I get that idea tossed at me occasionally, it is wrong of course. I don't believe in a clockwork deterministic Universe. I actually believe that the universe is an affirmation of contradiction.
So for you, an Atheist, to try to raise a moral consideration against God is itself contradictory. You have to presume what you deny in order for your complaint to even be intelligible.
Nah, just check out the Prisoners Dilemma. It explains the natural development of Morals and Fairness :)
Well, the problem, per Hume, is that you cannot even justify your remaining entrenched belief in induction to make any sense out of your experience and reasoning.
While induction can't necessarily be used to prove or predict it can be used to falsify. Induction does falsify your belief in an omniscient GOD.
If you have solved Hume's problem, please let me know, as you would be the first.
The future can't be predicted. That statement is a contradiction. Do you know how it applies to Hume's Problem? : )
So, your demand for fairness itself is the first evidence that God has provided evidence that is so pervasive that cannot be avoided by anyone, including you.
The Prisoners dilemma shows that that assertion isn't true. Therefore by induction, it is proof that your God doesn't exist.
Your challenge is not tough at all. You can't even get it off the ground without contradicting your own premises.
Ahh the premises that you claimed I have. That is called a straw-man argument and you should know that it isn't valid. In fact the straw-man argument is dishonest, but I am sure you would know more about that than me : )
I didn't say or presume that you believe in a clockwork deterministic universe. Whether the universe were one of chance or necessity is irrelevant to the inability of an Atheist to derive an imperative from the indicative; an "ought" from an "is". To expect fairness from brute concatenations of atoms is unintelligible. You might as well complain about the unfairness of the color red. Finally, your statement that you believe that the universe is an "affirmation of contradiction" (whatever that means) is just an unjustified statement of faith.
...the Prisoners Dilemma. It explains the natural development of Morals and Fairness :)
What you mean by morality and what I mean by it are two completely different things. The Prisoners Dilemma, no matter which iteration you choose, illustrates mere utilitarianism, nothing more. Just because people behave in a certain way does not mean that they ought to behave that way. Even if it were a full and accurate account of the past supposed natural development of Morals and Fairness (and it is not) it has nothing at all to say prescriptively about why one ought to be "good" in the future, thus it cannot account for any so-called morality that is not arbitrary, subjective, merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. Thus, it is no Morality worthy of the name.
While induction can't necessarily be used to prove or predict it can be used to falsify. Induction does falsify your belief in an omniscient GOD.
Let me see if I have this straight: You rely on a principle, induction, the truth of which you cannot test scientifically because you would have to assume the truth of induction to try and prove it; you accept the uniformity of nature on groundless faith and then you say that it "falsifies" a belief in an omniscient GOD? How so? It is on the atheist worldview that there is no basis to assume the uniformity of nature. A deductive argument as such leads only from one spot in the universe to another spot in the universe, and thus your inductive argument as such can never lead beyond the universe. In either case you have nothing more than an infinite regression, which is a logical fallacy.
Ahh the premises that you claimed I have. That is called a straw-man argument and you should know that it isn't valid. In fact the straw-man argument is dishonest, but I am sure you would know more about that than me : )
Did you stop being an Atheist at some point after my last post and before you wrote this? If so I must have missed it. It is a dishonest straw -man argument for me to presume that a self-proclaimed Atheist is still operating on Atheist premises from one post to the next? Are you not still operating on Atheist premises? Dude, put down whatever that is you're smoking and step away from the keyboard!
Cordially,