Does morality require a god?

[NeedleinA]

On 8/10/2016 at 0:29 PM, omegaseamaster75 said:

FYI guys God didn't help you find your car keys.....

A familiar poster on the "Historical accuracy of the BOM", used the simple rebuttal of "prove it".
God didn't help me find my keys? Okay fine, "prove it", prove he didn't.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Way to broad a brush. Most unbelievers aren't like that. 

To me a college atheist is the worst because he/she thinks that 1)no one else has ever thought the way they do! They are so innovative and original.  2) every believer is a fool and atheists are just so much smarter than them.  Those are the worst kind of unbelievers. Totally obnoxious. 

 

Perhaps I should have used skeptic rather than unbeliever – but I was responding to a post that used the term unbeliever.  But I would respond – that in my experience those that have been well educated in the sciences (math, physics etc.) respond very well to basic logic.  Whereas those educated (trained) in the fine arts – including theology and psychology – tend to ignore data or logical steps in a proof that they do not like or do not  have so much of an emotional attachment to as they do their own personal ideas.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Perhaps I should have used skeptic rather than unbeliever – but I was responding to a post that used the term unbeliever.  But I would respond – that in my experience those that have been well educated in the sciences (math, physics etc.) respond very well to basic logic.  Whereas those educated (trained) in the fine arts – including theology and psychology – tend to ignore data or logical steps in a proof that they do not like or do not  have so much of an emotional attachment to as they do their own personal ideas.

 

The Traveler

My background is heavy in the humanities (my college degree is in English) and I totally agree with you, 100%

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

A familiar poster on the "Historical accuracy of the BOM", used the simple rebuttal of "prove it".
God didn't help me find my keys? Okay fine, "prove it", prove he didn't.

We have had this discussion before, it all balances on the nature of how God works. I guess it ties into this thread how is it possible that God would help you or anyone else find their car keys and yet allow so much death, pain, and suffering go on around us?

He just does not work that way. (my opinion)

You said a prayer, felt good about it, kept looking and found your keys. I attribute this to persistence and hard work. Not divine intervention your mileage varies and that is ok. 

[EricE]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

A familiar poster on the "Historical accuracy of the BOM", used the simple rebuttal of "prove it".
God didn't help me find my keys? Okay fine, "prove it", prove he didn't.

Nope. That's both a shifting of the burden of proof, and a classic argument from ignorance. 

If you make the claim that god found your car keys, and someone says they don't believe you, the onus is on you to demonstrate the truth of the claim you're making. 

An argument from ignorance is when you can't think of another answer, that therefore is proof of something else. For example, theists frequently point to the biogenesis and demand an atheist explain how it happened. Well of course the honest response is that we do not yet know the answer to that. But because we don't know the answer does is not evidence a god did it. That's a whole separate assertion that requires demonstrable evidence of its own.

[EricE]

48 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Perhaps I should have used skeptic rather than unbeliever – but I was responding to a post that used the term unbeliever.  But I would respond – that in my experience those that have been well educated in the sciences (math, physics etc.) respond very well to basic logic.  Whereas those educated (trained) in the fine arts – including theology and psychology – tend to ignore data or logical steps in a proof that they do not like or do not  have so much of an emotional attachment to as they do their own personal ideas.

 

The Traveler

Do you have any data to prove this assertion?

[EricE]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've already answered that, but you stopped engaging me.  I assumed you either thought I was joking or you didn't understand my answer or you just didn't read it.  If you just missed it, I'd suggest you go through my responses and see what you get out of it.  If you have questions I'm usually here.  But since it is Friday, I may not get on the board again for a few days.  I often don't come on a lot over the weekend.

It's a big thread, and I'm responding to a lot of people. If you have evidence for the existence of a god, I'd love to hear it. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by EricE

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, EricE said:

Occam's Razor isn't proof of anything. It's a philosophical guideline you can use on any question. 

It's rare to hear a theist use it, given that there are few bigger assumptions than the existence of an invisible man who cannot be independent confirmed. 

 

As an engineer and scientist currently working in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence – indeed Occam’s razor is proof – especially concerning application of artificial intelligence.  If we are to prove intelligence or lack of intelligence (which by definition is the ability to learn and respond) on a large scale – say on a global scale and especially the scale of galactic structures then Occam’s razor is an element of proof of intelligent evolution.  Not by its self but in the theater of viable possibilities.

If you like I can go into much more detail – assuming you have some understanding of mathematical fractals and how such constructs are utilized in the basic elements of Chaos Theory.  If you are not so versed – I will be glad to explain without the details and in more layman terms.  But since fractals and Chaos Theory is a most important means used by scientist validate evolution – if someone believe such notions – as I do and so do many of my self-proclaimed atheists colleges in the scientific fields.  If they understand the basic constructs of mathematical fractals and evolution – then yes I can prove that a G-d is likely and probable which according to the constructs of proof is all that is necessary and sufficient.

 

BTW - I am also a devout and covenant member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

27 minutes ago, EricE said:

Do you have any data to prove this assertion?

 

I have experience - mostly with those deeply involved in religion or politics.  That when confronted with ideas they do not like; they ignore the data - a case in point would be President Clinton that to this day has not admitted to having sex with a White House intern - despite a preponderance of evidence proving otherwise.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 12, 2016 by Traveler

[omegaseamaster75]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I have experience - mostly with those deeply involved in religion or politics.  That when confronted with ideas they do not like; they ignore the data - a case in point would be President Clinton that to this day has not admitted to having sex with a White House intern - despite a preponderance of evidence proving otherwise.

 

The Traveler

How do you define sex. The devil is in the details

[EricE]

28 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If they understand the basic constructs of mathematical fractals and evolution – then yes I can prove that a G-d is likely and probable which according to the constructs of proof is all that is necessary and sufficient. 

While I don't doubt your ability to complete the equations, there is no way to actually demonstrate the probability of the supernatural through fractals, a bayesian analysis, or any other technique, because the equation is fundamentally flawed. One cannot demonstrate the probability or likelihood of something for which we have no examples of happening. 

What is the probability that leprechauns exist? Well, if I give the fact that rainbows exist a +1 in favor of leprechauns, then they become possible or probable. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by EricE

[EricE]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I have experience - mostly with those deeply involved in religion or politics.  That when confronted with ideas they do not like; they ignore the data - a case in point would be President Clinton that to this day has not admitted to having sex with a White House intern - despite a preponderance of evidence proving otherwise.

 

The Traveler

You have experience? Sounds like confirmation bias based on those you have directly met or interacted with. 

[NeedleinA]

50 minutes ago, EricE said:

Nope. That's both a shifting of the burden of proof, and a classic argument from ignorance. 

If you make the claim that god found your car keys, and someone says they don't believe you, the onus is on you to demonstrate the truth of the claim you're making. 

An argument from ignorance is when you can't think of another answer, that therefore is proof of something else. For example, theists frequently point to the biogenesis and demand an atheist explain how it happened. Well of course the honest response is that we do not yet know the answer to that. But because we don't know the answer does is not evidence a god did it. That's a whole separate assertion that requires demonstrable evidence of its own.

Fact Check: I made no such claim that god helped me find anything, let alone my keys. Omega at random made the claim, "God didn't help you find your car keys". If he is going to make the claim, fine prove his claim is accurate, otherwise you and he are expressing your "opinions" and sadly nothing more.

the onus is on you to demonstrate the truth of the claim you're making. - correct! "A classic argument from ignorance" - oops, let me know how your foot tastes as we see who really was speaking from a position of ignorance.

p.s. My post isn't meant to be rude, I just got a kick out of someone trying to toss something in my face, call me ignorant and watching their perceived intellectual superiority backfire.

[EricE]

10 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Fact Check: I made no such claim that god helped me find anything, let alone my keys. 

I'm sorry, did you not post "God didn't help me find my keys? Okay fine, 'prove it', prove he didn't. "

If you'd like to accurately describe your position, perhaps that would help you join the conversation without sounding like a troll. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, EricE said:

It's a big thread, and I'm responding to a lot of people. If you have evidence for the existence of a god, I'd love to hear it. 

That isn't what you asked, is it?

There is a difference between having evidence and asking "how do you know this?"

[NeedleinA]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

I'm sorry, did you not post "God didn't help me find my keys? Okay fine, 'prove it', prove he didn't. "

If you'd like to accurately describe your position, perhaps that would help you join the conversation without sounding like a troll.

I'm fine sounding like a troll. I much prefer going to Atheist forums and stirring the pot though.

[Guest MormonGator]

30 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I'm fine sounding like a troll. I much prefer going to Atheist forums and stirring the pot though.

The worst kind of people (atheist or believer, really) are those who go into the opposite sides forums and try to bully them or try to show how wonderful, moral and intelligent their side is and how stupid and evil the other side is. Luckily, most people don't do that. @Godless is an amazing guy (all around really) and we should be like him. Able to defend ourselves and our views but not thinking that the other side is made up of idiots and uneducated fools. 

A sign of maturity is understanding that you can be intelligent, educated, moral and decent-and not share political/religious views. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by MormonGator

[EricE]

25 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The worst kind of people (atheist or believer, really) are those who go into the opposite sides forums and try to bully them or try to show how wonderful, moral and intelligent their side is and how stupid and evil the other side is. Luckily, most people don't do that. @Godless is an amazing guy (all around really) and we should be like him. Able to defend ourselves and our views but not thinking that the other side is made up of idiots and uneducated fools. 

A sign of maturity is understanding that you can be intelligent, educated, moral and decent-and not share political/religious views. 

Is there an example of me calling someone an idiot, or stupid, or moron? etc. Accusing someone of falling into the argument from ignorance fallacy isn't an attack on their character. It's a recognition of a logical fallacy. And since I was responding to roughly the 11th time on this thread I have been accused of holding to beliefs or claims I do not and have not made, I don't particularly feel the need to kiss anyone's stubbed toes. 

I have not claimed my "side" (I really don't have a side) is more intelligent, nor have I at any point claimed a theistic viewpoint is stupid or evil. I have asked merely for a demonstration of evidence.

[bytebear]

" But hey, have fun over there with your straw man while the adults talk. "

Edited August 12, 2016 by bytebear

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

Is there an example of me calling someone an idiot, or stupid, or moron? 

Chill. Not referring to you in particular 

[EricE]

54 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That isn't what you asked, is it?

There is a difference between having evidence and asking "how do you know this?"

I'm fine phrasing it however you would like. The root of my question is about what the underlying reasons of a belief is, and whether they be demonstrated to be true.

[EricE]

9 minutes ago, bytebear said:

" But hey, have fun over there with your straw man while the adults talk. "

Yup. That's called pointing out a logical fallacy. Sorry if your feelings were hurt, though (seriously).

I get techy when people start making up things I've supposedly said. I find it fantastically dishonest.

Edited August 12, 2016 by EricE

[EricE]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Chill. Not referring to you in particular 

If I'm misunderstanding the purpose behind your comment, apologies. But I almost think it would be fair to say that more than any other discussion I've ever had with a group of theists, I've found this one to be the most frustrating. You and a handful of others have been the exception, but far more seem to only be interested with accusing me of things we haven't even discussed, dodging requests for evidence, or making sweeping generalizations. 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, EricE said:

If I'm misunderstanding the purpose behind your comment, apologies. But I almost think it would be fair to say that more than any other discussion I've ever had with a group of theists, I've found this one to be the most frustrating. You and a handful of others have been the exception, but far more seem to only be interested with accusing me of things we haven't even discussed, dodging requests for evidence, or making sweeping generalizations. 

Thanks for making me an exception. I appreciate that. 

I understand how you must feel being in the minority and having everyone misunderstand/gang up on you. It must be extremely frustrating.

[LeSellers]

13 minutes ago, EricE said:

I get techy when people start making up things I've supposedly said. I find it fantastically dishonest.

When I quoted your own words, you were a bit techy, fer shure. You accused me of cherry picking, but as far as I could tell, there wasn't any other reasonable way of interpreting your statement.

And you have yet to answer the question, how do you know your morality is objectively moral, truly moral, the quintessence of morality, whatever-term-you-like morality?

Lehi