Hey Larry,
Thanks for taking the time to take a look and respond to my article.
For one, your assumption about me is totally incorrect. I was once a sceptic. I hated Christians. I wanted God not to exist and for all Christians to be wrong. I would write nasty emails and letters for them.
It wasn't until after 1.5 yrs of intense searching I started to realise I lived a contradictions. A bag of particles from a purposeless process seeking purpose, calling out immoral acts when I said there was no such thing as right or wrong, claiming the physical world was all there is but always referring to the immaterial principles of mathematics and logic which could neither be seen or physcially sensed yet were universal, living in a so called mindless universe yet always wanted to use my mind.
I was further amazed by the historical support surrounding Jesus and how a bunch of fisherman turned the world upside down by getting their heads cut off. This lead me to a position of thinking it was more probable the Christian God existed and there was a mind behind the universe than that I came from mindless purposeless accidental pond scum with a few extra chemicals and time thrown on top. That is my journey. I'm sure you have your story too.
I am curious how you view logic given you claim to be able to refute arguments in an objective sense. How is logic part of the material world if the material world is all there is? If you came from a purposeless intentionless process how can I know your questions had a purpose and intention behind it?
Further, you mentioned being a person. What is a person? How is a person different from particles? Why does a person have unified and continuous perception if they are made up of countless ever changing cells?
These are hardly easy questions to answer so to claim the theistic alternative to your view is easily shut down or refuted seems a real stretch. Besides what does shutting down or refuting look like if we are all but matter anyway? Why assume my random brain chemistry should conform to yours? What is truth anyway? If we evolve for survival not truth you can't equate usefulness with truth. A lie could be useful so I could evolve to view that as a truth and vice versa.
Regarding morals you seem to be confusing epistemology with ontology, how we know something is moral or immoral verses if any objective moral values exist. I touch on this in my second response to Edward because he seemed to do the same thing.
Just because people don't always sum up numbers correctly in their own subjective experience does not mean there are no objective mathematical truths.
How would you differentiate human morals from those of a rat or a transhuman who is superior to humans and more technologically advanced? If it is all about the social aspect, is someone who is "immoral" just anti social like wearing socks and sandals together?
Regarding your final point adding in a circumstantial element does nothing to refute the idea at least one objective moral exists. For I can add many different numbers to the number 3 to get different results but that does not mean maths is not objective.
I am also curious under what circumstances you'd consider raping a young child to be moral? I'm only including this for the purpose of discussing a specific example you requested.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. All the best with your journey of search for truth.
