Hey guys, sorry I have been a little slow with responses. I am busy these days, and most of them have been typed out on call when things are slow.
I am getting the impression that people are merely reading my most recent post, and commenting as if that was all the argument that I had made thus far, and are understandably frustrated lol! For argument's sake, let me briefly summarize and copy and paste some where we have been in this thread in the form of the syllogism I mentioned above:
1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists
3. Therefore, God exists
1. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will exist
We are moral beings. Is anyone here going to honestly argue that rape, racisim, or cruel, gratuitous torture is not objectively wrong? Not just unpleasant but actually something that ought not be done? Michael Ruse has said, The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5. People who deny objective moral values demonstrate a strong sign of intellectual dishonesty, as these people go through their days making all sorts of moral judgments (that resident getting three less calls then me is unfair, or that drunk guy I have to take care of who beat up his wife is a bad dude). Real moral judgments, both big and small.
Similarly, there cannot be moral obligations or decisions in the absence of free will, this goes without saying and is accepted by philosophers. The materialistic view of the world, which sees personhood as non-real (i.e. we are merely arrangements of atoms with no trans-material significance), but again, moral values and obligations require real persons. And all of us who are intellectually honest would argue that a person should be treated with much more due care and respect then, say, a rock. And that humans have moral obligations then, for instance, apes.
2. Objective moral values, real persons, and free will can only exist if God exists
On the materialistic view of the universe, there is no morality. Everything is just matter and energy. You are made out of the same stuff as rocks or slime or dogs. There is no such thing as inherit worth or dignity or personality. Persons do not exists. Only transient conglomerations and arangments of carbon atoms, electrons, etc...of which you happen to be one. And yet, we are not just this, which is why this is not a coherent view of the universe.
Richard Taylor, the non-Christian American philosopher has said, The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God."
R. Z. Friedman (Philosopher, University of Toronto) Without religion the coherence of an ethic of compassion cannot be established. The principle of respect for persons and the principle of the survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive.
The famous Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."
Further, on materialism, there is no free will. If you are only matter, energy, and physical forces are the only real forces...what part of you actually chooses anything? And if you cannot choose anything, this again, as mentioned above undermines morality. Better not ever express your desire that any criminal be convicted, no matter how egregious the crime...because they didnt choose to do it anyway!
Not only that, but materialism undermines rationality. If after all, what you call your thoughts is simply electrochemical activity controlled only by physical forces, acting on the matter which consitutites your brain...rationality is an illusion. You cannot even actually choose to accept or reject a simple logical premise, as you cannot choose anything. How can a theory of the universe be true, if the theory itself undermines rationality!
In short, many thinkers, both atheist, and theist argue that without God, objective moral values cannot exist.
3. Therefore, God exists
3 follows necessarily from 1 and 2.
And a note to PGG....you have misunderstood the argument. I did not argue that 2 follows from 1. I argued that 1 is true, and then I argued that 2 is true (both with independent lines of supporting evidence)...and I then noted that 3 necessarily follows.
If anyone is going to respond to this post, please make it a point to familiarize yourself, at least briefly with the other posts I made thus far in this thread...as it is to no one's benefit to continue raising objections that have already been raised and for me to answer them that have already been answered ad naseum.
I like to challenge you guys because there are some good thinkers on here. Do you have the guts to face up to the conclusions of these arguments, to follow the evidence where it lead no matter what? Can you be evidenced based not just in your medicine, but also in the areas that count most?