Arguments Against God.

My school work keeps me pretty busy so I don't get much time to do all the things that I would like. I really wanted to start reading atheist books. I have convinced my teacher to read a Nietzsche book though. I was wondering if everyone could post their personal arguments against him, or if not, just an argument they have heard from someone else, you could always do both.

Ooh a strong atheism thread. Excellent.

TC I do have a couple of arguments to share but they will have to wait for later because I've got to go to work soon. I'll be back later today or tomorrow though.

I think the concept of "before time" is nonsensical. If a god existed before time, that means that there was once a time in which there was no time. If that makes the person say "Well, maybe time always existed", that means that it is entirely possible for matter to always exist, since matter exists within time. At that point, they have refuted the creationist theory that matter and time needed a beginning. dracula_16

That's not time either. Time is a concept so ingrained in our minds that ignoring it is impossible. Therefore that argument, and it's counter-argument, are moot.

God is a very vague term, which god are we talking about?

If it's the abrahimic god then I could go on and on and on about this. I am going to copy a part of a post made by someone else a long time ago. The total amount of suffering in the natural world and the unfairness among human beings is one of the strongest reasons why I am an atheist to the abrahimic god.

"Why does this all powerful creator, all loving and caring intelligent designer, create plagues, droughts, tsunamis, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, wars, cancers and hundreds of debilitating diseases and serious body malfunctions? Why does he permit millions of both young and old to starve to death or die of miserable diseases? Why punish millions of INNOCENT children in this horrible way?

There is a parasitic worm in West Africa that bores through the eyes of children and causes total blindness for the rest of their lives. This is the work of an all caring and loving god???

Why does this all powerful and caring god permit totally "innocent children" to die at birth? Or worse, be born lacking eyesight, a fully developed brain, deaf and dumb, missing limbs etc.? Why are some born stupid and others with super intelligence? Why are some born into wealth and others pauper poor? Why are his human creations designed to deteriorate into a miserable and devastating old age?

Why did this all powerful and loving creator create things like sharks, jelly fish, octopus, lions, tigers, rhinoceros, poisonous snakes, stinging and poisonous insects like scorpions, hornets and other wasps, poisonous plants etc.? Why did this caring benevolent god create animals (including man) that need to painfully kill and eat other animals to survive?

World War I claimed 9,000,000 lives of people of many religious faiths.

World War II indiscriminately claimed over 20,000,000 lives of people of all ages and religious faiths, plus a vast destruction of property and more millions maimed for life.

The recent Asian Tsunami has claimed the lives of 250,000 men, women and children of all religious persuasions. Over 100,000 of these were totally innocent children!

There were three major epidemics of the Bubonic Plaque - in the 6th, 14th. and 17th centuries. The death toll was over 137 million men, women and totally innocent children.

The influenza of 1918-1919 killed at least 25 million men, women and innocent children indiscriminately.

Diseases like malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, etc. maim and kill millions indiscriminately every year. More millions die of starvation and malnutrition.

These afflicted the young and old, atheists and those of all religious persuasions.

Meanwhile MAN, not god, has developed defenses and cures for hundreds of serious diseases. Man has learned to create shelter, heat and cooling, purify water, world wide electronic communications, power and transportation systems including flying through the air.

Perhaps your loving and caring god is actually a cruel and heartless torturing tyrant. If he treats us so cruelly during life, why do you think he will let us enjoy peace and happiness eternally in his Heaven after death? And why does he keep all this a secret by preventing communication with our dead parents, siblings and friends?

If there is a god that created the Universe, he is obviously not an all-caring and benevolent god. Nor is he an "Intelligent Designer". The objective evidence is that, if there is a god creator, he has NO concern about the welfare of the creatures on Earth."

There are many other reasons as well like contradictions and factual errors in the quran and bible, a total lack of emperical evidence despite thousands of years of scientific advancement etc etc. 

Nietzsche to an extent argues that the worshipping of any divine idol encourages men and women to abandon their Earthly desires and groundings, in hopes for reward in a conveniently fabricated 'afterlife', which consequently fates one to subjugate his status in this life. Moreover, Nietzsche would declare that such idolisation of divinity is the subordination of man himself; for if one accepts God's 'truth' and morality by dictatorship, then he is impotent to create his own truths and own morality borne of his own ego and will to power.

The ubermenschen is the state in which man overcomes mankind itself, to form a new way, unconstrained by the dogma of others. You'll be best reading up on the guy yourself; he articulates his philosophy in ways I'll never be able to.

Right, I'm back.

Now Gambler_3 brought up a good point earlier. The sort of arguments you deploy against God would be very much dependant on what God you're talking about. If you're dealing with the deist's God then there's not very much you can use to argue with since the idea of a deity that doesn't affect the universe in any way can't really be tested. The best you can do in that situation is declare that the concept is unfalsifiable and completely indistinguishable from a world in which no God existed at all.

A God with definite attributes is a different kettle of fish however. If it is claimed that God is omnibenevolent and is powerful enough to provide a good world then the presence of evil is evidence that no such God exists. Gambler_3 has allready covered the argument from evil however and I personally don't like it very much so I'll leave it at that.

One of my favourite quotes pretty neatly encapsulates my view on the matter though. This is from Richard Dawkins; "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference". Following this train of thought it becomes very strange to posit a God in the first place because it seems abundantly clear that we live in an amoral universe.

I think a better piece of evidence that contradicts a loving God is the presence of reasonable non-belief. A loving God, especially one that predicates reward or punishment on belief as the Christian God does, would want us to know the truth of his existence. The very fact that atheists exist suggests that there is no such loving God. I'll use the formal argument which I've shamelessly stolen from this guy.

P1 If God exists he wants us to know that he exists

P2 If God exists he has the power to make us know that he exists

P3 If God exists we should know that he exists (P1+P2)

P4 We don't know that God exists (reasonable non-belief)

Therefore: God doesn't exist (P3+P4)

I also tried to formulate an argument from the utility of religion once and although it came under heavy criticism by the fine posters here I still think it has some merit. Here's a link to the thread where we discuss it.

If this existence/universe is all there is, and is natural, then God, the supernatural, cannot exist within the natural. By definition of being super- (or outside of the) natural.

I've never understood how God can "exist" and be "supernatural" at the same time.
foxhound_fox

Hmmm, I don't really think anyone would find a presumption of materialism a very convincing argument against God.

Hmmm, I don't really think anyone would find a presumption of materialism a very convincing argument against God.domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Hmmm, I don't really think anyone would find a presumption of materialism a very convincing argument against God.foxhound_fox

Are you more just saying then that something supernatural ought not to be able to interact with the natural. If you are my apologies, that's a far more robust idea than just assuming materialism. The exact same problem is brought up in dualism debates when people argue that a non-physical mind can act upon our body.

I suppose a theist would just pull out the omnipotence card and claim that God can do whatever the heck he wants. I seem to remember J-man implying that God could walk in the garden of Eden on spiritual legs in the silly arguments against evolution thread.

Are you more just saying then that something supernatural ought not to be able to interact with the natural. domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Are you more just saying then that something supernatural ought not to be able to interact with the natural. foxhound_fox

There is no one established definition of supernatural or even natural for that matter.

*shrugs*

I don't see how something "supernatural" can have any effect or influence on the "natural." Maybe I am missing a concept here, but I don't even begin to understand how God can be defined as "supernatural" and still end up being able to do things within our existence/universe. I can fully understand a deist God, one that exists exterior to the universe, and having no influence on it in any way... but a theist's God (that is, a God with attributes and a "will") makes little sense to me... and always has.foxhound_fox

Well, it seems to me that there are two possible analogies that one could use to explain at least an idea regarding how one existing external to the universe might still operate within it.

The first is that of a video game.  Any video game can be thought of as a self-contained universe of sorts.  And we certainly exist external to it.  But, at the same time, we still have a handle, so to speak, on the universe, such that from our couches we can affect the goings-on in this universe, despite the fact that our existence is not readily apparent to those within that universe.

The second is a theoretical two-dimensional universe, in which two-dimensional beings exist.  If we exist outside their plane of existence (no pun intended), they will certainly have no way of detecting our existence.  At the same time, however, we can certainly influence their world - they will experience whatever two-dimensional cross-section of our beings we place within that plane of their existence.

On the second note, I've often thought that the statement that God is love seems to me not just to be declaring that love is a quality of God's character, but rather that love is quite literally the cross-section of God's being that we can experience in our current form.  I find that an interesting thought.

@Gabu: So if an outside force can influence our existence, and not be detectable within our existence... then what is the point in influencing our existence? And what is the point in believing in an influencer if there is no way to detect it's influence? What is the point in attributing effects within our existence to an outside influence that we cannot even "know"?

I still don't understand the necessity of applying a conscious controller to the universe when nothing within our universe points to there being a joystick being manipulated by a gamer "outside" of it.
foxhound_fox

My intent was not to argue in favor of the existence of such a being, but only to illustrate how such a being could operate, if it existed.  The question of whether it does indeed exist is obviously a completely different issue. 

What a great question! (Or have I totally misread your post?) I think Bertrand Russell said this:

"I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die…. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is rapidly coming to an end."

(From his book; "A History of Western Philosophy") 

I think Russell saw their division as an "ethical" and "political", with Russell being more "progressive". Russell seems to have derived much thinking from Nietzche's works though. I'm a bit of an admirer of both and fence sitter between the two philosophers, here.

Personally, I'm not so sure that a loss of God necessarily means a "loss of universal perspecitive on things and with it any cohesive sense of truth" (as wiki says Nietzche says). I personally think scientific discovery has provided a convergent framework for "truth-seeking", from various differing perspectives. 

Big up for Nietzchifying your teacher! 

What a great question! One I can't really answer... I think Bertrand Russell said this:

"I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die…. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is rapidly coming to an end."

(From his book; "A History of Western Philosophy") RationalAtheist

"Thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!" Nietzsche.

So Russell is way off the mark in that regard. Russell in my view is far too liberal for his own good; his pacifist tendencies for one highlights this. In a sense, Russell's morality is the antithesis of Nietzsche's; Russell seems to embrace a denial of the ego. Note well though, this is not to say that Nietzsche's associates himself with salughter, murder and pain, as Russell purports.

Personally, I'm not so sure that a loss of God necessarily means a "loss of universal perspecitive on things and with it any cohesive sense of truth" (as wiki says Nietzche says). I personally think scientific discovery has provided a convergent framework for "truth-seeking", from various differing perspectives.

RationalAtheist

Re: a scientific framework for understanding:

With this though, I think Nietzsche was stressing moral, political and ethical truths rather than scientific ones. Nonetheless though, science is a means of obtaining observed 'truths' of the world from a fallible observer i.e. the human brain, which thus can't possibly discriminate absolute truths from percieved truths. Having said that, that is not to say that science should be demaned as abritary or completely subjective, as some people in OT would have you believe.

MetalGear_Ninty

I agree, although I think convergence in scientific discovery informs politics, morals and ethics to a huge extent, as it has a perspectivist approach to truth within itself (like they do). So perspectivism stemming from a "Death of God" tends to be based around the scientific truths of the day. Rather than leading to Nihilism (as Wiki suggests Neitzche suggests), I think perspectivism still has a rational for motivation in "truth seeking".

I also agree that Bertrand was rather a softie, but admire him for his tremendous services to free-thinking. 

P.S. Do you think we're in the right thread?

Re: a scientific framework for understanding:

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

With this though, I think Nietzsche was stressing moral, political and ethical truths rather than scientific ones. Nonetheless though, science is a means of obtaining observed 'truths' of the world from a fallible observer i.e. the human brain, which thus can't possibly discriminate absolute truths from percieved truths. Having said that, that is not to say that science should be demaned as abritary or completely subjective, as some people in OT would have you believe.

RationalAtheist

I agree, although I think convergence in scientific discovery informs politics, morals and ethics to a huge extent, as it has a perspectivist approach to truth within itself (like they do). So perspectivism stemming from a "Death of God" tends to be based around the scientific truths of the day. Rather than leading to Nihilism (as Wiki suggests Neitzche suggests), I think perspectivism still has a rational for motivation in "truth seeking".

I also agree that Bertrand was rather a softie, but admire him for his tremendous services to free-thinking.

P.S. Do you think we're in the right thread?

The ethical systems in and of themselves remain unchanged completely by scientific discovery.

PS. I am not concerned about going off-topic.

PS. I am not concerned about going off-topic.

MetalGear_Ninty

Sciences affect on morality is somewhat supericial; I do not need to know how poison works to feel that poisoning a friend would be wrong. Conversely, you could talk about for instance scientific discoveries affecting issues of abortion, but does this really affect our ethical system, or really just provide a basis from which our ethics can be applied.

The ethical systems in and of themselves remain unchanged completely by scientific discovery.

PS. I am not concerned about going off-topic.

MetalGear_Ninty

In your poisoning suggestion - no. But advances on forensics and criminal psychology have changed moral views on crime, punishment and rehabilitation, for example. (Take the UK drugs advisory resignations as another recent UK one). Being some sort of stable basis for a post Nietzchien "God is Dead" ethical scenario, the implied divisiveness will surely be more convergent instead, since a popular replacement for religion shares a method for critical thinking in discovery. That's admittedly more of a hope than a belief I have though.

PS. What I meant about the right thread was: Was this thread about proof that god(s) don't exist, or about arguments against the philosophy of Nietzche?

It seems most others have gone for positive reasons not to believe in God, rather than Nietzche!

Personally, I find it hard to level anything against the man. But what do you think the "loathing" that seizes people is all about in your sig?

EDIT: The forensic example is especially good, since it shows how particular circumstantial evidence has only recently positioned itself as ethically superior to witness testimony in law. 

If there is a God, why is there nothing to prevent me from killing my own brother? If there is a God, why is there nothing to let me do good? Why are these actions entirely dependent on the individual and have no relation with a God that is said to have taken an interest in us?

Also, here is another argument from Ayn Rand in For the New Intellectual:

"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it "another dimension," which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it "the future," which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."

Concerning thread derailment. Yup just like MG_N said feel free to veer off topic all you want to. It's more important that we have fun and discuss interesting things rather than follow forum ettiquette to the letter.

Concerning Nietzche. Oh crap is that what this topic was actually about? If it is then the title is misleading and my junk about strong atheism is well off the mark. I would comment on the man but to my great embarrassment I've never actually read any of his works. As a consequence of that I don't know a thing about his philosophy.

If there is a God, why is there nothing to prevent me from killing my own brother? If there is a God, why is there nothing to let me do good? Why are these actions entirely dependent on the individual and have no relation with a God that is said to have taken an interest in us?

Genetic_Code

That's how I believe free will exists; free will is the ability to choose between good and evil. Of course good and evil are subjective, but nevertheless this definition makes the most sense to me. According to my beliefs, god just let's things go the way humans choose to. He doesn't care whether someone reads a book or beats an innocent animal to death. God has everything under cruise control, so to speak. :P

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

If there is a God, why is there nothing to prevent me from killing my own brother? If there is a God, why is there nothing to let me do good? Why are these actions entirely dependent on the individual and have no relation with a God that is said to have taken an interest in us?

ghoklebutter

That's how I believe free will exists; free will is the ability to choose between good and evil. Of course good and evil are subjective, but nevertheless this definition makes the most sense to me. According to my beliefs, god just let's things go the way humans choose to. He doesn't care whether someone reads a book or beats an innocent animal to death. God has everything under cruise control, so to speak. :P

That's how I believe free will exists; free will is the ability to choose between good and evil. Of course good and evil are subjective, but nevertheless this definition makes the most sense to me. According to my beliefs, god just let's things go the way humans choose to. He doesn't care whether someone reads a book or beats an innocent animal to death. God has everything under cruise control, so to speak. :Pghoklebutter

If God is our creator, then he is our parent, and just as it is with our biological parents, it is necessary for God to discipline his children when they misbehave. However, I don't see God coming from the clouds to spank murderers much less kill them. What I do see is people believing in alternate spiritual universes often referred to as the afterlife to create a world in which God finally punishes the wicked and rewards the good, although how this is determined varies by religion. In fact, some religions like Christianity sees everyone as sinful and that salvation can only come by accepting the social stimulus package that is Jesus Christ. However, this denies what is good and portrays man as incapable of it. As for Islam, I'm not familiar with the religion, and since you are a Muslim, you are welcome to inform me on where it may be different than from Christianity. 

In your poisoning suggestion - no. But advances on forensics and criminal psychology have changed moral views on crime, punishment and rehabilitation, for example. (Take the UK drugs advisory resignations as another recent UK one). Being some sort of stable basis for a post Nietzchien "God is Dead" ethical scenario, the implied divisiveness will surely be more convergent instead, since a popular replacement for religion shares a method for critical thinking in discovery. That's admittedly more of a hope than a belief I have though. RationalAtheist

PS. What I meant about the right thread was: Was this thread about proof that god(s) don't exist, or about arguments against the philosophy of Nietzche?

It seems most others have gone for positive reasons not to believe in God, rather than Nietzche! RationalAtheist

Personally, I find it hard to level anything against the man. But what do you think the "loathing" that seizes people is all about in your sig?RationalAtheist

Well, as I interpret it, the 'loathing' is as a result of man percieving inherent absurdity of existence, and the consequent lack of any meaningful form of objective truths. As a result, he is enveloped by a sense of nihilism and futility. I must stress though, that Nietzsche feels that this loathing can be overcome by the will to power and the adoption of our own fabricated moral truths.

Concerning thread derailment. Yup just like MG_N said feel free to veer off topic all you want to. It's more important that we have fun and discuss interesting things rather than follow forum ettiquette to the letter.

Concerning Nietzche. Oh crap is that what this topic was actually about? If it is then the title is misleading and my junk about strong atheism is well off the mark. I would comment on the man but to my great embarrassment I've never actually read any of his works. As a consequence of that I don't know a thing about his philosophy.

domatron23

But such thing as forensics only give people the necessary information to help them make ethical decisions. For example, you say (I think) that a justice system that uses forensic evidence is fairer than ones that just use witness testimony. However, I (pretending that I was born a short while before forensic evidence had been invented) could have asserted 50 years before the invention of any forensic evidence, the exact same statement that you stated, but only using the future tense, so: "A justice system that relied on forensic evidence would be more ethical than one that relied on witness testimony alone". The fact that you and a hypothetical me could assert the same ethical statement, is evidence that ethical decisions of their absolute logical basis is independent of scientific knowledge and observation. Using scientific evidence is merely a tool to inform people about the world to make decisions, but it in no sense actually informs ethical systems themselves.

MetalGear_Ninty

Understanding of the "truth" (be it from scientific guesses or religious proclamations) lies at the centre for ethical decision making. In that respect, changes to ethics are inevitable as a result of new discovery. I'm not pre-judging the "fairness" of a transformed legal system, rather stating the reasons for the change. Perhaps there's a mix up here with ethics as the study of morality and ethical decisions being seen as "fair" or "good", rather than just "morally different".

I'm not sure I meant to make the statement you claim I made, or made any statement that has any absolute moral basis. I also don't know what you mean when you say ethical systems in no sense are informed by knowledge of the time.

If God is our creator, then he is our parent, and just as it is with our biological parents, it is necessary for God to discipline his children when they misbehave. However, I don't see God coming from the clouds to spank murderers much less kill them. What I do see is people believing in alternate spiritual universes often referred to as the afterlife to create a world in which God finally punishes the wicked and rewards the good, although how this is determined varies by religion. In fact, some religions like Christianity sees everyone as sinful and that salvation can only come by accepting the social stimulus package that is Jesus Christ. However, this denies what is good and portrays man as incapable of it. As for Islam, I'm not familiar with the religion, and since you are a Muslim, you are welcome to inform me on where it may be different than from Christianity. 

Genetic_Code

You have a good point. God is probably lazy these days. :P

Islam is a bit different. In Islam, you earn salvation (from hell) through good deeds, which is quite the contrary from Christianity.

You have a good point. God is probably lazy these days. :P

Islam is a bit different. In Islam, you earn salvation (from hell) through good deeds, which is quite the contrary from Christianity.ghoklebutter

Even if heaven is a reward for virtue and hell is a punishment for the wicked, why should God give an infinite reward for a finitely good person or an infinite punishment for a finitely bad person?

Your view of God is similar to deism, which is a rational view of the universe if you leave God out of the equation. In this view, God promotes a laissez-faire system of divine government, which is fine because it promotes individual liberty and still ensures natural rights.

There is no major difference between atheism and deism in terms of how they view the natural world. Deism just inserts nature's God as the creator of the universe.

Ghokle, I forgot, are you American by chance? I'm just curious.

Even if heaven is a reward for virtue and hell is a punishment for the wicked, why should God give an infinite reward for a finitely good person or an infinite punishment for a finitely bad person?

Your view of God is similar to deism, which is a rational view of the universe if you leave God out of the equation. In this view, God promotes a laissez-faire system of divine government, which is fine because it promotes individual liberty and still ensures natural rights.

There is no major difference between atheism and deism in terms of how they view the natural world. Deism just inserts nature's God as the creator of the universe.

Ghokle, I forgot, are you American by chance? I'm just curious.

Genetic_Code

1. Well my view is a bit different. I think that hell is temporary for most people, except for the ones who are terribly wicked and have no remorse for their actions. In that light, hell is like a place of purification. Why God needs fire and brimstone to make it happen, I have no idea. :P 

2. You're spot-on. I would certainly be a deist if I wasn't a Muslim. It seems natural to me for some reason.

3. Yes, I am American.

FYI free will doesnt exist in sunni Islam...Gambler_3

How so? In the Quran, it's implied that free will is the ability to choose between good and evil.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]FYI free will doesnt exist in sunni Islam...ghoklebutter

How so? In the Quran, it's implied that free will is the ability to choose between good and evil.

I dont know where the quran specifically says that humans have true free will but I know it says several times that those who dont see god's "clear" signs have been predestined to be a non-believer. Now if quran says we have free will then there is clear contradiction.

But doesnt matter since it's establised pretty much without dispute that there is no free will in islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Islam

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into him. And by Allah, a person among you (or a man) may do deeds of the people of the Fire till there is only a cubit or an arm-breadth distance between him and the Fire, but then that writing (which Allah has ordered the angel to write) precedes, and he does the deeds of the people of Paradise and enters it; and a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise till there is only a cubit or two between him and Paradise, and then that writing precedes and he does the deeds of the people of the Fire and enters it." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 593)

There is so much fail in there it's not even funny...seriously have you never read this hadith which pretty much declares humans as mere robots of god?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

But such thing as forensics only give people the necessary information to help them make ethical decisions. For example, you say (I think) that a justice system that uses forensic evidence is fairer than ones that just use witness testimony. However, I (pretending that I was born a short while before forensic evidence had been invented) could have asserted 50 years before the invention of any forensic evidence, the exact same statement that you stated, but only using the future tense, so: "A justice system that relied on forensic evidence would be more ethical than one that relied on witness testimony alone". The fact that you and a hypothetical me could assert the same ethical statement, is evidence that ethical decisions of their absolute logical basis is independent of scientific knowledge and observation. Using scientific evidence is merely a tool to inform people about the world to make decisions, but it in no sense actually informs ethical systems themselves.

RationalAtheist

Understanding of the "truth" (be it from scientific guesses or religious proclamations) lies at the centre for ethical decision making. In that respect, changes to ethics are inevitable as a result of new discovery. I'm not pre-judging the "fairness" of a transformed legal system, rather stating the reasons for the change. Perhaps there's a mix up here with ethics as the study of morality and ethical decisions being seen as "fair" or "good", rather than just "morally different".

I'm not sure I meant to make the statement you claim I made, or made any statement that has any absolute moral basis. I also don't know what you mean when you say ethical systems in no sense are informed by knowledge of the time.

The example I created demonstrated exactly this, the actual logic and principles used to make the decisions in the forensics example is wholly and absolutely independent of the scientific knowledge present.

God is omniscient and omnipotent according to the quran. There is no room for free-will.

I dont know where the quran specifically says that humans have true free will but I know it says several times that those who dont see god's "clear" signs have been predestined to be a non-believer. Now if quran says we have free will then there is clear contradiction.

But doesnt matter since it's establised pretty much without dispute that there is no free will in islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Islam

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into him. And by Allah, a person among you (or a man) may do deeds of the people of the Fire till there is only a cubit or an arm-breadth distance between him and the Fire, but then that writing (which Allah has ordered the angel to write) precedes, and he does the deeds of the people of Paradise and enters it; and a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise till there is only a cubit or two between him and Paradise, and then that writing precedes and he does the deeds of the people of the Fire and enters it." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 593)

There is so much fail in there it's not even funny...seriously have you never read this hadith which pretty much declares humans as mere robots of god?

 

Gambler_3

In the Qur'an, there is the story of Iblis (Satan), where he decided to rebel against God's command through his own free will. This gives me the impression that free will is the ability to choose between good and evil (according to Islam).

As for Qadar, according to Islam, it's impossible for us to see into the future. Our Qadar is already set in stone. But we can change things in this world so that our destination can shift. This is pretty much the same as in all religions that have the concept of heaven and hell, as well as the Abrahamic God (or someone similar to him).

There is a verse in the Qur'an that clealy says "I only have created mankind to worship me". That doesn't mean it's the only thing we can do, but it's our ultimate purpose according to the Qur'an. I think it's similar to the other hadith you've mentioned (not the one in green).

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]God is omniscient and omnipotent according to the quran. There is no room for free-will.

I dont know where the quran specifically says that humans have true free will but I know it says several times that those who dont see god's "clear" signs have been predestined to be a non-believer. Now if quran says we have free will then there is clear contradiction.

But doesnt matter since it's establised pretty much without dispute that there is no free will in islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Islam

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle, the truthful and truly-inspired, said, "Each one of you collected in the womb of his mother for forty days, and then turns into a clot for an equal period (of forty days) and turns into a piece of flesh for a similar period (of forty days) and then Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision, his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into him. And by Allah, a person among you (or a man) may do deeds of the people of the Fire till there is only a cubit or an arm-breadth distance between him and the Fire, but then that writing (which Allah has ordered the angel to write) precedes, and he does the deeds of the people of Paradise and enters it; and a man may do the deeds of the people of Paradise till there is only a cubit or two between him and Paradise, and then that writing precedes and he does the deeds of the people of the Fire and enters it." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 593)

There is so much fail in there it's not even funny...seriously have you never read this hadith which pretty much declares humans as mere robots of god?

 

ghoklebutter

In the Qur'an, there is the story of Iblis (Satan), where he decided to rebel against God's command through his own free will. This gives me the impression that free will is the ability to choose between good and evil (according to Islam).

As for Qadar, according to Islam, it's impossible for us to see into the future. Our Qadar is already set in stone. But we can change things in this world so that our destination can shift. This is pretty much the same as in all religions that have the concept of heaven and hell, as well as the Abrahamic God (or someone similar to him).

There is a verse in the Qur'an that clealy says "I only have created mankind to worship me". That doesn't mean it's the only thing we can do, but it's our ultimate purpose according to the Qur'an. I think it's similar to the other hadith you've mentioned (not the one in green).

I will never understand the apologetic arguments about this, since god is clearly declared as omniscient and omnipotent in both the bible and quran there is really no room for an argument.

I even gave you a very authentic hadith and you simply brushed it aside as usual.

Ethics is all about doing what is 'right' or 'fair', that defines what ethics is really, so when talking about ethics it is hard to establish any criteria beyond this. I see what you're saying, science does change ethical decision making, I'm just saying that it doesn't affect the principles behind ethics themselves.

The example I created demonstrated exactly this, the actual logic and principles used to make the decisions in the forensics example is wholly and absolutely independent of the scientific knowledge present.

MetalGear_Ninty

I see ethics as all about why judgements are "good" or "bad", so I guess that's the problem.  

Perhaps I see the new principles introduced by new discovery as being central to the evolution of ethics. The point you made highlights the issue that there has been a gradual shift in legal ethics towards forensics (from witness testimony) for the past 100 or so years. I believe scientific discoveries and thier application have lead this shift, rather than any ethical motivations for refining legal proof.

I guess the unchanging principle behind the ethic in question here is "people must be accountable to the government for all their actions", isn't it? I think scientific disoveries challenge the limits of this statement as they are made:

What if, for example, 50 years in the future, a machine could reliably establish guilt of ANY crime by (some means as yet unknown) from a suspect accused of a certain crime? The ethical decision to use these crime machines on all suspects would be dependent on the limitations (cost, time, procedures, developments, social attitudes and punishments) introduced by the technology and its perception in society (just as DNA has impacted in forensics in the past 50 years).

In the same way, the UK government today think it is ethical to permanently record all suspects of any crime on a DNA database. This "ethical" choice has been made though the cost reductions and improvements in DNA capture, detections, processing and database access. But it was passed into UK law as a reaction to a terrorism threat. I think that's an example right there of "ethical" choices being made because of the easy application of technology and regardless of consensus, fairness, consultation, or even notification.

God knew iblis will do that since he is omniscient and since god himself created iblis, iblis never had any free will at all.

I will never understand the apologetic arguments about this, since god is clearly declared as omniscient and omnipotent in both the bible and quran there is really no room for an argument.

I even gave you a very authentic hadith and you simply brushed it aside as usual.

Gambler_3

1. You're right, but no one ever knows their future.

2. God being omnipotent measn that he can do whatever he wants, including giving humans free will.

3. I didn't brush it aside. I already read that hadith. It hardly refutes my claim.

2. God being omnipotent measn that he can do whatever he wants, including giving humans free will.

3. I didn't brush it aside. I already read that hadith. It hardly refutes my claim.

ghoklebutter

3. Wow ok whatever. Anyone with even half a brain cell would realise that the hadith totally contradicts free will. Your destiny is written when you are in the womb and muhammad clearly says that you cant do **** to change that. What exactly do you not understand? Oh wait you do understand but you just ignore it like it's nothing, something you always do.:roll:

2. But god is also omniscient? Why are you ignoring that? As long as god is omniscient, no one will ever have free will. Is he not omniscient?

3. Wow ok whatever. Anyone with even half a brain cell would realise that the hadith totally contradicts free will. Your destiny is written when you are in the womb and muhammad clearly says that you cant do **** to change that. What exactly do you not understand? Oh wait you do understand but you just ignore it like it's nothing, something you always do.:roll:

Gambler_3

1. Humans don't know their destiny. So in that sense, they have the ability to choose. I suppose it really isn't free will.

2. See above. And I hear you loud and clear. It's absurd that you accuse me of ignoring your posts. It seems like you just want to get over this discussion.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Ethics is all about doing what is 'right' or 'fair', that defines what ethics is really, so when talking about ethics it is hard to establish any criteria beyond this. I see what you're saying, science does change ethical decision making, I'm just saying that it doesn't affect the principles behind ethics themselves.

The example I created demonstrated exactly this, the actual logic and principles used to make the decisions in the forensics example is wholly and absolutely independent of the scientific knowledge present.

RationalAtheist

I see ethics as all about why judgements are "good" or "bad", so I guess that's the problem.

Perhaps I see the new principles introduced by new discovery as being central to the evolution of ethics. The point you made highlights the issue that there has been a gradual shift in legal ethics towards forensics (from witness testimony) for the past 100 or so years. I believe scientific discoveries and thier application have lead this shift, rather than any ethical motivations for refining legal proof.

I guess the unchanging principle behind the ethic in question here is "people must be accountable to the government for all their actions", isn't it? I think scientific disoveries challenge the limits of this statement as they are made:

What if, for example, 50 years in the future, a machine could reliably establish guilt of ANY crime by (some means as yet unknown) from a suspect accused of a certain crime? The ethical decision to use these crime machines on all suspects would be dependent on the limitations (cost, time, procedures, developments, social attitudes and punishments) introduced by the technology and its perception in society (just as DNA has impacted in forensics in the past 50 years).

In the same way, the UK government today think it is ethical to permanently record all suspects of any crime on a DNA database. This "ethical" choice has been made though the cost reductions and improvements in DNA capture, detections, processing and database access. But it was passed into UK law as a reaction to a terrorism threat. I think that's an example right there of "ethical" choices being made because of the easy application of technology and regardless of consensus, fairness, consultation, or even notification.

For example, in its most basic sense the question is: "Is the use of such a machine ethical"

But if you start talking about such factors as cost, then you are changing the question, and it becomes: "Is the use of such a machine ethical giving the large costs involved to the taxpayer."

So all science really does is change the ethical question at hand, not the actual ethical principles at hand.

But here is the crux of the whole argument; none of these things, which mostly come from science affects in any sense the ethicality of such a move at its most basic level. These points merely address the practicalities of such a decision.

For example, in its most basic sense the question is: "Is the use of such a machine ethical"

But if you start talking about such factors as cost, then you are changing the question, and it becomes: "Is the use of such a machine ethical giving the large costs involved to the taxpayer."

So all science really does is change the ethical question at hand, not the actual ethical principles at hand.

MetalGear_Ninty

I think the question you are really asking there is "Is the use of such a machine fair?" Legal ethics deals with this by addressing the accountability of individuals to authority. These ethics constantly change and their "fairness" is one's own subjective analysis over the reasoning for that specific judgement and of the wider issue of accountability.

I also disagree, in that i think new scientific principles need new ethics to deal with them and adapt as the technologies themselves change. Take nuclear power, for instance.

Cost is an ethical consideration - correct. I've got a bit lost in your distinction between ethical questions at hand and ethical principles at hand. 

I think the concept of "before time" is nonsensical. If a god existed before time, that means that there was once a time in which there was no time. If that makes the person say "Well, maybe time always existed", that means that it is entirely possible for matter to always exist, since matter exists within time. At that point, they have refuted the creationist theory that matter and time needed a beginning. dracula_16

Surely you realize that the Big Bang Theory claimes to be the beginning of time and space.  Does that not mean that something happened "before time" to cause the Big Bang?  Maybe it was caused by a collision between two parallel universes :P  Seriously though, I know the theory is still a work in progress, but we already know that time is neither eternal nor absolute.  It is as much a physical property of the universe as mass, energy, space and the fundamental forces, and is affected by them as such.  You would agree then that God, being a spirit, is not made up of physical matter, and is therefor not bound to the laws of physics, yes?  Why should God then be bound by time then, which as already stated is a physical property?

Surely you realize that the Big Bang Theory claimes to be the beginning of time and space. Alter_Ego

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

But here is the crux of the whole argument; none of these things, which mostly come from science affects in any sense the ethicality of such a move at its most basic level. These points merely address the practicalities of such a decision.

For example, in its most basic sense the question is: "Is the use of such a machine ethical"

But if you start talking about such factors as cost, then you are changing the question, and it becomes: "Is the use of such a machine ethical giving the large costs involved to the taxpayer."

So all science really does is change the ethical question at hand, not the actual ethical principles at hand.

RationalAtheist

I think the question you are really asking there is "Is the use of such a machine fair?" Legal ethics deals with this by addressing the accountability of individuals to authority. These ethics constantly change and their "fairness" is one's own subjective analysis over the reasoning for that specific judgement and of the wider issue of accountability.

I also disagree, in that i think new scientific principles need new ethics to deal with them and adapt as the technologies themselves change. Take nuclear power, for instance.

Cost is an ethical consideration - correct. I've got a bit lost in your distinction between ethical questions at hand and ethical principles at hand.

As for nuclear power, yet this requires people to create a new novel ethic in this situation, but that will likely be in acccording with their pre-existing ethical situation, rather than one that has itself changed with the advent of nuclear power.

As I see ethical principles are people's concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' which they apply to solve ethical questions.

NB: It feels like we're going in circles with this argument now.:P

No, I am not talking about legality in any real way here.

As for nuclear power, yet this requires people to create a new novel ethic in this situation, but that will likely be in acccording with their pre-existing ethical situation, rather than one that has itself changed with the advent of nuclear power.

As I see ethical principles are people's concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' which they apply to solve ethical questions.

NB: It feels like we're going in circles with this argument now.:P

MetalGear_Ninty

Legality defines objective group-focused ethical judgements I've been talking about.

Pre-Industrial revolution, under church control, certain post-industiral ethical considerations could not have been conceived of. That's the nature of the paradigm shift in thinking that the indsutrial revolution bought in the UK. Work, housing, education, factories, cities - life changed - and not always for the "better". 

Questions only become ethical when people apply value judgements to thier outcomes. 

I feel like my argument, showing ethics as being tightly concerned with science now as it was with religion then, is still going straight, but I'd be delighted to settle our debate by bluntly disagreeing with you on this occasion, then ignoring your subsequent posts on this matter.