Do Laws Require a Law Giver?

At some point in the past apologists have argued laws require a law giver. Thus natural law requires a creator.C.S. Lewis for example.[1] Lewis was arguing in terms of moral law, not natural law. Atheists are fond of arguing that law of nature are not like laws passed by legislatures:
Those set by a law giver, like the ones passed by the legislative branch, are prescriptive, while the ones humans develop through observation and analysis are descriptive. As the laws of nature scientists have discovered are descriptive, it would be invalid to deduce that a law giver must exist.There's a difference between prescriptive and descriptive[2] ...
Do the “laws of nature” or “physical laws” actually govern the way the universe behaves, or are these merely convenient descriptions of our observations about the way the universe behaves? Scientists, and atheists, sometimes write as if the former were true, and sometimes as if it were nonsense and the latter must be the truth. Others have sought to redefine the problem in terms of “systems” or “universals.” But there’s no real reason to assume that there can be no mind or purpose involved in these “laws.” The reason this question matters to the argument is because there is no good naturalistic explanation for the law-like regularity of physics. That's the essence of the abductive argument, but the same issues will surface in arguing the deductive version. Science no longer defines physical law in the sense of an active set of rules that tell nature what to do (as discussed in chapter 1). The sentiment is gospel in the scientific world. A Canadian physicist, Byron Jennings, expresses it like this: “It is worth commenting that laws of nature and laws of man are completely different beasts and it is unfortunate that they are given the same name. The so-called laws of nature are descriptive. They describe regularities that have been observed in nature. They have no prescriptive value. In contrast, the laws of man are prescriptive, not descriptive.”[3] Santo D’Agostino tells us, “...[T]he laws of science are not like the laws in our legal systems. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.”[4]Contradiction in the descriptive paradigm.

A closer look reveals that there is a contradiction here. The standard line about nature’s laws being descriptive is double talk. First of all, no one thinks physical laws are on a par with laws passed by Congress. Just for the record, I am not arguing that laws require a law giver; that is equivocation (although science still uses the term “law”). Physical laws proceed from the mind of God, which is totally different from laws in human society. Secondly, physical laws are descriptions, but what they describe is a law-like regularity. The question is, why is there an unswerving, faithful regularity? That cannot be answered just by calling the regularity a “description.” It is so regular that we can risk people's lives on roller coasters based upon trusting those “descriptions.” D'Agostino again says, “For me, the key word is describe. A scientific law is a convenient description of observations. The law of science does not tell the world how to be, the world just is; science is a human attempt to engage with the mysteries of the world, and to attempt to understand them.”[5] (Emphasis his).

It just is— there is no why? Do scientists really live with that? No, they do not. As physicist Paul Davies puts it, “Most physicists working on fundamental topics inhabit the prescriptive camp, even if they don't own up to it explicitly.”[6] But then the Stephen Hawking Center for Theoretical Cosmology says it point blank: “The physical laws that govern the Universe prescribe how an initial state evolves with time.”[7] It seems they don’t want physical laws to be the will of God, but they do want them to be binding. The nature of the problem is deeper than just the use of “law” as an antiquated term. It really seems that physicists want it both ways. In many, perhaps most, scientific disciplines, the finality of a theory continues to be measured by its resemblance to the classical laws of physics, which are both causal and deterministic….The extreme case of the desire to turn observed regularity into law is of course the search for one unified law of nature. That embodies all other laws, and that hence will be immune to revision.[8]

They still use the model of physical law, but they deny its law-like aspects. Yet they want the regularity to be unalterable, and ultimately they want to sum everything up in one principle. Don't look now, but what the quote is describing is a transcendental signifier! That's the impetus behind seeking a grand unified theory of everything. Why add “of everything?” That clearly points to the transcendental signifier.
In his best-selling book A Brief History of Time, physicist Stephen Hawking claims that when physicists find the theory that he and his colleagues are looking for— a so-called "theory of everything"— then they will have seen into "the mind of God." Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators, it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about? Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions why, then, they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.[9]
Weinberg tells us the theory of everything will unite all aspects of physical reality in a single elegant explanation.[10] Exactly as does the TS! It seems that he’s really describing a prescriptive set of laws. If their sought-after theory can only give descriptions of how the universe behaves, how is it going to explain everything? As discussed in chapter 3, explanatory power only comes with likelihood in terms of how things work. Likelihood is weaker for probable tendencies than for actual laws. Why are they looking for a single theory to sum it all up if they don't accept some degree of hierarchical causality?

One is better advised not to make use of the law giver argument. Skeptics are wrong, however, in their defense againt it becuse one need not assert that natural laws are passed by a legislature. If We think of causes and their effects as law givers and laws then we can easily say laws imply lawgivers, of course we will make more headway in argument sticking to the terms ``cause and effect.`` But apologists argye cause while the atheist responds natural laws are not passed by legislators. They are,however, passed by causes. Science has never retracted the cause=effect model in advancing theories of origin. The lawmaker argument has a more secuire place when used of the moral law. http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2014/10/moral-laws-necessitate-moral-lawgiver.html
As I showed yesterday, all people are obligated to obey a moral law. People will fight about what this law allows and what it doesn't, but that doesn't mean morality isn't objective. Certainly, we take into account certain circumstances, but the principles that ground morality remain consistent. For example, it is always immoral to inflict pain on an unwilling participant for the sole purpose of pleasuring oneself. That is true whether or not anyone else believes it to be true. It is also true all  times and for every culture. Thus, if morality exists at all, then it is universal in its scope: it applies to all humanity throughout history. Moral laws are therefore not like physical laws, such as the law of gravity. Gravity tells us simply what is. It doesn't tell us whether falling at 9.8 m/s2 is good, bad, or neutral. Moral laws, though, do give us a standard by which we must adhere. Since moral laws are prescriptive (they tell not what one is doing but what one ought to do) and universal, they must transcend humanity. Moral laws cannot be based in physical reality but must come from a moral lawgiver.
[11]

Notes

[1]C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Harper Collins, 2001 edition), 29.

[2] https://www.kialo.com/theres-a-difference-between-prescriptive-and-descriptive-laws-those-set-by-a-law-giver-like-the-ones-passed-by-the-2629.224?path=2629.0~2629.1_2629.4418_2629.3084_2629.21_2629.40-2629.224

[3]Byron Jennings, “The Role of Authority in Science and Law.” Quantum Diaries: Thoughts on Work and Life from Particle Physicists from Around The World (Feb. 3,2012). Online resource URL: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/tag/descriptive-law/ accessed 8/31/2015 Byron Jennings is Project Coordinator for TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory; he's an adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University. He is also the editor of In Defense of Scientism.

[4]Santo 'D Agostino, “Does Nature Obey The Laws of Physics?” QED Insight (March 9, 2011). Online resource URL: https://qedinsight.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/does-nature-obey-the-laws-of-physics/ accessed 8/26/2015.

D'Agostino is a mathematician who writes science textbooks. With a Ph.D. from The University of Toronto, he is also assistant professor in physics at Brock University.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1st edition, 2007, 12.

Davies is an English physicist, professor at Arizona State University. He was formerly an atheist, and his major atheist book was God and The New Physics, written in the 1970s. Since the late 90's he has become a believer, not a Christian but a believer in a generic, deistic sort of God. He was convinced by the fine-tuning argument, and his major book since that time is The Mind Of God. He has taught at Cambridge and Aberdeen.

[7]Center for Theoretical Cosmology, “Origins of the Universe: Quantum Origins.” The Stephan Hawking Center for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge. Online resource URL: http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/quantum_cosmology_one.php accessed 10/5/2015.

[8]E. F. Keller, quoted in Lynn Nelson, Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Empiricism. Temple University Press, 1990, 220.

Evelyn Fox Keller is a physicist and a feminist critic of science; Professor Emerita at MIT. Her early work centered on the intersection of physics and biology. Nelson is associate professor of philosophy at Glassboro State College.

[9]Counter Balance Foundation, “Stephen Hawking's God,” quoted on PBS website “Faith and Reason.” No date listed, though this was most likely published before the discovery of the Higgs particle in 2012. Online resource URL: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/cosmohaw-frame.html accessed 8/26/2015.

The Counterbalance Foundation offers this self-identification: “Counterbalance is a non-profit educational organization working to promote the public understanding of science, and how the sciences relate to wider society.  It is our hope that individuals, the academic community, and society as a whole will benefit from a struggle toward integrated and counterbalanced responses to complex questions.” See URL: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/stdweb/info.html accessed 8/26/2015. The Faith and Reason Foundation helped fund the PBS show. I first found the piece “Stephen Hawking's God” early in the 2000s: maybe 2004, certainly before 2006. It was on a site called Metalist on Science and Religion. That site is gone.

[10]Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1994, 3, also 211.

[11] http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2014/10/moral-laws-necessitate-moral-lawgiver.html


Comments

Anonymous said…
It is interesting seeing the goal posts move. In the title:

Do Laws Require a Law Giver?

But in the text:

But there’s no real reason to assume that there can be no mind or purpose involved in these “laws.”

So you start by seeming to look at where the laws of nature necessarily imply a law giver, but in reality you are only considering whether the laws of nature allow the possibility of a law giver. In fact, you later admit: Just for the record, I am not arguing that laws require a law giver

So in fact we both agree that the answer to the question in the title is "No, they do not require a law giver". And as it happens, we agree with the second part too, they do allow for the possibility of a law giver.

Pix
Hey Pix you are very good at twisting things. Wasting your talents in chemistry, you should read for the law. I clearly said law giver argument works with moral law. I also said cause and effect I only discourage arguing lawgiver in term of physical laws. But they do need a reason for being.
from the text

"I am not arguing that laws require a law giver; that is equivocation (although science still uses the term “law”). Physical laws proceed from the mind of God, which is totally different from laws in human society. Secondly, physical laws are descriptions, but what they describe is a law-like regularity. The question is, why is there an unswerving, faithful regularity? That cannot be answered just by calling the regularity a “description.” It is so regular that we can risk people's lives on roller coasters based upon trusting those “descriptions.” D'Agostino again says, “For me, the key word is describe. A scientific law is a convenient description of observations. The law of science does not tell the world how to be, the world just is; science is a human attempt to engage with the mysteries of the world, and to attempt to understand them."
They still use the model of physical law, but they deny its law-like aspects. Yet they want the regularity to be unalterable, and ultimately they want to sum everything up in one principle. Don't look now, but what the quote is describing is a transcendental signifier! That's the impetus behind seeking a grand unified theory of everything. Why add “of everything?” That clearly points to the transcendental signifier.
Anonymous said…
Joe: Hey Pix you are very good at twisting things. Wasting your talents in chemistry, you should read for the law. I clearly said law giver argument works with moral law. I also said cause and effect I only discourage arguing lawgiver in term of physical laws. But they do need a reason for being.

The moral law maker statement looks like a throw away comment at the end of your post. If that is the thrust of your argument, why is 90% of your post about something else? If it is not, my point stands.

Joe: from the text

I saw that. It is about physical laws, not moral laws, about which you said "Just for the record, I am not arguing that laws require a law giver". So we agree, right?

Joe: They still use the model of physical law, but they deny its law-like aspects. ...

It is not law-like because it has not been set by the government, it cannot be broken, you will not get arrested, tried and sentence if you break it, it is not different depending on what nation you are in, etc.

Joe: .... Yet they want the regularity to be unalterable, and ultimately they want to sum everything up in one principle. Don't look now, but what the quote is describing is a transcendental signifier! That's the impetus behind seeking a grand unified theory of everything. Why add “of everything?” That clearly points to the transcendental signifier.

Why must a theory of everything be a transcendental signifier?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Let us look more at the moral laws aspect...

Joe: ... I clearly said law giver argument works with moral law. ...

If moral laws require a law maker, does that mean torturing babies is only morally wrong because God arbitrarily decided it is morally wrong? And if so, then if he arbitrarily decided wearing cloth made from different types of thread is immoral or eating shellfish is immoral, then these things are just as morally wrong (that is, we are equally valid in considering them wrong, though the degree of wrongness may not be the same).

Further quotes are from the OP.

Joe: As I showed yesterday, all people are obligated to obey a moral law.

What does that actually mean? Obliged in what way? Certainly not like gravity! In fact, prisons are full of people who did not feel this supposed obligation.

Joe: People will fight about what this law allows and what it doesn't, but that doesn't mean morality isn't objective.

Are you sure it is objective? I thought you were arguing moral laws were whatever God wants them to be; that is not objective.

Joe: For example, it is always immoral to inflict pain on an unwilling participant for the sole purpose of pleasuring oneself. That is true whether or not anyone else believes it to be true. It is also true all times and for every culture. Thus, if morality exists at all, then it is universal in its scope: it applies to all humanity throughout history.

Okay, but is it true because God arbitrarily decided it would be morally wrong? Or is it objectively wrong; i.e., wrong in and of itself? My guess is the latter.

Joe: Since moral laws are prescriptive (they tell not what one is doing but what one ought to do) and universal, they must transcend humanity. Moral laws cannot be based in physical reality but must come from a moral lawgiver.

Let us say they do transcend humanity; it is easy enough to imagine an alien culture coming to the realisation that it is always immoral to inflict pain on an unwilling participant for the sole purpose of pleasuring oneself. However, why must we then suppose this is the arbitrary decision of God, rather than a universal, objective, if abstract truth?

Pix
Gods moral laws are not arbitrary, they are based upon God's character which is love. All of your answers assume God works arbitrarily. why? no need to assume that, God had meaingful purpose in his basing morality on is character,
Anonymous said…
They are arbitrary in the sense that he could have chosen them to be something else; I am not saying God had no reason for that choice. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in torturing babies; it just so happens that God decided that it would be wrong.

Morals are subjective, just whatever God decides they will be. They are not objective. If you are right, an alien species with no contact with God would have no reason to suppose torturing babies is wrong because there is no way to determine without instruction from God.

My view is, in contrast, that torturing babies is intrinsically wrong, and that any alien species will come to that conclusion even without any instruction from God.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
They are arbitrary in the sense that he could have chosen them to be something else; I am not saying God had no reason for that choice. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in torturing babies; it just so happens that God decided that it would be wrong.

That is ridiculous assumption you make it with no valid reason. There is something wrong intrinsically with torture it's not love. it's anti love. God does not violate his own nature


Morals are subjective, just whatever God decides they will be. They are not objective. If you are right, an alien species with no contact with God would have no reason to suppose torturing babies is wrong because there is no way to determine without instruction from God.

Morals being objective/subjective is a delicate subject. They are moral are subject vein the way we construe the because our understanding is cultural. They are inter-subjective due to the fact that their objective underpinnings are grasped universally grasped by all human consciousness,.Love, shame, guilt goodness and moral imperative.

My view is, in contrast, that torturing babies is intrinsically wrong, and that any alien species will come to that conclusion even without any instruction from God.

they can;t come to it without God because God created all things, they may not ow Gods involvement
"Morals being objective/subjective is a delicate subject. They are moral are subject vein the way we construe the because our understanding is cultural."

I id not show my proficiency with grammar on that one. Too sleepy, should say:

"Morals being objective or subjective is a delicate subject. They are objective in some ways and subjective in other ways. They are actually inter-subjective."
Anonymous said…
Joe: That is ridiculous assumption you make it with no valid reason. There is something wrong intrinsically with torture it's not love. it's anti love. God does not violate his own nature

Ah, so it is not wrong because God says it is wrong, it is wrong by its very nature.

So it turns out we do not need God for moral laws.

Joe: they can;t come to it without God because God created all things, they may not ow Gods involvement

So in fact your argument for God by moral laws is based on the assumption that "God created all things".

Every time you come up with an argument, it is founded opn this assumption. Sure, that works great for apologetics; you are preaching to the choir. But do not expect any non-Christian to pay any attention to your BS.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: That is ridiculous assumption you make it with no valid reason. There is something wrong intrinsically with torture it's not love. it's anti love. God does not violate his own nature

Ah, so it is not wrong because God says it is wrong, it is wrong by its very nature.

It is wring because...[pay attention now] it's opposed to God's nature...

you say God is arbitrary, when I say he's not then you try to turn arbitrary into a virtue... get the feeling you are not really serious about these ideas.


So it turns out we do not need God for moral laws.

arbitrary is not to be confused with serious

Joe: they can;t come to it without God because God created all things, they may not ow Gods involvement

So in fact your argument for God by moral laws is based on the assumption that "God created all things".

If he didn't he's not God

Every time you come up with an argument, it is founded opn this assumption.


my arguments for God are based upon who God is. your arguments are based upon bull shit,


Sure, that works great for apologetics; you are preaching to the choir. But do not expect any non-Christian to pay any attention to your BS.

Pix

great of you are not serious say any stupid thing, That's your whole game,
Anonymous said…
Joe: It is wring because...[pay attention now] it's opposed to God's nature...

What does that mean?

Are you saying it is not God's choice? So was this forced upon him?

Joe: you say God is arbitrary, when I say he's not then you try to turn arbitrary into a virtue... get the feeling you are not really serious about these ideas.

I am drawing a distinction between something being wrong just because God has chosen it is, and something being wrong because of its nature. The former is arbitrary because God could have chosen otherwise.

You now seem to be saying God could not choose, that it was forced upon him.

Pix: So in fact your argument for God by moral laws is based on the assumption that "God created all things".

Joe: If he didn't he's not God

That utterly fails to address the point that your argument is circular.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: It is wrong because...[pay attention now] it's opposed to God's nature...

What does that mean?

It's a violation of the good

Are you saying it is not God's choice? So was this forced upon him?


God gave us free will so we make choices


Joe: you say God is arbitrary, when I say he's not then you try to turn arbitrary into a virtue... get the feeling you are not really serious about these ideas.

I am drawing a distinction between something being wrong just because God has chosen it is, and something being wrong because of its nature. The former is arbitrary because God could have chosen otherwise.

God's nature is the basis for the nature of the good.





You now seem to be saying God could not choose, that it was forced upon him.

Mr. Twister is back


Pix: So in fact your argument for God by moral laws is based on the assumption that "God created all things".

Joe: If he didn't he's not God

That utterly fails to address the point that your argument is circular.


fort I don't believe you know what a circular argument is. Secondly show how mine is


Anonymous said…
Joe previously: It is wrong because...[pay attention now] it's opposed to God's nature...

Pix: What does that mean?

Joe: It's a violation of the good

So "the good" is not a part of God, but external to him? It is God's nature to decide torturing babies is wrong because to do otherwise would be a violation of good, and what that good actually is - in this case the idea that torturing babies is wrong - must be outside God.

Are you sure about that, because the rest of your post seems pretty sure that what is right and wrong comes from God, and not "the good".

If by "the good" you mean God, or some part of God then say so.

Pix: Are you saying it is not God's choice? So was this forced upon him?

Joe: God gave us free will so we make choices

How is that relevant to God choosing something?

Joe: God's nature is the basis for the nature of the good.

You are really just saying God cannot violate his nature, and that is because whatever he does, then that is his nature. The is tautologically true of anything, from chairs to tigers.

If it was God's nature to torture babies, then that would be good. It would not be a violation of God's nature specifically because it is God's nature.

It just so happens that torturing babies is wrong, and is wrong because it is opposed to God's nature, but there is - in this view - nothing intrinsically wrong with torturing babies.

This is what I mean by arbitrary. As you make clear in your next comment, God's nature was not forced on him by what is morally right and wrong. It could, in fact, have gone either way, and in either case you could still argue that it is God's nature, and for God to say otherwise would be to oppose his nature, a violation of the good.

Pix: You now seem to be saying God could not choose, that it was forced upon him.

Joe: Mr. Twister is back

Apologies, I had misunderstood. I now realise you are saying God's nature is not derived from what is actually morally right or wrong. God's nature is whatever it happens to be, and what we understand as right and wrong is derived from that.

Torturing babies is not of itself bad, it is only bad because the nature of God just jhappens to be the way it is.

Joe: fort I don't believe you know what a circular argument is. Secondly show how mine is

A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. In this case, you are trying to prove God, so the conclusion is that God exists. However, you admitted that this argument is based on the assumption that God exists:

"they can;t come to it without God because God created all things, they may not ow Gods involvement"

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe previously: It is wrong because...[pay attention now] it's opposed to God's nature...

Pix: What does that mean?

Joe: It's a violation of the good

So "the good" is not a part of God, but external to him?

Are you daft? what part of one's nature is external? The good is a concept its not a thing like a bowling ball. It's an idea but it's based upon god;s nature,

It is God's nature to decide torturing babies is wrong because to do otherwise would be a violation of good, and what that good actually is - in this case the idea that torturing babies is wrong - must be outside God.


Pix are you really that stupid? God's nature is love so unloving things like torture are wrong, because they violate the good which is based upon Gods nature.

Are you sure about that, because the rest of your post seems pretty sure that what is right and wrong comes from God, and not "the good".

The good is a concept, It's based upon God' nature,

If by "the good" you mean God, or some part of God then say so.

what do you mean by mean? what could I possibly mean go good? it;s so hard to understand.



Pix: Are you saying it is not God's choice? So was this forced upon him?

Joe: God gave us free will so we make choices

How is that relevant to God choosing something?

gee I don't know what you mean by mean? I am too stupid because I believe in God.You tell me the basis of your ethical theory genius man.

Joe: God's nature is the basis for the nature of the good.

You are really just saying God cannot violate his nature, and that is because whatever he does, then that is his nature. The is tautologically true of anything, from chairs to tigers.


whatever he does is his nature, where did I say that? That is quite stupid, you unable and unwilling to think philosophically.

If it was God's nature to torture babies, then that would be good. It would not be a violation of God's nature specifically because it is God's nature.

I spelled out love as the basis of the good That means
God will not do anything unloving; it also means the good is not arbitrary so it not just based on anything God does, God will not do those things that violate his nature.




It just so happens that torturing babies is wrong, and is wrong because it is opposed to God's nature, but there is - in this view - nothing intrinsically wrong with torturing babies.

That kind of thinking reduces morality to arbitrary
bs. by that thinking action X is wrong just because it is no reason so that becomes arbitrary. If Torture is wrong because it violates a principle that hardly makes it intensely good apart from the principle, It will always be wrong because it always violates the good! the principle it turns on is love the basis of the good,




This is what I mean by arbitrary. As you make clear in your next comment, God's nature was not forced on him by what is morally right and wrong. It could, in fact, have gone either way, and in either case you could still argue that it is God's nature, and for God to say otherwise would be to oppose his nature, a violation of the good.

There is no higher standard to which God must give heed, but that does not mean it could have gone either way. It had to be in line with love, I already said he can't violate his own nature,



Pix: You now seem to be saying God could not choose, that it was forced upon him.

He chose to follow his nature,

Joe: Mr. Twister is back

Apologies, I had misunderstood. I now realise you are saying God's nature is not derived from what is actually morally right or wrong. God's nature is whatever it happens to be, and what we understand as right and wrong is derived from that.

Notherearemany as0ect to
gods nature but at the base of it all is love.


Torturing babies is not of itself bad, it is only bad because the nature of God just jhappens to be the way it is.

torturing babies is always violates love so it will always be wrong..I don;t think you can give me a rational reason why it is wrong based upon your view

Joe: fort I don't believe you know what a circular argument is. Secondly show how mine is

A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.

Ok wow you know one thing about logic, good going.

In this case, you are trying to prove God,


BBBbbbbZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz== rational warrant not proof.


so the conclusion is that God exists. However, you admitted that this argument is based on the assumption that God exists:

"they can;t come to it without God because God created all things, they may not ow Gods involvement"

Nope. that is not what that means, That is not a statement of logic but of metaphysis. Literally noting would exist without g
God creatig it.


Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: There is no higher standard to which God must give heed, but that does not mean it could have gone either way. It had to be in line with love, I already said he can't violate his own nature,

But God decided what is in line with love is what is good, right? You just said there is no higher standard, so it must have been him. God chose to align good with love, but he could have chosen to align it with cruelty or hate. And if he had, you would now say that torturing babies is good.

By the way, who decided that God cannot violate his nature? I assume that was his choice, given there is no higher standard.

So God has a specific nature that he chose, and because of his choice torturing babies is wrong. But he could have chosen to be in line with hate, and in that case, torturing babies would be good. It all comes down to what God happened to choose to be inline with.

Joe: He chose to follow his nature,

You just said "he can't violate his own nature", and now you are saying that that is just he choice. Which is it, Joe? Does he have a choice? Or is he obliged to follow his nature?

Joe: Notherearemany as0ect to
gods nature but at the base of it all is love.


I have no idea how that relates to the discuss. Do you?

Joe: torturing babies is always violates love so it will always be wrong..

But only because God chose to be in line with love. If he had chosen to be inline with hate, torturing babies would be morally right.

Joe: I don;t think you can give me a rational reason why it is wrong based upon your view

I think torturing babies is wrong in itself. That is, the nature of torturing babies (inflicting pain on innocent sapient beings) means that it is necessarily wrong, whatever God says on the subject.

Joe: BBBbbbbZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz== rational warrant not proof.

Seriously? So your argument reduces to:

* God created the universe
* ...
* Therefore God may exist

A circular argument, except your reasoning is so bad you are not even sure the conclusion is right.

Joe, if the premise "God created all things" is true, and you seem utter certain it is, then it is certain that God exists. All your mumbo-jumbo about law givers (or whatever it is this week) is merely a smoke screen to hide that the argument is circular.

Joe: Nope. that is not what that means, That is not a statement of logic but of metaphysis. Literally noting would exist without g
God creatig it.


The point is that that is the premise upon which your argument is founded. Hence, it is - as always - a circular argument.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: There is no higher standard to which God must give heed, but that does not mean it could have gone either way. It had to be in line with love, I already said he can't violate his own nature,

But God decided what is in line with love is what is good, right? You just said there is no higher standard, so it must have been him. God chose to align good with love, but he could have chosen to align it with cruelty or hate. And if he had, you would now say that torturing babies is good.

His own nature is not higher than himself bit he still can't violate it, he did have a choice, he could have chosen not to create.

By the way, who decided that God cannot violate his nature? I assume that was his choice, given there is no higher standard.

So God has a specific nature that he chose, and because of his choice torturing babies is wrong. But he could have chosen to be in line with hate, and in that case, torturing babies would be good. It all comes down to what God happened to choose to be inline with.

NO there is no evidence that God could have willed a differ nature for himself, That is not in evidence. I said no such thing.

Joe: He chose to follow his nature,

You just said "he can't violate his own nature", and now you are saying that that is just he choice. Which is it, Joe? Does he have a choice? Or is he obliged to follow his nature?


He could not choose to violate his nature (Bible says it is impossible that God should lie) He can;t lie but he could refuse to speak. He can't will himself to be unloving but he could refuse to create,


Joe: Notherearemany as0ect to
gods nature but at the base of it all is love.

I have no idea how that relates to the discuss. Do you?

I've been telling you that all along, go eat some fish get your little brain working,

Anonymous said…
Joe: His own nature is not higher than himself bit he still can't violate it, ....

Why can he not violate it? Is that his choice? Who or what decided that that would be his nature? Was that that his choice?

Joe: His own nature is not higher than himself bit he still can't violate it, he did have a choice, he could have chosen not to create.

What has choosing whether to create got to do with the choices (or lack thereof) with regards to his nature? You start the sentence discussing his nature, then chase off after this obvious red herring. It is like you cannot if follow an idea even as you write about it, let alone in an on-going discussion! No wonder your replies are so confused.

Joe: NO there is no evidence that God could have willed a differ nature for himself, That is not in evidence. I said no such thing.

Great weasel words there Joe. It kind of sounds like you are saying God's nature was forced on him, without actually tying you to it. But weasel words are not going to wash here. So please be explicit:

Did God choose what his nature would be?

Was God's nature forced upon him?

If no to both, then why is God's nature what it is?


I have put these in bold because I have a feeling you will not answer them (not all of them anyway), and I want that to be clear.

Joe previously: He chose to follow his nature,

Pix: You just said "he can't violate his own nature", and now you are saying that that is just he choice. Which is it, Joe? Does he have a choice? Or is he obliged to follow his nature?

Joe: He could not choose to violate his nature (Bible says it is impossible that God should lie) He can;t lie but he could refuse to speak. He can't will himself to be unloving but he could refuse to create,

The issue is not choosing to create. The issue is whether he chooses to follow his own nature or is forced to do so. You are on record saying "He chose to follow his nature" and also saying "He could not choose to violate his nature". They cannot both be true.

You need to make your mind up Joe. And then stick to it.

Pix
Joe: torturing babies is always violates love so it will always be wrong..

But only because God chose to be in line with love. If he had chosen to be inline with hate, torturing babies would be morally right.

No we just settled that, read what is above this point.

Joe: I don't think you can give me a rational reason why it is wrong based upon your view

I think torturing babies is wrong in itself. That is, the nature of torturing babies (inflicting pain on innocent sapient beings) means that it is necessarily wrong, whatever God says on the subject.

see I was right, you have no rational reasons. It's wrong because it's wrong is not a rational reason it's a tautology. Fallacies are not rational reasons. ,My view offers rational reasons yours is based upon fallacy What's next? The acceptance of contradiction?



Joe: BBBbbbbZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz== rational warrant not proof.

Seriously? So your argument reduces to:

* God created the universe
* ...
* Therefore God may exist


It's not reducing anything. As an atheist you are brainwashed to think reductionism is the point to thinking, but it's not. Rational warrant is not reducing. it's not based on saying Maybe its accepting a good reason on logical grounds rather than demanding absolute proof.


A circular argument, except your reasoning is so bad you are not even sure the conclusion is right.

Joe, if the premise "God created all things" is true, and you seem utter certain it is, then it is certain that God exists. All your mumbo-jumbo about law givers (or whatever it is this week) is merely a smoke screen to hide that the argument is circular.



Joe: Nope. that is not what that means, That is not a statement of logic but of metaphysis. Literally noting would exist without God creating it.



PiX: The point is that that is the premise upon which your argument is founded. Hence, it is - as always - a circular argument.

No it is not the premise. you don't even go by the wording of the argument. That is because you don't know the premise is the first line of the argument.

This essay has several arguments it; make several different points So again there is no one premise of "the argument."

If you try to boil it down to a most basic point it might be that there are two kinds of arguments that employ law giver: natural laws and moral laws. The latter is valid the former use of law giver is not.

I seem to have lost a post from Pix. It was not zapped I approved it. but it;s gone.

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

Extraordinary Claims, Ordinary Fallacies, and Evolution