Author: admin

Do you really believe our sense of morality comes from God? Have you ever heard or said that “the existence of objective morality is evidence for the existence of God?” Consider the following…

Subjective morality, by definition, is based on preferences. An example of subjective morality is when we collectively agree that action x is moral and action y is immoral because the consequences of each action are understood, and the outcome of action x consistently leads to a collectively preferred outcome and, action y leads to a collectively unfavorable outcome.

Objective morality, by definition, is that which is considered moral or immoral regardless of preferences. Objective morality cannot be a matter of opinion.

If morality were truly objective then by definition it could not be God’s opinion, meaning God is subject to the same morality we are, and we can see if god acts morally when measured against objective moral values. (He often doesn’t)

If god is the source of morality, because he has a plan (defined as a series of steps to reach a preferred outcome), and as part of that plan he created the moral values that would best lead to his preferred outcome, then God dictates his morality based on his preferences and that kind of morality is subjective.

If God decides what is moral, then morality is subjective by definition. It’s a matter of opinion, his.

In addition to subjective and objective morality we also have absolute morality which states that which is moral at all times regardless of circumstances. If you believe that killing is wrong all the time, no matter what, even in self-defense, or the defense of the innocent, then you subscribe to absolute morality. Of the three this is the most dogmatic, and least nuanced position. It is also apparent that we don’t find ourselves in a world where an absolute morality is governing everyone regarding killing as we see killing all the time. On this basis we can rule out absolute morality for every other moral situation as well.

The modern understanding of morality that seems to hold the most weight with non-believers recognizes that if we commonly accept the goal of wellbeing (defined as that which minimizes harm and maximizes benefit) as the basis for our moral judgments, then with respect to our agreed goal, we can objectively measure any actions effectiveness. So, the initial premise that underpins our moral judgements is subjective, but the subsequent rules we decide to follow will all have results that are objectively measurable and can therefore be considered objectively good or bad with respect to our goal.

Non-believers typically think human wellbeing should come before the wellbeing of a god that can’t be demonstrated to exist. Believers typically assert that their god exists and his wellbeing, his plan, his opinion, should come before that of humans. How about believers demonstrate their god does in fact exist, then we can argue about who’s opinion is superior with regard to moral judgements, humans or God?

Ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma, it is one of the oldest examples of this very issue. According to the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”

I submit to you that the answer to the ages old conundrum is found in our modern understanding of morality combined with our ability to recognize the flaw in how the question was worded. With respect to the latter, the presuppositions that gods exist and that they love that which is pious, are both unsupported. The very Gods spoken about here have been relegated to mythology. Of course, the substitution of any other god, even one you believe exists, changes nothing about the dilemma itself.

A better question is where does our morality come from? For those who are interested in the evolution of morality and a sense of fairness in social species, which is a somewhat well understood process, I recommend a google search, as it is getting clearer every day. Basically, social species like humans seem to demonstrate a sense of fairness and empathy, that manifests in socially normative behaviors, which when violated, can lead to members of the group being rejected and banished. For members of a social species the benefits of living in groups yields higher rates of survivability and increased reproduction. Those members that have strongly developed traits that help them get along with others have more offspring than those who don’t and over time populations of social creatures grow stronger and survive longer than their antisocial outcasts. We have quite literally evolved to be empathetic beings who care about the wellbeing of others in our group.

No superpowers are required to explain the emergence of moral behavior, and whenever we can demonstrate how something comes about from purely natural processes adding a supernatural element violates Occam’s razor about the simplest explanation being more likely true. It is simpler to explain things in terms of the natural processes we already understand and see exist in reality, than to give a supernatural explanation which can’t really be understood at all? Therefore, it is factually true to say “a God is less likely to be the source of our moral behavior than our empathy that we know exists.”

If you simply think this is a good time to say “God works in mysterious ways” which is an admission you can’t understand him, please see this post which demonstrates why you can’t possibly believe something you can’t understand.

Intelligent Design: The Universe

Proponents of the theory of ID like to cite a fallacious argument that the universe was created for us, because when considering all the factors involved, if you vary some of these factors by any amount at all, life, at least as we know it, could not even exist. Therefore because the universe is so complex they see god as the mechanism by which these factors came to be as they are, giving rise to life.

At its core the, this is an example of an argument from ignorance fallacy, essentially asking how do we explain the amazing complexity of the universe and it’s ability to spawn life if not for a god?

The answer as it turns out appears to be by entirely natural causes, some of which are known to science, and some of which are not.

In addition, when one considers the true immensity of the universe as we have come to understand it, and how 99.99999999999% of it is entirely uninhabitable, saying it was all intelligently designed for us seems like the most self centered egotistical absurdity possible.

——————————————

Another intelligent design argument is a rebuttal to evolution known as “Specified Complexity.”

Specified Complexity is a term that was made up for this particular argument, and is not pre-existing the intelligent design assertion.

The term as it is used in this instance is not accepted by mainstream academics in part because “Specified Complexity” is a necessarily “circular” argument. It is therefore logically fallacious.

In this context what is meant by “specified” is selected by some intelligence, as opposed to selected by natural causation (by nature).

If the claim is “Specified Complexity is valid evidence for proof of intelligent design,” then substitute “selected by some intelligence” in place of “Specified.” or… Intelligently selected complexity is valid evidence for proof of intelligent design

Circularly pointing out intelligence is proof of intelligence. Defining the premise to include the conclusion.

If you start by saying “specified” complexity, you have already inserted an intelligence as part of the premises.

——————————————-

The actual concept of specified complexity was also shot down in the dover vs. Kitzmiller trial, where scientific data and evidence was explained in great detail to the court showing conclusively that the whole concept of Specified Complexity is wrong on its basic premise, that some structures found in nature are too complicated to form via naturally occurring processes alone.

The conservative federal judge assigned to the case and who was appointed by George W Bush was openly Christian, and amazingly did a great job with his ruling, ultimately declaring in a lengthy and well supported decision that Intelligent design was just creationism, an unsupported religious claim not to be taught in our schools.

There you have it! According to the federal Judge ruling on the case, the the official ruling is, Intelligent design is not science!

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
End date: December 20, 2005

On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from “maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

——————————————–

Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution.

ID proponents tell us that we are perfectly designed. Yet there are in fact plenty of problems with our design they like to ignore. Why do men have nipples or do we each have an appendix, it could become inflamed, burst and kill you, but if you remove it you will live a long and healthy life without serious repercussions. We are not the strongest animal, or the fastest, or the animal with the best sense of smell or the best eyesight, or hearing. We cant fly, or reproduce at will simply by replication. We are not the longest living life forms. We think we are the smartest creature on the planet, but can’t be sure at this point that is even true. It would be extremely unlikely, in light of what we know about the universe, that we are the smartest form of life in the cosmos.

If you were the designer of everything in the universe, would such an imperfect being be your crowning achievement? I’m a designer by trade and if I have in my tool box the ability to design and create all the life forms found in the universe, my crowning achievement in the filed of life form design would take all the best abilities I can bestow on a life form and make it the fastest smartest longest living strongest, best seeing, hearing, most powerful being I can come up with.

But that isn’t what we find in nature. Instead we see a huge random assortment of ability’s distributed over many different life forms coming from as many different environments and demonstrating the amazing diversity of life. That is exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory, that all animals including us evolved to have the traits we do because of how are environments selected naturally for them.

Is God really all powerful? If so, can God create a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it? Can God create a burrito so hot even he can’t eat it? These questions show the logical contradictions of a being that is all powerful. The most common theistic apologetic response is “God is as powerful as logically possible.” This is an admission that even God is subject to the laws of logic.

In light of this understanding, let’s examine the theistic claim that atheists just think “something came from nothing?”

Science has never claimed “something can come from nothing,” nor have we ever had an example of a true nothing to examine going all the way back to the theoretical singularity.

Can God create something from nothing? If you think so, then you believe that under the right circumstances something can come from nothing; if not, then you are acknowledging that God must have been working with preexisting material (matter that preexisted the current state of the universe).

Scientific observations appear to confirm for all new things which come into being each is actually a new arrangement of preexisting atoms or sub atomic particles. In a completely naturalistic view, matter is always required to make something. The matter we see in this universe is never really created or destroyed, and the base parts of all the matter that came out of the expansion of the singularity may have for all intents and purposes been eternal. It appears that nothing is ever created from truly nothing, and as far as we know there has never actually been truly nothing.

Our universe is expanding and it is now understood that 13.78 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was most likely compacted into a single point known as the singularity. Einsteins extremely well supported and predictive theory describes that from the singularity, as the expansion we colloquially call the big bang occurred, space and time came into existence together as what we now refer to as spacetime. “Before there was space and time,” is a nonsensical statement, as it is not logical to speak of things existing before time, as existence is necessarily temporal. If there is a God, then he to must have come into existence only after there was time to exist, after the start of spacetime, aka the universe, and therefore this being cannot be the cause of the universe.

Many use the loaded term creation to describe our universe and/or everything in it. Of course presupposing everything is created is fallacious and a better term is just to call it reality. Reality is something we all share even if we don’t agree on how it came to exist. According to theists God created all of reality. If God can’t do anything that isn’t logically possible, then he can’t create a universe which includes all of space and time, all of reality, from inside it, after it existed. God must have been outside reality, outside of existence, and the only logical conclusion is that God can’t be part of reality or existence. A universe creating god is quite literally not real and does not exist.

For added consideration:

Scientists do not know for sure where the initial building blocks of matter actually came from but they do have several hypotheses. A well known example is the testable observation described by Lawrence Krauss that virtual particles continuously pop into and out of existence in empty space and that given enough time (perhaps less time or even no time under the right conditions) an entire universe worth of matter could actually effervesce into existence and that it may just be inevitable for it to do so because true nothingness is likely inherently unstable.

Starting with the earliest moments of the universe coming into its current form via the expansion event of 13.78 billion years ago scientists Have been able to model the processes by which the materials in the universe cooled, coalesced and ultimately formed the first clumps of atoms of hydrogen which powered the first generation of stars and galaxy formation. We also have a thorough understanding of how stars and subsequent generations of stars have created all the heavier elements found in the periodic table. We now understand how purely natural forces like gravity, can create all the stars and planets we see simply from the natural interactions of preexisting matter.

We now understand that our planet formed out of the same accretion disc as our sun which is a third generation star that is just around five billion years old. Using telescopes, radio telescopes, spectroscopy, and other tools, we can see star formation happening right now in huge gas nebulae. Over 100 billion stars are in an average galaxy and there are more than 200 billion galaxies in the visible universe. Our planet is like a single spec of dust when compared to all that exists.

Given how much we do understand about the nature of the universe, the idea of a preexisting deity conjuring all of this up from absolutely nothing via some kind of supernatural power is an extra and unnecessary piece of the explanation that actually violates what we do understand about the realty we live in. The creator hypothesis is totally unsupported by the evidence. And the idea that this deity created all this just for us, when at least 99.999999999999% of the universe would kill us instantly, is absolutely laughable.

If you simply think this is a good time to say “God works in mysterious ways” which is an admission you can’t understand him, please see this post which demonstrates why you can’t possibly believe something you can’t understand.

Some of the most common arguments for Christianity are also arguments for Islam.

Muslim apologists commonly site the cosmological argument for god, or supposed scientific knowledge in the Quran, or predictions in the Quran they believe came true, the morality argument for god, god changed my life, or even that they look around and just “feel it must be true,”

If you agree that any of these well-known arguments for god are valid evidence for support for the claimed existence of the Christian god, then you are in agreement that Muslims are justified in using these exact arguments too. After all, if any of these arguments did really prove a god existed, it should be considered support for the claim a god exists, even if it doesn’t prove which God exists. And while all of these arguments for god have been debunked multiple times (search our favorite YouTube channels for hours of content handily debunking every known argument for a god) I don’t need to debunk any of them no matter how fallacious the reasoning, to make the point that if belief in either religion can be justified based on these reasons that neither Muslims or Christians can justifiably deny the others use of the same arguments to prove god exists.

According to his words in the Quran, Allah says “I have no son.” He also claims to be the creator of the universe. Yet according to the new testament Jesus is the Son of God the creator of the universe. Both cannot possibly be true simultaneously.

Therefore, the above arguments appear to support one’s belief in either religion, but we know belief in one of them must be wrong. This demonstrates conclusively that in the case of Christianity and Islam, use of those arguments can and does in fact lead roughly half of the people using them to accepting a false god claim as true. I will humbly remind you that while both religions can’t be right, they can both be wrong.

The cold hard truth is that a belief in practically any god can be justified by these common lines of thinking and for that reason, we can say for sure that they do not support or indicate any one god is true over any other. This literally means those arguments are not evidence for a specific god, and if you are a Christian and accept these arguments as proof of your god then congratulations you’ve just proved Islam also must be true.

I was going to write another typical blog post about prayer and how it clearly doesn’t work, but during the research for this entry I came across the following video from one of my favorite atheist thinkers that so perfectly summed up the position that I think anything I had to say would simply be redundant.

A huge thank you to Matt Dillahunty for his tireless efforts to point out the problems with religious beliefs, and to promote critical thinking among believers. Please check out his personal channel, and especially The Atheist Experience channel for nearly endless examples of religious thinking being totally destroyed.

In addition to the clip seen here, I am including a link to the NY Times article regarding the prayer study Matt referenced, as well as another article from Psychology Today that expands on one of his points.

In case you are worried about bias, please note that the study mentioned was primarily funded by the John Templeton Foundation for Spiritual Study. John Templeton himself was according to his Wikipedia page was an Evangelical Christian

Here is the mentioned study scientifically examining the efficacy of intercessory prayer for healing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

Article on the arrogance of prayer
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201305/the-arrogance-prayer

Gibberish literally means nothing. It is defined as meaningless speech or writing that is nonsense. When using terms that have no understandable meaning or are perhaps contradictory you can’t impart a discernibly consistent message, it’s gibberish.

If your goal is to explain something, it must be done in terms that we can already understand in a way that is not ambiguous.

Example, is it even possible to believe the following explanation for gravity is true? Megolontiams engourge with plamorites to create an energy vacuum whenever they are exposed to tannerite, and since tannerite is timeless and spaceless by definition, their exposure must occur in a state of intense globularity which allows for gravity to come into existence through any spacial medium. Clearly this explanation gibberish. There is no way to determine if the statement is true because the terms used are undefined, or meaningless.

A quick rewrite to the following, a meaningless word interacts with another meaningless word, in a way that has no parallel in our current understanding, and therefore is an explanation for gravity, perfectly demonstrates the issue. Can you believe something you can’t understand? No. Perhaps the real question should be can you believe a claim regarding causation is true when the claim about the cause cannot be understood? Also no.

Terms that have no consistent definition or understanding such as spirit, higher power, or something being described as having scientifically impossible characteristics such as timeless and spaceless (a contradiction to Einstein’s well proven theory of relativity) have no real explanatory power.

With regard to the question “how did the universe come to exist?” Saying something like, “God did it with his power,” is functionally no different from god did it with magic, and neither explains HOW acts of creation are done.

Where scientific explanations seek to describe how the mechanisms of the world around us work, and to demonstrate how those mechanisms reliably lead to a given outcome, (Example a planet coalescing from preexisting matter as an act of creation) a genuine common understanding can be reached such that a reproducible conclusion can be achieved by anyone.

Religious or other supernatural explanations can’t be demonstrated or verified to be valid mechanisms and as their definitions are fluid and rarely agreed upon. And, we have no understanding as to how they actually work. They cannot be truly meaningful or informative. Explanations that can’t possibly be quantified, verified, or even consistent with what we know about reality are nothing more than a placeholder for something we can’t understand. Something that can’t be understood can’t be believed and people who claim they do understand that which is meaningless are literally pretending to understand gibberish.

If god exists and has a plan for me, in order to follow his plan (a series of steps to reach a preferred outcome) I must understand the list of steps to take. God cannot be speaking gibberish. Assuming he is all powerful, his plan cannot be something that can be interpreted multiple ways or even misinterpreted. If an all-powerful creator of the universe existed and wanted me to know his plan for me, it would be impossible for me not to understand it, if he had created me with the specific ability to understand it.

The very fact that I and many others either don’t think such a plan exists in reality, or at least claim that god’s mysterious ways are the reason they can’t understand, actually disproves the claim that there is an all-powerful creator god who wants us to know about his message for us. It is a contradiction, either GOD is all powerful, and therefore can communicate unambiguously, or he doesn’t really try to communicate at all in any really meaningful way to impart his most important message to us that we could ever receive, demonstrating he couldn’t possibly want us to receive his message.

It seems to me that every single person has their own “unique understanding” of God, demonstrating that he cannot really be understood collectively with agreed upon characteristics. How is it possible for an all-powerful god to miscommunicate a message about who he is to every person who ever thought he talked to them?

On the other hand, if God’s plan for any of us doesn’t require us to act in any particular way, for example if his plan doesn’t require us to act in accordance with his will, then he really doesn’t need to tell us his will or how we should act, no list of steps to follow are needed, and perhaps we can say “God has a plan but how we act will have no impact on it.” So, if nothing we can do changes gods plan for us, then there can be no consequences from God for how we act, feel, or believe.

In light of the above, it seems far more likely the actual perceived experiences with gods of every type and from every culture, are all human constructs with as many versions as there are people who can make up gibberish.

For those who argue it is possible to believe something we can’t understand and for many of us quantum theory is an example of that. I would point out that “can’t understand” is different from “don’t understand”. This speaks to the issue of whether something is knowable at all vs, I personally don’t know it, but with the proper education in the fundamentals I could learn to understand it.

If you accept the preceding argument is correct you now have a logical disproof of any god who is described as both all-powerful and wanting all of us to understand his message.

If you accept the above reasoned argument against the existence of this type of god, how does it force you to modify your belief in god?

This is a perfect place for a quote from John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President. “mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity”

For those who don’t know, the prefix “A” means without. Here are several examples to help demonstrate that point.

Abiotic – without any life
Antibiotic – against life
Prebiotic – before life
Moral – if something is moral, we generally consider it having a positive effect.
Immoral – if something is immoral, we generally consider it having a negative effect.
Amoral – it has no effect, or, is WITHOUT effect or relevance to morality.
Bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, no matter how you define these three, asexual is without sexuality.
Agnostic – without knowledge of
Gnostic – having knowledge of
Theism – having belief in god
Atheism – WITHOUT belief in god (lack of belief)
Antitheism – against belief in god

For the purpose of these discussions we must have an honest recognition of “hard atheism” as the assertion that there is no god. This position goes beyond simply not believing in god.

It is important to accept that vast majority of atheists fall into the category of simply not accepting the proposition of the traditional creator god existing as true or likely true, because they are unconvinced.

As a definition for atheism, without belief in god, is almost always the first or second definition found in any dictionary and as such is a valid use of the word.

Also, just because a person says “I am not an atheist,” that doesn’t make it true. What can also be true is that person chooses not to self-identify as an atheist, or perhaps they too have a misunderstanding of the word atheist.

Adding the prefix “a” means atheism is defined as “without a belief in a god or gods” is not the same as Anti-theism, not the same as making the positive claim that there are no gods. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in claims of existence of a god or gods. Using the court room analogy, someone can be found “not guilty” but that doesn’t mean we know he is innocent. the verdict only refers to whether the jury was convinced of guilt. You can be unconvinced of guilt and still not be certain of innocence. If god were on trial accused of existing, I would not find him guilty based on the evidence.

By not accepting the claim that “a god must exist” and instead adopting a default position of “we don’t know that a god exists,” we cannot say “we are convinced” that a god does exist, and we are by definition, atheists if we are not convinced to believe in god.

The burden of proof falls on those who make a claim to support it, not those who don’t believe the claim. Do you believe claims that bigfoot, fairies, the Loch Ness monster, or leprechauns really do exist? If your answer is no, then you are the equivalent of an atheist with regard to each of them. People who say if you don’t believe “then where is your proof?” are shifting the burden of proof away from those who make the claim in which you don’t believe.

The default position on accepting a claim like this (an extraordinary claim) is not to believe it until it is demonstrated to be true. If this were not the case, then as there is no evidence to prove they don’t exist, you would be required to believe these claims and many others, some of which may even be in direct conflict, as is the case when accepting all the different unfalsifiable god claims from various cultures and religions around the world.

You can’t just believe them all, which is why the logical default position is not to believe any claim until it is shown to be true.