Do you believe in God?

[Crossbreed]

A materialist universe is composed of matter/energy, period. There are no moral standards hiding behind the next galaxy or emerging from a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. In other words, there can be no basis for objective moral principles.

So, are you proposing that there is no natural law, or arguing the consequences if there were no natural law?

 

[Allen H]

So, are you proposing that there is no natural law, or arguing the consequences if there were no natural law?

I am pointing out some of the logical consequences of an atheist/materialist metaphysical world view. "Natural Law" (at least within the Western philosophical tradition) is either an explicitly (e.g. Aquinas) or thinly disguised theistic viewpoint. God, as the author of all of nature, is seen as having implanted certain regularities in the natural world which are, therefore, to be regarded as having deontological (normative) significance. Exceptions to these regularities, where they exist (e.g. homosexual behavior, to pick a hot topic) are to be viewed as violations of Natural Law (since God deployed mammalian sex for procreative purposes), and therefore morally wrong. The atheist/materialist, of course, has no place for a God as the author of nature, and therefore no place for "Natural Law" in his/her ontology. The "regularities" pointed out by the advocate of Natural Law are viewed simply as the behavior of the majority of the members of this or that species under certain specified spacial and temporal conditions. They may be studied and empirically cataloged, but have no normative force. I am not defending a theory of "Natural Law" - the criticisms of this philosophy are numerous but beyond the scope of this venue. Obviously, one can advance a doctrine of revealed law as a third alternative. I am not interested in arguing for or against any of these philosophical or theological positions here, but am content to point out some of the consequences that are involved in embracing a world view. It is important to recognize what logical consequences one's ontological Weltanschauung commits one to.

 

[Maelstrom]

[QUOTE="Allen H, post: 313491, Obviously, one can advance a doctrine of revealed law as a third alternative. I am not interested in arguing for or against any of these philosophical or theological positions here, [/QUOTE]
And up goes the white flag after starting precisely that argument in the first place....

P.S. A Natural Law is only a Natural Law if it is Natural....I say God follows Natural Laws in Nature and Man with his Laws. I did not say God created the foundation Laws of the material Universe. I will check with him Personally on that one before making any such claims as I do not fully yet understand the bottom level of the Material ladder...nor do I know for sure its exact position yet...I just its general required nature.

It was a nice exchange! Allen H ,Choose a different angle against God next time, the Natural Law foundation for Divine Law is my Home court.

 

[Crossbreed]

The God of Genesis 1:1 predates Natural Law.

 

[Maelstrom]

The God of Genesis 1:1 predates Natural Law.

It is easy to read that text that way if you do not look deeper, but I do not agree with that reading....as the text can be read as simply referring to the creation of earth and earths solar system.
I my self believe I may know how to use Dark Matter science to yank a new chain of planets out of a star, that would constitute creating the bodies of the heavens above earth, and making a formless un-teriformed for life planet earth.

This is part of the problem with the Science Bible conflict, both (True Science) and (True original Biblical intent) of the Biblical text must be understood to get the Full picture of History, God, and the Natural Universe.
The same thing applies to the God made the stars text if you look at the context of the text properly the reference is to the creation of our solar system not the whole universe. And there was no word for planets, back then Venus was called the morning star, and all the other planets were considered magical stars that moved in those early times.
Context of a Bible Text is very important to finding the proper reading of the true intent of a Bible Text.

Natural Law is simply the Natural force patterns found in Matter, Nature, and Men's Minds. My whole point is Gods Law is not Divine preference or actions but rather God simply showing the best way to live to survive the Natural rules of the Universe

Which would you prefer a all powerful Arbitrary God, or A Kind Wise God offering good advice on how to live well and survive the ravages of Time and Nature. Being Immortal is not so simple as receiving a prize antidote for death....you still have achieve enough healthy mental balance to survive all those years without going mad.

This is the Great Last Truth to be fought out in the last days of the Later Rain, Lucifer's first and greatest sin was saying God was Arbitrary in his Laws. I say God is not Arbitrary in his Laws, I say all of Gods Laws are based on Natural Cause and effect patterns in Nature, and the death in sin God spoke of was not the Judgement but actual death waiting hidden in the Natural Laws themselves.
If you do action A you will be okay, if you choose to do action B instead too much, bad stuff will come for you and maybe lead to your death.

I think making God too magical erases the underlying beauty and elegance on how God has learned to live in harmony with the good side of the Natural rules in the Universe, his Rules for Living are Blessings.

 

[Crossbreed]

To agree with that, I would have to accept some limitations that I just do not accept.

To counter that, would take this thread way off topic (and probably outside of the TOS). So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Maelstrom]

To agree with that, I would have to accept some limitations that I just do not accept.

To counter that, would take this thread way off topic (and probably outside of the TOS). So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I agree and I understand your position and don't expect you to instantly change a long held view. It took me years to see some of these things and figure them out.
I take no absolute view on Gods true level of power, some things can not be known for sure without further light on the subject.

 

[jamhd]

I'm friends with God on Facebook; funny and witty guy.

 

[Allen H]

[QUOTE="Allen H, post: 313491, Obviously, one can advance a doctrine of revealed law as a third alternative. I am not interested in arguing for or against any of these philosophical or theological positions here,

And up goes the white flag after starting precisely that argument in the first place....

P.S. A Natural Law is only a Natural Law if it is Natural....I say God follows Natural Laws in Nature and Man with his Laws. I did not say God created the foundation Laws of the material Universe. I will check with him Personally on that one before making any such claims as I do not fully yet understand the bottom level of the Material ladder...nor do I know for sure its exact position yet...I just its general required nature.

It was a nice exchange! Allen H ,Choose a different angle against God next time, the Natural Law foundation for Divine Law is my Home court.[/QUOTE]

It is rather amusing to see you claim some sort of authority for your viewpoints on the basis of being some sort of an expert with some sort of qualifications. In my long years of philosophical interchanges in various venues, whenever I have seen this strategy deployed it has been because the interlocutor had no effective answer to an argument presented. I do not find you to be an exception to this general rule. Just for the record (and I don't claim that this adds anything in the way of authority to any argument that I present) I have a Ph.D. in philosophy and have taught at various universities). You would do you well to try to understand a position before you reply to it. For the record (as anyone who reads my earlier posts can discern) my purpose was to point out some of the logical consequences of an atheistic/materialistic worldview with respect to the existence of objective moral norms. The argument that I made for my views has not been controverted here. Furthermore, I did make any argument "against God" (or for God). The "white flag" exists only in your imagination. Your statement: "A Natural Law is only a Natural Law if it is Natural" is a mere tautology. (cf. "A white dog is only a white dog if it is white.") Tautologies, while sometimes useful in formal logical systems, do nothing to advance a discussion of controversial topics. I briefly alluded to the most well known version of natural law theory in the Western philosophical tradition (that of Aquinas). You are, of course, free to develop your own version should you choose to do so. Your statement: "I say God follows Natural Laws in Nature and Man with his laws" is syntactically challenged. Based on where you place the coordinating conjunction (and) you seem to be claiming that God follows BOTH Natural Laws and "Man with his Laws"
I don't believe that this was the thought you intended to convey, but then what did you try to say? I will take a shot at an answer - correct me if I have you wrong. I believe that you are claiming that Natural Laws have ontological precedence vis-a-vis God, since you say that God "follows" them. This is certainly a possible viewpoint, but it is not one which would be held by a natural law theorist in the Western philosophical tradition. If I have your position correct, then you face the logically next question: "What is the source of the ontologically prior Natural Laws which God follows?" You need not raise a white flag - have at it.

 

[Allen H]

Typo above: The sentence in the middle of the paragraph should read: "Furthermore, I did not make any argument "against God" (or for God)."

 

[Maelstrom]

 

[Libecht]

Well, I believe in spirits and stuff, just not any "dominating" spirit.

 

[camerartus]

What Maelstrom said. [emoji11]

 

[robertsomerville]

I don't believe God's real, I know God's real.

 

[Libecht]

I don't believe God's real, I know God's real.

This kind of statement bugs me. No matter how much you believe in God, unless you have evidence, it's still called a belief.

 

[robertsomerville]

This kind of statement bugs me. No matter how much you believe in God, unless you have evidence, it's still called a belief.

Well, I wasn't raised in a religious household and I was agnostic for most of my life. It only happened 2 months ago and words alone can't explain what happened to me, but now I'm absolutely convinced that God's real. You're right I have no evidence and I don't give the slightlest f*ck (respectfully)

 

[Libecht]

Well, I wasn't raised in a religious household and I was agnostic for most of my life. It only happened 2 months ago and words alone can't explain what happened to me, but now I'm absolutely convinced that God's real. You're right I have no evidence and I don't give the slightlest f*ck (respectfully)

You see, you used the word "convince", which means "making someone believe something". I'm not trying to bash your religion. Just want to tell you the difference between "believing" and "knowing". I have my own belief, but I'll never say "I KNOW it's real" because I can't prove it.
EDIT: On second thought, I guess in your case you can say you know god's real. If that experience counts as an evidence.

 

[robertsomerville]

You see, you used the word "convince", which means "making someone believe something". I'm not trying to bash your religion. Just want to tell you the difference between "believing" and "knowing". I have my own belief, but I'll never say "I KNOW it's real" because I can't prove it.
EDIT: On second thought, I guess in your case you can say you know god's real. If that experience counts as an evidence.

I don't really have a religion, a lot things in the bible I don't agree with. Maybe it does bug some people but I'm not out to prove God is real. I know what I saw.

 

[SnowTiger20]

No I do not.Reasons are personal .

 

[AspieOtaku]

If this is accepted, then yes but otherwise no.