Elshamah

The answer is from two websites : Why should the Bible be our source for morality? http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-morality.html http://www.equip.org/articles/sabbath-keeping-and-the-new-covenant/

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/moral_authority.html

and strong atheism is ............. ??!! http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc03.html#fsslrcrdgpsnrsstlldstrbnglckfmssnglnksrtrnstnlfrmsbtwnthmjrgrpsfrgnsms "In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance. The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all." (Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "Tempo and Mode in Evolution," [1944], Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1949, Third Printing, p.115). hahahaa, no kidding.... http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t415-the-naturalistic-formation-of-planets-exceedingly-difficult But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">The most difficult step is the first, gravitational contraction of dust to form small particles. Dust grains must first accrete to form small particles, which must continue to grow until they are at least 10 m in diameter. This size is the point at which gravity is expected to come into its own, accreting and condensing material at a faster and faster rate. Then supposedly, planetesimals would form that are many kilometres across. The planetesimals are finally envisaged to collide to form planets. There are difficult problems with these later steps, but I will focus on the first step: how does the dust collide, stick together and grow before gravity can assert itself? That is the big question. The tiny dust particles must hit each other head on and stick.1 The process (which is speculative anyhow) is too slow, especially in cold regions of space, according to astronomers. A number of hypotheses are in vogue, but all seem to have fatal flaws. oh sure....... http://www.charliewagner.net/big.htm Most of the evidence collected so far gives no indication that this huge amount of invisible matter exists. As far as the universe is concerned, what you see is what there is. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect. his powerful word. We cannot understand, how a powerful God might speak something into existence, but it still makes a LOT more sense, than to substitute a powerful creator with simply absolutely nothing. i do not agree. See above answer. I don't use the God of the Gaps argument. The beginning of the universe, its fine tuning, complex specified information stored in dna, conscience, morals , all of it points directly towards a intelligent , morally perfect creator. If the questions cannot be answered with naturalism, indeed it does. That is a logical step of thinking. Do you disagree with the 10 commandments in Ex.20 ? thats is EXACTLY the point. Which of all these standards is the binding one ? Hitlers standard is ok ? if not, why not ? who tells, his standard was wrong ? what does that matter to the discussion ? thats why i have not made that question. But in the same way, as you ask for evidence of Gods existence, ( which i have actually provided plenty of it, despite the insistante assertion there is no evidence for gods existence ) strong atheists should also be capable to provide positive evidence that naturalism is true. So far, i have not seen ONE good and compelling argument. provided plenty of it : http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god where is yours for philosophical naturalism ? Because without God, morals would be just a subject of individual and cultural opinion. If i think that torture, rape, kill, and eat your newborn daughter is the most sublime, delightful, good behavior, based on what moral standard can you possibly say, i did something bad ? Why is your OPINION worth more than mine ? well, if you cannot answer my question, my argument is confirmed. Without God, no objective moral standard exists. p.s. people who loose a debate, and start adhoms, calling me dishonest, should search for other people to debate.

you just ignore my point, and come up with a bunch of speculative questions. You ignored also all the evidence i provided to you for Gods existence, and dismissed it without hesitation, not giving a hint of serious consideration. That tells whats up with you. You do reject God based on emotional ground, and think you have good reasons for doing so. Unfortunately, you just delude yourself.......

Of course it is better. Scientific evidence points to a finite universe, which had a beginning. http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the-kalam-cosmological-argument Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.

And what is strong atheism ??!! no, you have not. beside this, i have said that objective moral standards can only come from God. you have not answered my question : which moral standard ? and it is based on what exactly ? ok, please show me how moralities apply to the animal world, since animals have no decision power, but behave based on their instincts. that would mean, that all animals, that do not socialize, would have to be extinct by now. absolute assertions demand absolute proofs. Prove your assertion, please. that is your subjective opinion , probably based on the fact that you have not studied the bible. no, you should care and pay more atention to the formulation of my question. I am asking for evidence the universe is all there is. thats different. That is a silly assertion, made like a mantra by non thinking atheists. Our universe is evidence, either for atheism, or theism. It just depends on how we do interprete the scientific knowledge we do have. For me, there is plenty of evidence for theism, all creation tells us how powerful and wonderful the God is, that created all we see and observe. Evidence of God : http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god thats just wishful thinking. you might ignore this, but there is a revolution going on in the scientific community towards intelligent design. There is less and less evidence for the evolution theory. nontheless, many questions simply remain unanswered, or the answers do not satisfy. How did planets form ? why are we not able to detect dark matter ? the big bang theory is full of unanswered questions, despite some issues, like the beginning of the universe, are well answered. well, either the universe was created , or it was not. Either one, or the other. There is no further alternative. If the universe had a beginning, what the big bang theory strongly suggests, then the universe had a cause. Which is evidence for a creator. no , i actually said, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. i did not say, that God came from nothing, or that he was created. but that God is eternal, without beginning, without a end. You can always replace " The evidence points clearly to a creator " with " we do not know yet ". that way, God can always be ignored, and be left outside the door . Unfortunately, you just betray yourself. Neither do i beleive, god is all powerful, neither that he wants to prove his existence to us.

It depends if you talk about weak, or strong atheism. Since atheists do defend a position, even if they declare themself weak atheists, it becomes clear very fast, that they are strong atheists. And, no. Its indeed a belief system. http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/ 1. There is no God. 2. There is no afterlife. 3. There is no intuition; there is no spirituality; there is no absolute morality. 4. The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain: the mind is not transcendent. 5. Life is chemicals; DNA is life; the brain is a “meat machine’. 6. Complexity, no matter the degree, self-assembles. How about you? are you open to consider a different view point as yours ? Why so ? and last not least, a personal attack. why do i not wonder about this ?

dodging my question......Naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. No intelligent creator required. Please present evidence for this world view. it doesnt matter what Hitler declared to be. Fact is, he thought to kill jews was good. Based on what moral standard can you possibly say he was wrong ? Based on what can you say, empathy is good ? Lets say, that would be a matter of fact. Why would it be unacceptable ? based on what can you determine, what is acceptable, what is not ? the foundation of atheism is complete nihilism.

well, lower the level, and make personal attacks, does not strenghten your position. based on what moral standard can you possibly know, that respect the life of other human beings, and empathy , is good, and harming someone is wrong ??? Hitler thought, kill the Jews was a good thing for germany. Based on what do you believe, your moral standard is above Hitler's ? What a weak position, based on a negative..... How about rather than that, you present evidence naturalism is true, and nature is all there exists, no intelligent cause involved in our existence ? And based on what evidence do you believe, naturalism is true ? any positive arguments and explanations on hand ? because without God, no objective moral standard can exist. Everything becomes relative, individual, and subjective. Why should your moral standard be above Hitler's ?

If God does not exist, than objective moral standards do not exist. Therefore , you cannot define what is moral, what is not. Well , you think you have something on hand to justify your disbelief in God. However , you have not. I bet you have not studied the bible, otherwise you would not come to the conclusion you expose here.

Even if, lets say, the argument would stand, how exactly would that prove God does not exist ? Is God a moral monster ? http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2011/10/is-god-a-moral-monster/

No, you will not. The problem is not the evidence. The problem is your will. Even if i would prove you Gods existence, you would reject God. I have actually done so, and shown that the codified, complex, specified information contained in DNA unmistakenly evidences a intelligent mind as origin of life. But you prefere to tape your ears and eyes. So the same question, you should actually direct to yourself. I am able only to show why i believe the scientific evidence points to a intelligent creator. I have done so. Information in DNA is just one of many examples. If you do not believe in my interpretation of facts, how about you present a BETTER explanation , lets start, and talk - how about just the information contained in DNA ?! If you think , no intelligence was involved, what else, and why would that something else be more compelling ? BS. John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

How about you ?!! But indeed : no one can convince me on the contrary. Neither i am here with that purpose. I have seen miracles happen in my life, that makes in impossible to NOT believe in God. The problem is just about semantics . We can just replace the word supernatural with God. A God that is above our universe, and the known dimensions. My point is, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. The universe most probably had a beginning, therefore a cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">Please note that the number of superstring theories given above is only a high-level classification; the actual number of mathematically distinct theories which are compatible with observation and would therefore have to be examined to find the one that correctly describes nature is currently believed to be at least 10^500 (a one with five hundred zeroes). This has given rise to the concern that superstring theories, despite the alluring simplicity of their basic principles, are, in fact, not simple at all, and according to the principle of Occam's razor perhaps alternative physical theories going beyond the Standard Model should be explored. do you believe we are the result of such a big lucky accident ? Please present evidence, the universe is all there is.

It seems you do not understand my question. Here again : Based on what moral standard can you say God is a moral monster ? how do you possibly know these commands were morally rejectible ?

really ? where ? Could you point out based on what moral standard you can say , the God of the bible is morally bankrupt ?