Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:35 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:01 pm Apparently, if there were no God, then IC wouldn't make any effort to behave morally in any way.

I'm afraid that might well be true, Gary. I'm not a special kind of man: if I genuinely believed there were no God, then I think the obvious logic of that position would drive me toward being quite amoral and strategic, rather than moral. If you look for special goodness in me, you will not find it.

But by the grace of God, I know He exists. And for me, this changes everything. As it should for you, too. Logic compels it.

@ IC: I seem to recall you've argued before that if there were no God, then everything would be perfectly random and there would be no order at all in the universe.

On the contrary, what I have said is that there would be no universe at all. And we wouldn't be here to debate it.

However, Atheism, Naturalism, Physicalism and other such Atheism-grounding beliefs require us to believe just that: that the universe, and all the order it exhibits, were produced by nothing but randomness, and yet that you and I are still impossibly here, somehow. And yes, I would agree with you that that's a risible belief, and contrary to all the evidence of our eyes. But you'll find it's common enough in the West, especially among those who are disposed to reject God.

Atheism isn't just morally vaccuous, you know: it's also empirically, scientifically absurd. Look around you: do you see what looks the the mere products of randomness? Even on a superficial glance, does that appear to you to be a belief a sensible person could hold?

"On the contrary" he says, then affirms the exact point I was making about his view of reality. Like a said. You believe that only randomness can or ever could exist without a God. Maybe or maybe not. I don't know. Apparently, you do.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:35 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:01 pm Apparently, if there were no God, then IC wouldn't make any effort to behave morally in any way.

I'm afraid that might well be true, Gary. I'm not a special kind of man: if I genuinely believed there were no God, then I think the obvious logic of that position would drive me toward being quite amoral and strategic, rather than moral. If you look for special goodness in me, you will not find it.

But by the grace of God, I know He exists. And for me, this changes everything. As it should for you, too. Logic compels it.

@ IC: I seem to recall you've argued before that if there were no God, then everything would be perfectly random and there would be no order at all in the universe.

On the contrary, what I have said is that there would be no universe at all. And we wouldn't be here to debate it.

However, Atheism, Naturalism, Physicalism and other such Atheism-grounding beliefs require us to believe just that: that the universe, and all the order it exhibits, were produced by nothing but randomness, and yet that you and I are still impossibly here, somehow. And yes, I would agree with you that that's a risible belief, and contrary to all the evidence of our eyes. But you'll find it's common enough in the West, especially among those who are disposed to reject God.

Atheism isn't just morally vaccuous, you know: it's also empirically, scientifically absurd. Look around you: do you see what looks the the mere products of randomness? Even on a superficial glance, does that appear to you to be a belief a sensible person could hold?

"On the contrary" he says, then affirms the exact point I was making about his view of reality. Like a said. You believe that only randomness can or ever could exist without a God. Maybe or maybe not. I don't know. Apparently, you do.

Randomness doesn't "exist," Gary. That's misleading language. Randomness is a dynamic, not an object. That is, it's a quality attributed TO things, that is, not a thing-in-itself. That's why you can't show anybody "a random." But you can show a random sequence of things, as at a casino.

And that's the quality Atheism attributes to the universe. It's supposed to be like a cosmic casino, in that all the so-called "laws" and regularities in it are merely expressions of randomness. But look around you: is that how it looks to you?

(Well, it's actually a step more absurd than a cosmic casino. In a casino, objects already exist, producing random sequences of numbers. But in the Atheists' supposed cosmos, their casino, the objects themselves, the machines and numbers, are supposed to be produced by randomness, and then all the processes, dynamics and relations within them are also supposed to be products of randomness...including all the objects and all the physical laws and regularities. That's way more absurd.)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:03 pm And that's the quality Atheism attributes to the universe.

A person can be an atheist and not believe that the universe isn't entirely random.

Oh wait, that wouldn't be condemning of all atheists. Sorry, what I meant to say is that all atheists are heretical scum. Hope the watered down version helps.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:03 pm And that's the quality Atheism attributes to the universe.

A person can be an atheist and not believe that the universe isn't entirely random.

Explain how.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:21 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:03 pm And that's the quality Atheism attributes to the universe.

A person can be an atheist and not believe that the universe isn't entirely random.

Explain how.

By observing order and assuming there is no God. The same way you observe order and assume that there must be a God. That's what speculation is. Unquestioned belief in something ultimately unverifiable. Can you explain why a universe without a God must necessarily be random? What would you appeal to, physics? Logic? None of those things can tell you if there is a God or not.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:21 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:12 pm

A person can be an atheist and not believe that the universe isn't entirely random.

Explain how.

By observing order and assuming there is no God.

Oh. So here's the argument: Atheists can see order, but they don't believe in God. Therefore, there is order, but no God.

Sorry, but that's about the dumbest argument ever. Instead of letting the evidence we see point to the most probable conclusion, we're supposed to deny what the evidence shows, in order to sustain the implausible belief that the universe is all random, just so we can get belief in God out of the universe?

That's about as anti-scientific and anti-logical an argument as one can make. You're arguing starting from an assumed conclusion, upstream against the data.

Can you explain why a universe without a God must necessarily be random?

Because there are logically only two possibilities: one, that the universe is the product of some intention or plan, and two, that it is the product of accident and randomness. The reason an Atheist cannot accept the first is because if there's a plan or intention behind the universe, it opens the door to Creation explanations. In fact, it requires some sort of Intender, some sort of intelligence behind the universe. And the Atheist cannot stand for that to happen.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:44 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:21 pm
Explain how.

By observing order and assuming there is no God.

Oh. So here's the argument: Atheists can see order, but they don't believe in God. Therefore, there is order, but no God.

Sorry, but that's about the dumbest argument ever. Instead of letting the evidence we see point to the most probable conclusion, we're supposed to deny what the evidence shows, in order to sustain the implausible belief that the universe is all random, just so we can get belief in God out of the universe?

That's about as anti-scientific and anti-logical an argument as one can make. You're arguing starting from an assumed conclusion, upstream against the data.

Can you explain why a universe without a God must necessarily be random?

Because there are logically only two possibilities: one, that the universe is the product of some intention or plan, and two, that it is the product of accident and randomness.

Fair enough. You win. There's a God and he disfavors gays, heathens, heretics, atheists and Amalekites.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 4:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:44 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:30 pm

By observing order and assuming there is no God.

Oh. So here's the argument: Atheists can see order, but they don't believe in God. Therefore, there is order, but no God.

Sorry, but that's about the dumbest argument ever. Instead of letting the evidence we see point to the most probable conclusion, we're supposed to deny what the evidence shows, in order to sustain the implausible belief that the universe is all random, just so we can get belief in God out of the universe?

That's about as anti-scientific and anti-logical an argument as one can make. You're arguing starting from an assumed conclusion, upstream against the data.

Can you explain why a universe without a God must necessarily be random?

Because there are logically only two possibilities: one, that the universe is the product of some intention or plan, and two, that it is the product of accident and randomness.

Fair enough. You win. There's a God and he disfavors gays, heathens, heretics, atheists and Amalekites.

Gary, if you're not going to follow a line of logic, and stick with a question, you're wasting my time...and yours. And though you could arrive at a sensible conclusion, you're going to miss it, and waste your energy on empty canards.

But it's your life. It's not going to be mine.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 4:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 4:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:44 pm
Oh. So here's the argument: Atheists can see order, but they don't believe in God. Therefore, there is order, but no God.

Sorry, but that's about the dumbest argument ever. Instead of letting the evidence we see point to the most probable conclusion, we're supposed to deny what the evidence shows, in order to sustain the implausible belief that the universe is all random, just so we can get belief in God out of the universe?

That's about as anti-scientific and anti-logical an argument as one can make. You're arguing starting from an assumed conclusion, upstream against the data.

Because there are logically only two possibilities: one, that the universe is the product of some intention or plan, and two, that it is the product of accident and randomness.

Fair enough. You win. There's a God and he disfavors gays, heathens, heretics, atheists and Amalekites.

Gary, if you're not going to follow a line of logic, and stick with a question, you're wasting my time...and yours. And though you could arrive at a sensible conclusion, you're going to miss it, and waste your energy on empty canards.

But it's your life. It's not going to be mine.

I renounce the Bible. I don't renounce God. As long as you stick to the Bible as your reference for everything godly, then we'll be at odds.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 4:17 pm I renounce the Bible. I don't renounce God. As long as you stick to the Bible as your reference for everything godly, then we'll be at odds.

I would say you've been pretty insulting to both. But I've been patient with you, until the point when you become ranting and blasphemous. And after that, having no desire to provoke you to injure your interests further, I've checked out from speaking with you.

Expect that pattern to continue. I won't be supplying you with opportunity for self-harm.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 4:21 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 4:17 pm I renounce the Bible. I don't renounce God. As long as you stick to the Bible as your reference for everything godly, then we'll be at odds.

I would say you've been pretty insulting to both. But I've been patient with you, until the point when you become ranting and blasphemous. And after that, having no desire to provoke you to injure your interests further, I've checked out from speaking with you.

Expect that pattern to continue. I won't be supplying you with opportunity for self-harm.

How gracious of you. Obviously, I forgot to add blasphemors to the list of the disfavored. Good riddance.

Oh. So here's the argument: Atheists can see order, but they don't believe in God. Therefore, there is order, but no God.

That's not the argument.

Atheist see order, they don't see a god.

They don't think order must have been created by a god.

That's an important question : "Does order need to be created by a god?"

Obviously, you have a different answer than the atheist.

Then there is the deist twist on this:

God created order but he's not here talking. So even if there is an objective morality, we don't have a direct revelation of what it involves. We have to observe, draw conclusions and formulate our own morality.

IC lives in the 12th Century. Or maybe he still lives in year 0. I don't know.

Don't discount the power of randomness.

Let us start with Blake's question in The Tyger and consider the possibility no one, that randomness resulted in the tiger. You could believe God created LIFE, things that would reproduce themselves with slight random impreciseness. Now that is sufficient, all you need to have "evolutlion", the change of life forms over time.So rather than saying "God created the tiger" we would more properly sat God created LIFE which as the potential to result in the tiger.

OK, morality, what is it. Evolution has resulted in social animals (say bees) where behavior is hard wired. But also obligatory social animals where it is no built in. These animals cannot survive without "morality" making their behaviors predictable. And they have to learn these rules. If God did not (directly) create such animals, just their potential, how could God have the matching morality. It would have to have evolved as their societies evolved.

And sorry IC, you are trying to measure the moral system of Pan Troglodytes finding it wanting FOR HUMANS. But chimps are not humans. You might want to consider the moral rules for Pan Panciscus. Perhaps also distasteful to you as bonobos engage in a lot of =sex. But agin, bonobos are not humans.

PLEASE NOTE -- I am NOT suggesting that our human evolutionary morality is sufficient for us today. Beginning about 10,000 years ago we humans have begun living in MUCH larger groups than we lived in for 99.9% of our evolutionary history. << I am assuming that the last common ancestor of chimps, bonobos, and us, was also an obligatory social animal and so had "morality" >>

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Mar 01, 2026 12:54 pm They don't think order must have been created by a god.

That's an important question : "Does order need to be created by a god?"

Order is a characteristic of intelligence. Even an Atheist should be able to recognize that. Randomness doesn't generate order...especially such finely-tuned order as exists in our universe. For more information, look up what's called "The Fine-Tuning Argument."