God Exists And Is Both Omnipotent And Omnibenevolent
Debate Rounds (4)
*You are Pro; you will be arguing for the resolution*
God exists, and is both omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good).
Burden of Proof
Pro has the burden of proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that:
1. god exists
2. god is omnipotent
3. god is omnibenevolent
Con has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro's claims.
Definitions (from Google definitions)
god - (in theology) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
exist - have objective reality or being
omnipotent - having unlimited power; able to do anything
omnibenevolent - having unlimited or infinite benevolence
benevolence (from dictionary.com) - desire to do good to others
*There are no rounds, so there are no round rules; THERE IS NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND; just start debating as you wish.
*Definitions are agreed on by posting your fist argument.
*Definitions can be changed however, in the comments section, before posting the first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.
Thank you Con (MagicAintReal) for bringing an important subject to the debating floor.
My view on God is unorthodox, however, it will work within the context of your definitions defined here in Round 1.
To me God is the “supreme” and “omnipotent” order, or the “creator and ruler of the universe” via the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God. Following God's handwriting, both animate and inanimate, results in “omnibenevolent” behavior in the course of progressive evolution via the physical Constructal Law (one of God's handwritings).
As for being the “source of all moral authority” is also part of the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God. Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, where these Rights are the animate manifestation of the Constructal Law.
Morality and code of conduct are two different manifestations of the same concept. That is, the objective of morality is the genesis and the evolution of a code of conduct in group formation; while following a code of conduct, one is generally perceived to be moral in preserving the life of the group. The first paragraph in Stanford University's definition covers a “universal morality.”
Stanford's reference of a “universal morality” relative to non-human animals clearly reflects the Constructal Law in harmonious (going with the flow) behavior through the interface of life's Unalienable Rights, embraces mutual positive feedback promoting unity, survival, order, and harmony with the objective in group formation. The objective nature of morality is simply group formation as in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, including tribes of humans, and so on. Inter-specie relationships, in forming a group, can also exist, such as those between humans and their pets. Most morally treat their pets very well, some, better than humans.
In summary, morality, being part of the Laws of Nature, is simply the fingerprint of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting.
In closing, God (the order of the universe) exist and is both Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent.
Well, though slightly confusing, I think I understand the main points of Pro's argument...feel free, Pro, to correct me if I misrepresent your stance in any way.
That order itself, which Pro asserts is omnipotent and supreme, is also the creator of the universe.
How did supremely omnipotent order itself create the universe?
That's what Pro likes to call the laws of nature.
From the handwriting, comes the Constructal law, which is manifested as unalienable rights, which are also animated.
From animated unalienable rights, comes morality.
Morality and code of conduct share the same origin, which is group formation.
To sum up Pro's arguments:
God = order
handwriting = laws of nature
life's "animate" unalienable rights = Constructal law
code of conduct in group formation = objective morality
Yeah, I might be over analytical, but this is an argument from verbosity (intimidation). Even breaking it down results in over complication.
Argument from verbosity is making an argument purposely difficult to understand in an attempt to intimidate your audience into accepting it.
Well, I'm neither intimidated nor accepting Pro's argument.
Also Pro relies heavily on reification.
Pro takes abstract ideas like "unalienable rights" and treats them as concrete "animate" items.
Pro also takes a concept, like order, and claims it is an agent in the creation of the universe without providing any explanation as to how order managed to create the universe.
Pro needs to demonstrate HOW order created the universe to successfully demonstrate that order is god.
So what if order is found in the universe? This does not explain the universe's creation.
I also argue that before there was time, creation is not possible, because creation requires time to happen.
So the temporal concept, creating/creation, is not possible before the expression of matter/energy and space/time (the big bang) from quantum fluctuations.
Therefore our universe was not created, rather it was expressed.
Pro now has to show, without time, how order managed to create the universe.
Pro has to demonstrate that this god, order, is omnibenevolent.
If this god created the entire universe, why are there things in the universe that aren't benevolent?
If we're to buy the idea that because order is found in natural laws, thus the creator of the laws is order itself (refication), then we must also buy the idea that because there is immorality found in the universe, then the creator of the universe is immorality itself.
This actually points to an omnimalevolent god.
I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca.
Thank you Con for your reply, however, I can't find the term “Chewbacca” in Dictionary.com. I hope you are not expressing a form of “intimidation.”
My God is the order of the universe, order exists in the universe; therefore, my God exist.
Con stated, “So the temporal concept, creating/creation, is not possible before the expression of matter/energy and space/time (the big bang) from quantum fluctuations. Therefore our universe was not created, rather it was expressed.”
Thank you Con for the enlightenment of your belief in the origin of the “big bang.” There are many competing theories of what caused the “big bang,” and I regret to say the science of metrology is not yet mature enough to that level of empirical investigation.
If the order of the universe (God) was “expressed” via the “big bang,” then God (the order of the universe) via the Constructal Law (the handwriting of God) deals with flow starting from the “big bang”, to create stars, to the elements in the Periodic Table made from those stars, to DNA made from those elements, to living systems made from DNA, to life's Unalienable Rights interacting with those living systems and physical nature, to “spontaneous order” and the “invisible hand” from those interactions, to market systems from “invisible hand” creating technology etc; hence, Debate.org, to Natural Law from “spontaneous order”, finally ending at Natural Law forming the foundation to the flow of political-philosophies creating man-made laws.
On the other hand, after the “big bang” if the order of the universe (God) was not “expressed,” we would not have a “creator” of those stars, resulting in a null universe, or a universe at all.
I hope the above two paragraphs also satisfies Con's comment, “Pro also takes a concept, like order, and claims it is an agent in the creation of the universe without providing any explanation as to how order managed to create the universe.”
It would seem Con is having issues with the “self-evident” nature of Unalienable Rights by his following statement, “Pro takes abstract ideas like "unalienable rights" and treats them as concrete "animate" items.”
The relationship or manifestation of Unalienable Rights being an animate representation of the Constructal Law is elementary. Unalienable Rights---“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”---corresponds to the three primitives found in all living systems down to the single-cell level. To exemplify, once an organism comes to (1) “Life,” it has the (2) “Liberty” to (3) pursue survival; otherwise, there is no life. Underlying “the pursuit of” survival is the notion that most accomplished objectives result in some form of chemical/electrical positive feedback or “Happiness” for humans.
The Constructal Law:
“For a finite-size flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve freely in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it.”
Symmetry between the Constructal Law and Unalienable Rights:
For a finite-size flow system to persist in time (to live) [“Life”], its configuration must evolve freely [“Liberty”] in such a way that provides easier access [“the pursuit of”] to the currents that flow through it [positive feedback for all life, or “Happiness” for us humans].
Please see the following book-trailer for an overview: https://www.youtube.com...
Con stated, “If this god created the entire universe, why are there things in the universe that aren't benevolent?”
The term “benevolent” is simply relative. May I ask the question; do you [Con] think your existence, from this universal order (God), was not a “benevolent” event?
Morality (the fingerprint of God) by nature is “Omnibenevolent” and the outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights. If Con is having issues with Morality being part of the physical Laws of Nature (God's handwriting), it would be my pleasure to elaborate in the next round.
In closing, God (the order of the universe) exist and is both Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent.
Time to refute...
Despite my provided link to the Chewbacca defense, a red herring style of arguing by using word choice/order to confound rather than persuade, Pro says:
" I can't find the term "Chewbacca" in Dictionary.com. I hope you are not expressing a form of "intimidation."
Let's make something clear.
I'm not just "expressing" that Pro is using proof by verbosity (also called intimidation).
Pro is deliberately attempting to confound readers by using irregular word choice/order instead of attempting to make clear and valid points. There, I said it.
"Thank you Con for the enlightenment of your belief in the origin of the "big bang"...the science of metrology is not yet mature enough to that level of empirical investigation."
It's not just my belief. The cosmic microwave background radiation proves there was a hot dense state (big bang) from quantum fluctuations.
Metrology is just the standardization of scientific, technological, and legal measurements and the study thereof.
Metrology's maturity has nothing to do with whether or not the big bang was expressed from quantum fluctuations.
Check the evidence yourself, irrespective of the maturity of metrology.
Pro then concedes the debate:
"If the order of the universe (God) was "expressed" via the "big bang," then God...deals with flow starting from the "big bang", to create stars..."
The agreed definitions clearly state:
god - the creator of the universe
Pro admits that his "god" didn't create the universe, and instead "god" is a result of the universe.
Therefore, Pro's "god" is not the creator of the universe.
Pro explains that "god" only interacts starting from the big bang.
Therefore, Pro's "god" does not have the power to interact without the big bang, thus Pro's god is not omnipotent.
Also, thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, order (Pro's god) cannot remain.
So if god is order, god doesn't have the power to remain infinitely because entropy (thermodynamic disorder) will always remain the same or increase in all closed systems.
So it seems entropy is more powerful than order (god).
"If the order of the universe (God) was not "expressed," we would not have a "creator" of those stars, resulting in a null universe, or a universe at all. "
A universe is space + matter. Stars are not a requirement for a universe.
Also, stars are not created from order, they are created by the coalescence of matter due to gravity, and gravity can lead to much disorder.
"Unalienable Rights---"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"---corresponds to the three primitives found in all living systems"
You know what else corresponds to all living systems?
Death - all living things die.
Restriction - all living things have evolutionary constraints.
Decay - all living things decay and eventually decompose.
So despite Pro's infatuation with our founding fathers, the USA's unalienable rights do not correspond to all living systems, especially in those systems with lots of death, restrictions, and decay.
Pro then asks a loaded question:
"Do you [Con] think your existence, from this universal order (God), was not a "benevolent" event?"
I don't think my existence is from "this universal order" and I think my existence is less of an event and more of a stative being.
I might regard my life as benevolent, but perhaps the millions of bacteria I'm mercilessly killing every day might have a different take on it...I don't know, it certainly has nothing to do with whether or not order itself is omnibenevolent.
Pro admits his god didn't create the universe, so his god is not god per this debate.
Pro continues to use proof by verbosity to confound readers rather than persuade them.
Pro claims that order was expressed from the big bang, leaving his god, order, powerless without the big bang.
Entropy ALWAYS remains the same or increases in all closed systems...disorder is more powerful than order.
Thank you Con for your response.
I regret you find my “proof by verbosity (also called intimidation).” I do not mean to “intimidate.” I try to maintain a moral conduct in my debates.
In any event, again, God is the order of the universe, order exists in the universe; therefore, my God exist.
In Con's definitions in Round 1, there are no restrictions on the creation or death of God. According to Con the event of the “big bang” is the beginning of the universe. The universe cannot exist without order, which is God, and the handwriting of God are the Laws of Nature; hence, the order of the universe. That is my definition of God.
The “big bang” via some “quantum fluctuations” is just an event that solves the dilemma, who created God. If the “big bang” event resulted in order maintaining those “universal constants” a prerequisite for the Laws of Nature; hence, God. Otherwise, let there be another “quantum fluctuation” event, ad infinitum, until the genesis of order, aka, God.
Con stated, “Metrology's maturity has nothing to do with whether or not the big bang was expressed from quantum fluctuations.”
I would like to remind Con metrology is the cornerstone of the scientific method. One cannot obtain empirical data without metrology. Metrology in measuring “cosmic microwaves” is not an issue; however, dealing with the Heisenberg principle making measurements at the quantum level is very difficult. Therefore, in reference to the “big bang” any “quantum fluctuations” is simply theoretical via indirect metrology via “cosmic microwaves.”
What are those “quantum fluctuations” are they measurable or just theory? Can Con elaborate on the “uncertainty principle” when measuring at the “quantum” level? Relative to my definition of God, being the order of the universe, perhaps, there are many Gods when one address those theories over “Parallel Universes.”
Too bad the science of metrology is not mature enough to obtain empirical data from any of those “Parallel Universes” to verify competing theories. One day, we may develop metrology that obtains repeatable observation scientifically verifying those theories, then we discovered order and therefore, God transcends any of those universes. Oh we humans have so much to learn, yet many are so arrogant over what little we have learned.
Con pointed out some of God's handwriting, “microwaves,” “law of thermodynamics,” “gravity,” etc., all the Laws of Nature that man has yet observed is my understanding of God, the order of the universe. Without “gravity” not one star could form to create life. Therefore, “gravity” is part of my God and “gravity” is “Omnipotent.”
Con made reference to one of God's handwritings dealing with “entropy” via the “2nd law of thermodynamics.” Not to “intimidate” the readers of this debate, to simplify, the “2nd law” deals with the direction of energy flow. That is, heat moves from high temperature to a lower temperature, gas moves from a high pressure to a lower pressure, electricity flows from high resistance to lower resistance. The amazing thing about energy flow via the “2nd law” are the patterns that it generates. For example, a lightning bolt discharging in the atmosphere takes the shape of a treelike structure.
Trees are found throughout nature created by the freedom of energy flow, avoiding resistance, morphing into new configurations to improve flow; hence, evolution. Since us humans are a product of evolution, God's handwriting, it is interesting to see our general habits also generate treelike patterns, as in, the structure of our road/highway systems, electrical grids, hierarchy of the internet, etc. We have the tendency to the take the path of least resistance. Population migration also has the tendency to flow from the high resistance of tyranny to the low resistance found in freedom, etc. Even the metaphysical concept of “Natural Law” has its origins from this energy flow: http://www.dogma.lu...
In summary, “entropy” creates physical order, life, and governs evolution in biology, physics, technology, and social organization, via the Constructal Law.
I thank Con for pointing out that life implies “Death” and “Decay.” I thought I made it clear that Unalienable Rights---the animate derivative of the Constructal Law---only applies to living systems.
I failed to see why Con can't accept my understanding of God, and the proof of God is simply the order (aka the Laws of Nature) that we empirically observe, and understand, via the scientific method.
Perhaps, Con is obsessed with man's written scriptures about God, of which I do not subscribe to, but I do morally respect, and not criticize, the diversity of those of faith. If that is the case, Con being obsessed with such scriptures, he should have put that restriction in Round 1. Since Con place this debate in the “Science” category, I took the opportunity to share with Con, and those reading this debate, my perception of God through the prism of science, a field I been blessed with many opportunities throughout my career.
In closing, God (the order of the universe) exist and is both Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent.
Ok, now that was a coherent argument...thank you Pro.
So Pro is claiming that the order of the universe is god, and that this order is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Plus, Pro is claiming that the laws of the universe are also god, and I assume that they are somehow omnipotent and omnibenevolent as well.
"In Con's definitions in Round 1, there are no restrictions on the creation or death of God."
Yeah, I know.
However, we're not arguing the creation or death of god, rather we are arguing whether or not your god qualifies under the mutually agreed definitions of a god in this debate.
In this debate, by definition, god is the creator of the universe.
So if your god was created after the universe, then your god did not fulfill the qualifications for god in this debate.
If Pro did not like the definitions of the debate, Pro had the opportunity to change the definitions, before the debate, in the comments section, and did not.
God, in this debate, is the creator of the universe, and if Pro has already said that Pro's god did not create the universe, then we're no longer talking about god in this debate.
"The big bang event resulted in order."
If order is the result, then order is not the creator.
"What are those "quantum fluctuations" are they measurable or just theory?"
When you remove matter/energy/radiation/wavelengths/atoms/particles with a vacuum, you're left with nothing, but the empty space still has a ubiquitous faint physical field...still nothing.
The field is made of quantum fluctuations.
To me, quantum fluctuations are what nothing is. This nothing state is unstable, so the expression of energy is inevitable.
Quantum fluctuations are sub-nuclear incomplete particles and antiparticles that pop into existence and are simultaneously annihilated by each other. The forces between these particles fluctuate in and out of existence alongside the sub-nuclear particles.
Also, the WMAP, which is a spacecraft with a probe that measures the microwave background radiation, has given us detailed radio images of quantum fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation (the proof of the big bang).
The images show small thermal variations in the otherwise uniform microwave background radiation.
These variations have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, expressed from quantum fluctuations, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today.
The current model of the big bang shows order of stars, Pro's example of god's work, about 400 million years after the big bang. Prior to that, particles had gone through annihilation, extreme temperatures, unstable fluctuations, and rapid inflation, which all indicate disorder, or entropy.
If Pro wishes to use the "prism of science" to relabel understood natural laws as "god" then Pro needs to account for all of the disorder in the universe from beginning to now. Disorder, entropy, is the negation of Pro's god.
Pro also needs to deal with the fact that entropy means disorder in thermal systems.
One of the "parts" of Pro's god is scientific laws.
Well, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is quite clear.
The disorder, entropy, of all closed systems will remain the same or increase ALWAYS.
Therefore order is not as powerful as disorder thanks to the second law of thermodynamics.
Order is not omnipotent.
"Can Con elaborate on the "uncertainty principle" when measuring at the "quantum" level?"
The uncertainty principle is:
That the certainty of a particle's position is reduced when you determine the particle's movement.
Also, the converse is true, the certainty of a particle's movement is reduced when you determine the particle's position.
So, by measuring how a particle moves, we sacrifice our knowledge of its position.
Imagine we had a large sealed box and we sent photons (light particles) in some direction inside of the box.
In this large box, there is substantial space to determine a photon's movement, but determining its position is less certain.
Now imagine we had a much smaller sealed box and we sent photons in some direction inside of the box.
In this much smaller box, there is less space to determine a photon's movement, but determining its position is more certain.
Measuring this principle on the quantum level requires a patterned silicon nanobeam that supports both localized mechanical and optical resonances. By using this device, we can detect the quantum nature of a photon's position fluctuations.
So it would seem that a nanobeam is an example of metrology's maturity with respect to measuring quantum fluctuations.
Pro assumes some more:
"Without “gravity” not one star could form to create life. Therefore, “gravity” is part of my God and “gravity” is omnipotent.”
Without gravity, not one star could be destroyed to create disorder.
Gravity is not omnipotent.
Watch a man made space ship exit earth's gravity. How can that be? Gravity is omnipotent!
Nope, the thrust created by the rocket ship is more powerful than earth's gravity.
Also, take a magnet and hang something on your fridge..how is it that the object can resist the omnipotent gravity of earth?
Because magnetism is more powerful than earth's gravity...but I'm sure Pro will claim that magnetism too is his god and is omnipotent.
Pro fails to realize that by calling laws of nature omnipotent is a contradiction.
Laws of nature allow for more and less powerful things, so, as a whole, laws themselves cannot be omnipotent.
I apologize for this debate being in the science category...it was originally a debate about the universe's origins, and so I put it in the science category, but the person for whom the debate was designed declined my debate request.
So I edited the old debate, and made the resolution a little more interesting and...I forgot to change the category.
We have measurable evidence that the universe began from quantum fluctuations at the big bang, and Pro has claimed that his god came into existence way after that, so his god is not the creator of the universe per the definitions of this debate...Pro's god is not god in this debate.
Also, in quantum fluctuations, before matter + gravity were expressed, there were no laws. Instead the laws themselves fluctuate in and out of quantum fluctuations, and aren't actually laws until the universe exists.
So laws do not precede the universe. Sorry Pro's god.
Pro's god is order in the universe, and, thanks to entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (one of Pro's gods), all closed systems (any star without an external source of energy, like our sun) in the universe will eventually end in disorder.
Order is therefore not omnipotent because disorder is much more powerful. Also magnetism is more powerful than earth's gravity.
Omnibenevolence means that something is INFINITELY good/moral.
Infinite morality/goodness has not been demonstrated by Pro's god, especially since lots of natural order leads to death, suffering, and extinct species.
I reject the claim that Pro's god exists, is omnipotent, and is omnibenevolent...not a creator, not all powerful, not all good.
Thank you Con for that “coherent” compliment.
We all have our own philosophy as a function of life's experiences. However, science has a double edge sword, often challenging one's philosophy.
For example, the historical event of the church imprisonment of those who discovered the Earth was no longer the center of the universe.
On that note, and in my own experience, I have come to realize that one's metaphysical reality is only subject to a personal dialectic that embraces a philosophical belief in one's human existence. In general, metaphysics is a philosophical response relative to the subtle machinery of nature, until the scientific method presents the incarnation of clarity.
The incarnation of clarity may be a "hard pill" to swallow; relative to one's philosophy. And I too have been subject to that “hard pill” and is commonly known as the “bleeding edge” of research.
But I digress. At the beginning of this debate, I stated my view on God is unorthodox. That is, god or God (GOD) is actually an acronym for Galactic Order Deterministic and not spiritual, where the number of physical laws may be Galactic in size, representing the Order of the universe, and they are Deterministic.
Getting back to your reply, thanks for answering my metrology questions (Aashish Clerk's research, etc.), demonstrating my point about evolution of metrology being very important to science compared to your implied view in Round 3, when Con stated, “Metrology is just the standardization of scientific, technological, and legal measurements and the study thereof.”
You missed my point about, no God, no creation. The “big bang” is just “quantum fluctuation” noise, only when God emerges from that noise, comes creation; otherwise, no universe. Again, Con did not define the creation or death of God, therefore, God is just a “quantum fluctuation”; and thereafter, the “big bang.”
Con stated, “Disorder, entropy, is the negation of Pro's god.” Quite the contrary, order from "entropy" (aka, life) via the Constructal Law is the hand of God. Without God, no “thermodynamics” no “entropy.”
As for Con's “space ship” example, “gravity” is still there and “omnipotent.” We humans used God's handwriting to put us into orbit. Without “gravity,” no orbit. “Gravity” is part of the fabric of the space time continuum, and therefore, part of us.
You will find GOD (aka God, aka god, for this debate) fits all your definitions in Round 1.
“god - (in theology) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.” GOD is the creator, ruler, and moral authority and all is deterministic via those references I supplied in the previous rounds. Where “theology” is the study of God, in my case, it is the study of GOD. As for “supreme being,” the term “being” refers to existence and therefore, GOD is the “supreme” existence of those Galactic Laws of Nature, defining the Order throughout the universe and they are Deterministic.
“exist - have objective reality or being.” GOD being the matrix of the Laws of Nature maintains “objective reality.”
“omnipotent - having unlimited power; able to do anything.” Both animate and inanimate are confined within GOD's matrix, aka, those Laws of Nature; there are no exceptions. Once we understand all the Laws in Nature (GOD), humans may also be “able to do anything” and eradicate Con's lament over “...lots of natural order leads to death, suffering, and extinct species.” On second thought, “extinction of species” may be a good thing, otherwise, the dinosaurs could have domesticated humans for dinner. As for “unlimited power” we are just learning about “Dark Matter or Dark Energy,” and the energy from all those “Parallel Universes,” while universes are popping up from “quantum fluctuations” via GOD, when will it ever end?
“omnibenevolent - having unlimited or infinite benevolence.” Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights---the animate derivative of the Constructal Law, where the Constructal Law is an outgrowth of the “law of thermodynamics”; hence, the moral fingerprint of GOD (see above references). A benevolent event (a function of morality) may be one of the creation of a living organism knowing its own existence---a way for nature to see and experience itself, for example, we humans; as Con stated in Round 3 “I might regard my life as benevolent...” In addition, the “benevolent” evolution of sentient life throughout the universe and time. In my opinion, the answer is one of “infinite benevolence” due to those “Parallel Universes,” while universes are popping up from “quantum fluctuations” via GOD, again, when will it ever end?
As stated in Round 1: the Burden of Proof (BoF)
1. god exists (Galactic Order Deterministic, aka, the Laws of Nature).
2. god is omnipotent (Unlimited power and ability to do anything through GOD).
3. god is omnibenevolent (Benevolent a function of morality. Morality an outgrowth of GOD).
From BoF, GOD exists relative to Round 1's definitions.
God [the order of the universe] exists and is both Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent
One may ask, why take this debate when Pro and Con are dancing to the music of science. I see so many debates between the faithful and the faithless, going nowhere. I could only hope to expand the spectrum of ideas, stimulating interest in different views about the subtle machinery of nature relative to one's belief, sweetening that bitter “hard pill” to swallow. Today's, tensions over faith, is making the Dark Ages look like a picnic, or is it the decline in morality using faith as a tool to the means of some end.
The PBS series, “The Power of Myth” (Joseph Campbell), an interesting topic covering evolution of belief throughout the ages.
In Round 1 I pointed to morality being the agent in “code of conduct” evolution during group formation; while following a “code of conduct,” one is moral preserving the life of the group (aka, a civil society, “benevolence”).
A “code of conduct” is the foundation to cultural norms as in traditions, values, beliefs, economics, and language, etc. From Campbell's series, throughout the ages, not one culture was found to be atheistic, yet many, not all, belief systems went through “reformations,” aka evolution.
The common thread throughout all faiths is one being the Divine created the universe and everything in it; the subtle point being, that includes the Laws of Nature (aka, GOD's handwriting). I find having a constructive dialog with one of faith, pondering the concept of which is more accurate, the handwriting of God, or the handwriting of man about God, simply planting seeds nudging evolution.
We know man is fallible, prudent caution is served when studying man's written scriptures about the Divine. One may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (72 virgins killing infidels, etc.).
On the other hand, when we read God's handwriting, via the scientific method, and morally following said handwriting like a “code of conduct,” results in the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence lifting the tide of the standard of living throughout the world. A compelling empirical example when our Unalienable Rights are free to morally operate within the awesome machinery of God's nature, a sign of “benevolence.” In our modern day, we need to speed up, constructively and carefully, the next “baby step” in the evolution, or “reformation,” of those of faith; for the Laws of Nature is the handwriting of God, a simple concept for all those of faith, and the scientific method is a way to decipher God's handwriting.
I hope Con will take a second look, over the latest research of the Constructal Law, life's Unalienable Rights, and the objective basis of morality as seen through the prism of science. From that background, such debates may become more constructive. Those who are interested should also step outside the traditional metaphysical box, as I did with this debate, and join the discussion over the universal presence of this latest science throughout the symphony of life. We may develop a deeper understanding of social, economic, technological evolution, opening many new doors, by shifting our focus from metaphysical speculation to physical science, where empirical observations exist supporting morality being the fingerprint of GOD.
To help improve the civil society, stressing “benevolence,” perhaps, one day morality will be a subject of study in a physics science class; a new door to open and explore, enhancing the career of any teacher who takes the lead on such task.
According to Con's profile, he is a “teacher.” Perhaps, a “white paper” is in order.
And in the end, the God of the faithful and the GOD of the faithless, may be two different manifestations of the same entity. We do have a lot to learn about GOD.
And in closing, I wish Con and his students, a long, healthy and prosperous “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral “pursuit of Happiness.”
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.