The best arguments atheists and religionists have been able to muster

[Litmus]

You are making the same mistake all over again.

In post six I outlined what I thought were some of the weaknesses of these atheist and religionist arguments.

what are they even trying to assert in the first place?

and what is the value of those assertions?

say it plainly Socrates.

make it meaningful this time.

if you can't sum up each in one meaningful sentence, you either don;t understand it yourself, or are bullshitting.

 

[Litmus]

You are making the same mistake all over again.

In post six I outlined what I thought were some of the weaknesses of these atheist and religionist arguments.

the same mistake you keep making is thinking religion's value is is the particularities of it's dogmas,

when the real value is how well it inculcates basic morality, which is and can be defined.

you will dance forever to ignore this one and most meaningful aspect of all religious studies.

you have wasted your life in blind alleys of stupidity.

 

[Litmus]

Trouble with reading comprehension?

These aren't my ideas. Determinism and argument from design have been around for centuries and promoted by many brilliant people.

I just am able to succinctly distill them down to their core essence.


Are you one of those JPP superegos who imagine you are capable of coming up with your own deeply original, unique, and astonishingly profound insights?

their core essences seem to be either math or physics.

you're left out anything about morality or spirituality.

you've constructed a tree that supposedly classifies everything but achieves nothing of value in any sense.

 

[Cypress]

you're left out anything about morality or spirituality.

Irrelevant.

I didn't say I was going to summarize all arguments for religion.

I literally stated right in the thread title that I was going to summarize what I thought was the best one.

 

[Litmus]

Irrelevant.

I didn't say I was going to summarize all arguments for religion.

I literally stated right in the thread title that I was going to summarize what I thought was the best one.

how are these argument for religion?

they both reduce to math or physics?

 

[Cypress]

I somewhat understand your perspective, C,
and I also understand how it could work well
with those of a certain attitude or predisposition.

It doesn't quite work for me, but then again,
I'm OK with the concept of rational order being kept under the carpet.

I'd have a harder time trying to live with the idea
that what passes for our rational order
was somehow deliberately calculated.

Believing that would leave me in a constant state of rage,
with no intermittent respite as I manage to enjoy now,
and I would never have reached the age that I am now.

I suspect that you somewhat understand my perspective as well.
Perspectives don't have to be shared to be at least somewhat understood.

I don't think precise mathematical organization and lawful order can realistically come out or randomness and chaos.

That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a manifestation of the God of Abraham or the Tao.

This is the type of question our souped-up chimpanzee minds wouldn't even understand the answer to.

But I understand your perspective nonetheless.

 

[Cypress]

how are these argument for religion?

they both reduce to math or physics?

Think man, think!

Explain to me where the mathematical laws of the cosmos and the universal constants came from and why they exist.

 

[Litmus]

Think man, think!

Explain to me where the mathematical laws of physics and the universal constants came from and why they exist.

that's not a religion discussion.

 

[Truth Detector]

Atheists
Materialistic determinism: all events, all human actions, morals, conscience are ultimately reducible to physics and material factors.

Moronic.

Religionists
Design: the lawful order and rational intelligibility of the universe; the fine tuning of the mathematical properties of the cosmos.

Strawman.

 

[Truth Detector]

Excellent condensation, C.

To me, it's the first supposition that doesn't require
an added factor manifested subjectively rather than objectively.

That's to me, of course. Others could see it differently.

Thinks he is intelligent.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes, the anthropomorphic principle is not a bad argument - that anything that is possible will become possible somewhere in the universe or multi verse or whatever you want to call it, and we just happen to live in a little corner of the universe where conditions are precisely tuned and organized for complex matter and life.

To me it is not philosophically satisfying because it invokes luck, and it gives off a vague whiff of trying to sweep the coincidence of the rational order of the universe under the carpet.

Answer this question; are we BORN with morality, or is it learned?

 

[Mason 22]

Think man, think!

Explain to me where the mathematical laws of the cosmos and the universal constants came from and why they exist.

Intelligent design! Not coincidence!

 

[Cypress]

that's not a religion discussion.

Wrong. Isacc Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and the great minds of Rennaissance Europe and the Scientific Revolution believed that the natural laws pointed to law-giver, and that by discovering the laws we could know God better.

I think that is one reason that experimental science specifically germinated in the cauldron of a European society adhering to monotheism

 

[Litmus]

Wrong. Isacc Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and the great minds of Europe believed that the natural laws pointed to law giver, and that by discovering the laws we could know God better.

I think that's still not a religious discussion.

it's trying to create a new religion of scientism.

 

[Cypress]

Answer this question; are we BORN with morality, or is it learned?

I have about three hundred posts on this board saying there is an objective moral truth written on our hearts. That does not mean we aren't supposed to learn it, discover it, cultivate it. People like Jesus, Confucius, Siddartha Gautama, Zarathustra would never have had to exist if most people didn't need to be guided to the truth.

 

[Cypress]

I think that's still not a religious discussion.

it's trying to create a new religion of scientism.

You need to more be more knowledgeable and sophisticated about religion.

The fundamental nature of reality and the cosmic order is an abiding concern of all religions, most especially in Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism.

 

[Litmus]

You need to more be more knowledgeable and sophisticated about religion.

The fundamental nature of reality and the cosmic order is an abiding concern of all religions, most especially in Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism.

not really.

they rarely talk about physics or math.

 

[Cypress]

not really.

they rarely talk about physics or math.

You don't have to know physics to contemplate the nature of reality and humanity's place in the cosmic order.

Romans 1:18 clearly states that one can see the revelation of God in the natural order, if one pays attention. Have you ever read the Bible?

The Daodejing and the Dhammapada have an abiding concern with the natural order and humanity's relationship to it.

 

[Litmus]

I have about three hundred posts on this board saying there is an objective moral truth written on our hearts. That does not mean we aren't supposed to learn it, discover it, cultivate it. People like Jesus, Confucius, Siddartha Gautama, Zarathustra would never have had to exist if most people didn't need to be guided to the truth.

what is that objective moral truth?

 

[Cypress]

what is that objective moral truth?

True moral knowledge independent of opinion and popular consensus.