate, best summarised as:
“Is God good because he does good things or are things good because God does them”.
Might I remind the group of this post?
Except common sense, of course. It takes more faith to believe we are the result of millions of “accidents” filtered by natural selection that it does to believe we were created through a deliberate act. It takes a lot of faith to believe we “won the lottery” that many times.
No, this argument has been debunked so many times. Saying this, you are just putting the question back; if you think we are very complicated and we couldn’t have just come about without design, then how do you account for the existance of a being even more complicated than us?
You can’t use the “but we are so complicated, we must be designed” argument for humans, without then saying the same for God.
Which of course, then asks the question again.
Without God, there’s only the morality of the present. That thought, carried to its conclusion, leads to a rather bleak and hopeless view of our purpose in life. I don’t believe we live in a universe in which good and bad is subjective.
In other words:
“Life without God is just too depressing to be true!” (The classic argument of all religion.)
Except common sense, of course. It takes more faith to believe we are the result of millions of “accidents” filtered by natural selection that it does to believe we were created through a deliberate act. It takes a lot of faith to believe we “won the lottery” that many times.
On your lottery apsect, why do you find that surprising? There are billions of galaxies, containing billions of sollar systems with who knows how many trillions of planets. Each of those planets has existed for billions of years with trillions of different chemical compositions and makes ups.
And that is just our universe. Some phyisicists argue for either parallel or some infinite number of universes.
Giving the time span and the number of factors involved; that we are here is not surprising. The question I imagine our ancestors will hope to answser is exactly how rare life really is. We have no idea right now given we have a sample size of one planet, although we will probably answer the question of Mars life and the rest of the solar system in my life time.
But do the low probabilities of the creation of intelligent life act as an argument against our non design; not at all given the massive sample size of the universe.
I wonder, do any of the religious people here think animals can display morality? I am currently reading primates and philosophers, an interesting book that deals with the evolution of morality.
No, this argument has been debunked so many times.
No, it hasn’t, or it has only among the faithful Darwinian True Believers.
Saying this, you are just putting the question back; if you think we are very complicated and we couldn’t have just come about without design, then how do you account for the existance of a being even more complicated than us?
What makes you think God is “more complicated” than we are? Since God exists extra-Universe, how can we, trapped inside the Universe, make the deduction that God is “complex”?
How do we even know that “complex” has any meaning outside the Universe?
You can’t use the “but we are so complicated, we must be designed” argument for humans, without then saying the same for God.
What makes you think God is “designed”?
So many unprovable assumptions on your side.
So, Christianity now has multiverses?
Giving the time span and the number of factors involved; that we are here is not surprising.
Not to the faithful Darwinian True Believers, no, of course not. However, there is no evidence that extraterrestrials exist, only an argument from numbers that 1)they must exist or 2)it “isn’t surprising” that we exist. Why is an argument from numbers not valid when discussing Design, but valid when discussing Darwin’s model?
And why is a belief in invisible “sky pixies” considered “rational” when the “sky pixies” are ETs, but “irrational” when God?
And of course its just a coincidence that Gods supposed absolutes in morality seem to run very much in step with a particularly antrhopomorphihc view of the universe, right up to not coveting someones wife.
Ed, brilliant post. I agree entirely. Your end point reminds me of something that I’ve always wondered. Suppose we come into context with an alien race, one vastly superior to ours in their knowledge of the universe. Suppose this alien race doesn’t subscribe to the same social mores that we do—they don’t have an institution of marriage, and instead have mating seasons and the like. Perhaps they have more than two sexes? Maybe they have seven sexes. Some of these sexes can mate with only specific other sexes. When one of their kind becomes old and infirm he is banished to die alone, but this is not considered cruel, it is a joyous event to mark the beginning of the end of a life.
In short, they have a society that is completely non-conducive to the human existence.
What would this do to the idea of universal morality? How could a creature with no institution of marriage, who mate by seasons, be expected to live up to the strictures of the allegedly universal code of morality? And if such an advanced alien race exists, how could a God create a universal morality and then populate the universe with creatures who are biologically incapable of following it?
What makes you think God is “more complicated” than we are?
Are you saying God is less complicated than a human then? Personally I don’t think we are very complicated; but you seem to - but I am amazed to hear a so called Christain claim that humans are more complicated than God.
Still, it makes no sense. Your claim is that we are so complicated we must be made by God; yet you can’t account for the existance of God - who must contain the complexity of humans to be able to create them.
How do we even know that “complex” has any meaning outside the Universe?
How do we know that “god” has any meaning outside the Universe. Anything outside the universe is irrelevant to our universe because it by definition does not affect our universe. If you believe in a God that affects our universe then they are not outside it; at which point any concept does matter.
What makes you think God is “designed”?
I don’t think God is designed, apart from in the sense that it is a myth designed by simple minded people to explain reality and their small part in it. The point is simply that “we must be designed by God because we are complicated” just begs the question; who then designed a more complicated God. Your attempts to suggest God is not more complicated than humans are intellecually vacuous.
Not to the faithful Darwinian True Believers, no, of course not. However, there is no evidence that extraterrestrials exist, only an argument from numbers that 1)they must exist or 2)it “isn’t surprising” that we exist. Why is an argument from numbers not valid when discussing Design, but valid when discussing Darwin’s model?
I never said or implied extraterrestrials existed, although I think it is likely that non-intelligent life does, intelligent life may be rare.
My point, which again you mischaracterise (on purpose?) is that the idea that intelligent life is a complicated and low probability outcome is not an argument against it given the size of the universe. Intelligent life may be trillions to 1 probablity wise in establishing itself, but given how many planets, years etc there are - these lows odds do not matter.
And why is a belief in invisible “sky pixies” considered “rational” when the “sky pixies” are ETs, but “irrational” when God?
I don’t believe in ETs but I can make rational estimations to their probability of existance based on all sorts of factors. There is no right answer to this of course, but it would be a strange person who argued against the finding of an earth like planet with flowing water did not think that increased the chance of their being other life.
Still, the existance of ETs will only be proved one way, using science. Until then we can have rational debates about the probability of ETs being found - but only science will prove their existance (disproving ETs will of course be impossible, in the same way you can’t disprove the existance of an invisible pink unicorn or God).
Ed, brilliant post. I agree entirely. Your end point reminds me of something that I’ve always wondered. Suppose we come into context with an alien race, one vastly superior to ours in their knowledge of the universe. Suppose this alien race doesn’t subscribe to the same social mores that we do—they don’t have an institution of marriage, and instead have mating seasons and the like. Perhaps they have more than two sexes? Maybe they have seven sexes. Some of these sexes can mate with only specific other sexes. When one of their kind becomes old and infirm he is banished to die alone, but this is not considered cruel, it is a joyous event to mark the beginning of the end of a life.
In short, they have a society that is completely non-conducive to the human existence.
What would this do to the idea of universal morality? How could a creature with no institution of marriage, who mate by seasons, be expected to live up to the strictures of the allegedly universal code of morality? And if such an advanced alien race exists, how could a God create a universal morality and then populate the universe with creatures who are biologically incapable of following it?
I have thought about this a lot. I think the idea of sexual morality is obviously complete subjective based on our reproductive systems.
I wonder however if we might still share some basic principles of morality that are more fundamental, something like a re-formulated Kant “Treat a sentient being as a means and not an end”.
I think all intelligent species will have a sense of morality; I believe it is a necessary component of groups working together which again would be required to complete technological steps such as leaving one’s planet; but as you say - that morality is likely to be very different to our own.
In my mind, the idea of an objective morality is as absurd as an objective aestethics or an objective answer to the question “what tastes better, beef or lamb”.
What would this do to the idea of universal morality?
I don’t think it would do anything at all.
How could a creature with no institution of marriage, who mate by seasons, be expected to live up to the strictures of the allegedly universal code of morality?
It would not be hard. Since we all get to play Ray Bradcury, maybe their institution of marriage only lasts one season, with all the rules of fidelity intact. Maybe their in no marrriage at all but a sexual contract of exclusivity. The mating contracts are present to comply with consent, or in this world of yours rape or slavery is OK? I’m sure this mythical world has rules against stealing or killing or even honoring their parents, all consistent with our worldly morals. Given their vast intelligence, it would be reasonable to assume all acts of procreation would be well thought out replete with rules of contuct and etiquette, advanced through eons of refinning their civilization.
Given their vast intelligence, it would be reasonable to assume all acts of procreation would be well thought out replete with rules of contuct and etiquette, advanced through eons of refinning their civilization.
That’s my point. Their idea of morality would evolve based on their perception of reality. If they are a species with 7 sexes, they would have to come up with a code that accounts for that. If they have a mating season, where it’s a free-for-all orgy by our standards, they would have no need for the “one man/one woman forever” concept of marriage.
The point is that, if you believe that morality is universal, then it stands to reason that God would create only creatures who were capable of complying with that morality. So, either you believe that all life in the universe is exactly like us, or morality cannot be universal.
The point is that, if you believe that morality is universal, then it stands to reason that God would create only creatures who were capable of complying with that morality.
Since you are only talking about sexual morality (the example of stealing, killing and honoring your parents was left alone) I don’t see this as bothersome.
The bible chronicles stories of all sexual combinations. King Solomon had 700 wives. King David had eight. Concubines were acceptable as well. God did not interfer with these kinds of “marriages” perse, only in things like adultery. King David’s affair with Bathsheba caused him a lifetime of grief.
I could be wrong but I don’t recall Jesus addressing the issue of monogomy, but he did talk at length about adultery and convetesness, and about divorse (how some were divorsing for bullshit reasons and this was not condoned).
But I bet even in your free for all orgy example, this race of aliens would still respect the notions of consent, fidelity, and free will, all things our morality cherish.
So, either you believe that all life in the universe is exactly like us, or morality cannot be universal.
The third option is to believe there is a universal God given morality and choice to follow or not follow. Those who follow are saintly and should be revered. Those who do not are evil and should be tortured and killed. Cause really, the only moral way to satisfy blood lust is to torture and kill the immoral, right? If you have the blood lust (and we all do to some degree or another) but not the stomach for blood, you can think of all the ways big daddy (GOD) is going to torture and kill the immoral for being immoral. If you like to be in peoples faces about it, you can wake them at 7 a.m. on a Saturday/Sunday morning and tell them about it.
There is a universal morality and that is long term survival. How that is achieved is up for debate but like any good game theory, the methods start to look the same over time.
I turn now to subjugation of women. At one time the only moral place for a good woman to be was at home and pregnant. This was a moral method of maintaining society and most did it. In order to ensure the propagation of the social group, women had to be pregnant and raising kids as often as possible. This of course left little else for a woman to do. Seriously, feminists today wouldn’t be able to work if they HAD to be pregnant all the time. This also meant that homosexual relations were immoral because they worked against the ability to propagate society. This was all perfectly good and moral.
Today, it’s more advantageous to have women not pregnant, therefore sex for the sake of sex is possible and now permissible. Homosexual relations are fine. Multiple partners with no offspring are moral. I predict that as society becomes more stable and people live longer (with a few advances in medicine to cure STDs) long term sexual commitments will virtually disappear.
Simply put, most of you on this blog who support women’s rights and homosexual rights would have opposed them 100 years ago primarily because they worked against survival of society. Deny this all you want, but you can’t deny that most people 100 years ago (your parents and grand parents) believed these things and called themselves moral people.
Simply put, most of you on this blog who support women’s rights and homosexual rights would have opposed them 100 years ago primarily because they worked against survival of society. Deny this all you want, but you can’t deny that most people 100 years ago (your parents and grand parents) believed these things and called themselves moral people.
I don’t think this is true at all, my grandmothers didn’t work but they also only had two kids each; they were certainly not at home just to have children, and had no more than the average people do now.
I think there are a whole host of other reasons as to why women stayed at home and homosexuality was frowned upon; but I think few people have been worried about declining populations (the worry is normally the opposite) for that to be the reason why.
Today, it’s more advantageous to have women not pregnant, therefore sex for the sake of sex is possible and now permissible. Homosexual relations are fine. Multiple partners with no offspring are moral. I predict that as society becomes more stable and people live longer (with a few advances in medicine to cure STDs) long term sexual commitments will virtually disappear.
I have wondered this but I don’t think it will be the case actually. I think our brains are somewhat hard wired for monogomy; mainly because of insecurities and jealousy. Most of us probably don’t like the idea of “wife swapping” - I certainly don’t, but I can’t really think of a good reason against it.
I don’t think this is true at all, my grandmothers didn’t work but they also only had two kids each; they were certainly not at home just to have children, and had no more than the average people do now.
This is only a small case, and you are taking my grandparents line too literally. I was referring of all of human history up till only a century ago give or take. Perhaps I should have been more specific. At the end of the 18th century England believed it’s population was declining because a demographic study (that was incorrect). Other times, such as, the plagues, wars, famines etc… people have worried about dying out. Which is why raising a family was so much more important than it is now. Since children often died before maturity and women often died during birth or became sterile, it was more important to keep them home and pregnant.
I have wondered this but I don’t think it will be the case actually. I think our brains are somewhat hard wired for monogomy;
I would disagree with that completely. No one has to wait for their partner to die before moving onto another. I wasn’t talking about swinging, I just meant that people may not have long term relationships at all, favouring short term relationships with multiple partners.
I would disagree with that completely. No one has to wait for their partner to die before moving onto another. I wasn’t talking about swinging, I just meant that people may not have long term relationships at all, favouring short term relationships with multiple partners.
Which would go against all observable human nature; we live in a world now where there is no stigma associated with doing just that; but most people still want to form long term relationships. As I said, this is literally hardwired into our psyche due to tens of thousands of years of evolution - personally I don’t see it changing.
Yeesh!!! What a load of total bullshit.
Go ahead and argue about the invisible ju-ju man in the sky, it’s all crap.
What makes you think God is “more complicated” than we are?Are you saying God is less complicated than a human then?
I’m not “saying” anything at all—I’m asking you a question. One you seem unwilling or unable to answer.
Personally I don’t think we are very complicated
Of course not—your ideology would seem to forbid it. That aside, how complicated is “very complicated”? Have you actually studied molecular biology or genetics? Do you have any idea how complex individual cells actually are? If so, how do you justify claiming that we’re not “very complicated”?
but you seem to
Well, I have studied the aforementioned subjects to some degree. My view is that anyone who denies the complexity of biology is simply in denial.
but I am amazed to hear a so called Christian claim that humans are more complicated than God.
I’m not making any such claim. On the contrary, it is you who’s making the opposite claim, and I’m just asking for some justification and/or substantiation, given that God is beyond the Universe and not directly observable.
Still, it makes no sense. Your claim is that we are so complicated we must be made by God; yet you can’t account for the existance of God - who must contain the complexity of humans to be able to create them.
Why do I need to “account” for God’s existence? The Universe did have a beginning (regardless of attempts by atheists to explain away the Cosmic Background Radiation and other evidence of the Big Bang), so Something must have caused the Universe to come into existence. That Something would have to be outside the Universe, as a matter of necessity. If that Something is eternal, it would not have a beginning, and would therefore need no “accounting”, regardless of how “simple” or “complex” that Something is.
How do we even know that “complex” has any meaning outside the Universe?How do we know that “god” has any meaning outside the Universe.
Depending on how nominalistic we choose to be, we could argue whether “God” has any meaning at all, whether inside the Universe or beyond it. However, the Universe did have a beginning, and therefore had a cause. We theists merely define that Cause as God.
“Complex”, on the other hand, is defined based on that which in contained within the Universe—there is no definition of “complex” that goes outside the Universe. So, I repeat: How do we even know that “complex” has any meaning outside the Universe?
Take note that I already answered your question re: God, so if you intend to deflect my question again, you’ll need to come up with a different question than the one you used last time.
Anything outside the universe is irrelevant to our universe because it by definition does not affect our universe.
Categorically wrong, given that something outside the Universe caused the Universe to come into existence.
If you believe in a God that affects our universe then they are not outside it; at which point any concept does matter.
If God is the causal agent, He is indeed outside of the Universe. Being sovereign, He does have the option of entering into that which He created if He so chooses.
who then designed a more complicated God
Again, the notion that God is “more complicated” is an unprovable assumption on your part. Also, if God is eternal, having no beginning, then He was not “designed”.
Your attempts to suggest God is not more complicated than humans are intellecually vacuous.
Love the irony. No, assuming God to be “complicated” and “designed” with no evidence for either assumption is what’s intellectually vacuous, as is denying the complexity of human biology.
I never said or implied extraterrestrials existed
Your argument implied it, and Richard Dawkins made it rather explicit in The God Delusion, wherein he claimed that Darwinian evolution has taken place at least a billion times in the Universe.
My point, which again you mischaracterise (on purpose?) is that the idea that intelligent life is a complicated and low probability outcome is not an argument against it given the size of the universe. Intelligent life may be trillions to 1 probablity wise in establishing itself, but given how many planets, years etc there are - these lows odds do not matter.
But what if your assumptions are wrong? What if the conditions for life (let alone intelligence) are even rarer than the number of planets in the Universe can account for?
Dr. Hugh Ross has determined that there are 122 constants necessary for life to develop, and he has calculated the probability for these constants to exist to be 1 in 10^138. That is an extremely low probability, and it assumes 10^22 planets in the Universe (to get a feel for these numbers, there are 10^70 atoms in the Universe).
So, the bottom line is that having lots of planets in the Universe doesn’t help your argument, because you assume too much (i.e., any planet out there can support or “create” life).
I don’t believe in ETs but I can make rational estimations to their probability of existance based on all sorts of factors.
If your estimates are truly rational, then the estimate should be zero, unless you can counter Dr. Ross’ calculations effectively.
Still, the existance of ETs will only be proved one way, using science.
This notion that science is the only way to find truth is just another fallacy on your part.
Dr. Hugh Ross has determined that there are 122 constants necessary for life to develop, and he has calculated the probability for these constants to exist to be 1 in 10^138.
Do you have a link to that? Sounds like it could be interesting reading…
But what if your assumptions are wrong? What if the conditions for life (let alone intelligence) are even rarer than the number of planets in the Universe can account for?
Dr. Hugh Ross has determined that there are 122 constants necessary for life to develop, and he has calculated the probability for these constants to exist to be 1 in 10^138. That is an extremely low probability, and it assumes 10^22 planets in the Universe (to get a feel for these numbers, there are 10^70 atoms in the Universe).
So, the bottom line is that having lots of planets in the Universe doesn’t help your argument, because you assume too much (i.e., any planet out there can support or “create” life).
Sounds kinda like this/
In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
[where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.]This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice.
Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.
Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered.There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.
One way to chart the cooling of enthusiasm is to review popular works on the subject. In 1964, at the height of SETI enthusiasm, Walter Sullivan of the NY Times wrote an exciting book about life in the universe entitled WE ARE NOT ALONE. By 1995, when Paul Davis wrote a book on the same subject, he titled it ARE WE ALONE? ( Since 1981, there have in fact been four books titled ARE WE ALONE.) More recently we have seen the rise of the so-called “Rare Earth” theory which suggests that we may, in fact, be all alone.
Again, there is no evidence either way.
I report, you flame. :)
Iconclast, I am sorry I just don’t have the energy to argue back to you - there is a limit to how much I enjoy reguritating science I was taught when I was 8 years old. Talking science, logic or religion with you is like arguing with a blind guy who won’t accept that blue and green are different.
Again, there is no evidence either way.
God, Extra Terrestrials, whatever.
Why are people so uncomfortable with unknowns?
Hail Xenu and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Iconclast, I am sorry I just don’t have the energy to argue back to you—there is a limit to how much I enjoy reguritating science I was taught when I was 8 years old…
Translation: “I cannot back up my assertions, so I will accuse you of being stupid and concede the argument.”
Talking science, logic or religion with you is like arguing with a blind guy who won’t accept that blue and green are different.
See above.
Lee,
The problem with the Drake equation is that it consists almost entirely of unknowns, values that cannot be measured or estimated. The constants Dr. Ross discusses are actual, measured constants, the antithesis of unknowns, the exception being the generous estimate of 10^22 planets in the Universe. Ostensibly, Dr. Ross has made an actual calculation, which isn’t the same as coming up with an empty equation full of unknowable quantities.
Ed, brilliant post. I agree entirely.
Cause and effect—you think it’s a “brilliant” post precisely because you agree with it. What if someone made points that ran counter to your personal world view, and substantiated those points?
Suppose we come into context with an alien race, one vastly superior to ours in their knowledge of the universe. Suppose this alien race doesn’t subscribe to the same social mores that we do…
In short, they have a society that is completely non-conducive to the human existence.
What would this do to the idea of universal morality?
It would obviously undermine it, just like it was fabricated to do. However, the reality is that we haven’t encountered such a race, have we?
I mean, I can play this game too. What if God came down to Earth and started having sex with ten-year-old kids, both boys and girls? What if He issued another set of stone tablets that completely countermanded the Levitical Law? What if he used His power to create a world government that made Pol Pot’s social experiment seem like Club Med?
What if “God” actually turned out to be a psychotic Ferengi?
What would that do to Judeo-Christian faith and tradition?
But these types of hypotheticals really don’t get us anywhere.
The point is that, if you believe that morality is universal, then it stands to reason that God would create only creatures who were capable of complying with that morality.
Um, do you remember the story of the Tree of Knowledge and the Serpent and all the rest of it? The point of that story (whether literal or allegorical) is that Man chose to do things Man’s way, and therefore falls short of God’s standard. In other words, yes, we were created to comply with God’s morality, but we collectively chose to rebel against it instead. Because we exist in that state of rebellion, we are no longer even capable of measuring up.
In fact, when Jesus walked the Earth, He made it even more impossible to get into Heaven on our own. According to the Sermon on the Mount, it ain’t enough that our murders or lies or adulterous behavior keeps us out of Heaven. No, even wanting to do these things, even if we never carry them out, also qualifies as sin. Even wanting to have sex outside of marriage locks us out of Heaven. Even wanting to kill someone, even if only for a moment or two, is enough to keep us out.
I just cant stand the cowardice.
And I just can’t stand your self-righteous sanctimony.
So we’re even.
Next entry: Excuse Me Magongo, But What Is A Creampie?
Previous entry: The General's Politics
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8229
Total Logged in members: 4
Total guests: 53
Total anonymous users: 1
fangbeer,
frankie,
Hal_10000,
Manwhore,
,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(7 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:15)
AlexinCT: My response is to wonder how people get like this. There has to be some sort of mental imbalance at work here. I seriously hope this can’t just happen to anyone given the right – or in this case, wrong – circumstances. There are very few things that would push…
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(29 total, Last @ 07:00)
AlexinCT: Fair enough. But bitching Obama all day every day would become tiresome—for me, if not for you. If Obama gave me anything not to bitch about, I would. Then again, when I did give him his propos I recall you were still unhappy with that too. I’ve made it pretty…
Last 30 Comments
Seeing how all religion throughout time is just one mythology after another, each based on previous mythology and the ancient peoples’ observations of the natural world, morality derived from an independent authority is really the only rational answer.
We simply created “God”.