VexingQuestions' Deotic-Ontological Argument

VexingQuestions' Deontic-Ontological Argument (DOA) is one of the oddest arguments I've seen for the existence of a perfect being. It is presented as follows.

1. I ought to attain the highest form of happiness.
2. I ought to attain the highest form of happiness only if is possible that I attain the highest form of happiness.
3. ‘I attain the highest form of happiness’ is identical to ‘there is a perfect being and I am in communion with it’.
4. If it is possible that there is a perfect being and I am in communion with it, then it is possible that there is a perfect being, and it is possible that I am in communion with it.
5. A perfect being is identical to a necessarily existing maximally excellent being.
6. Therefore, a perfect being exists

Premise one doesn't seem very obvious. Even if there is a highest form of happiness, I don't see a very strong reason to say that I ought to attain it. 

I'll grant premise two. However, with these two premises, I believe the first premise should state "I ought to attain the highest attainable form of happiness". 

I don't see a reason to accept premise three. There can be a "highest form of happiness" without a God existing. It would simply be the highest form of happiness that you can attain without God. I can't say exactly what this is, but I'm sure it's out there. 

The highest attainable happiness, is attainable. Even if an advocate of this argument does manage to demonstrate that the third premise is true, the atheist can simply reject the first premise without a problem. To say you don't ought to achieve the highest form of happiness is not problematic if that happiness isn't attainable. Thus, I believe my replacement of the first premise is much better, because it doesn't assume that the "'actual' highest form of happiness" can be acquired. 

Furthermore,I would think that some people would want different things, and things that make some people happy wouldn't be the same for others. For instance, some people wouldn't take pleasure in worshiping a genocidal (see Noah's Flood), egotistical (see first four of the Ten Commandments) tyrant (see Hell), while others would (Note: I'm not attacking the morality of God, I'm simply stating attributes that can be ascribed to him).

I'll grant premise four.

While premise five is intuitive, I don't think that there is a strong reason to accept it, as it seems to be implying logical necessity is a perfection.

J.P. Moreland on People Getting 'Forced' into Heaven

The quote that I will be discussing can be found here. Read it before reading this post so you know what I'm talking about.

When I read this quote, I was honestly confused about what it meant. Why would anyone want to go to hell? I don't think jackass who said this honestly believed that in the least.

It starts off by saying that "forcing people into heaven is dehumanizing". This is beyond stupid, because the only other option is an eternal fire. Who would choose to burn in fire eternally over going  to a paradise?

Though it's fairly clear what this is actually saying. That atheists do, in fact, believe in God. Not just any God, but the one that he believes in, and, presumably, was raised to believe in. He's saying that we know God exists, but we reject him. My question is, who is this person to tell me what I do and do not believe? What peer reviewed study shows that everyone (Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, Christians of other denominations, etc.) believes in the God that J.P. Moreland believes in?

He also says that God will respect our choice, and will respect and dignify it. The problem with this is that burning someone eternally is NOT DIGNIFYING OR RESPECTING SOMEOME. This is beyond simple. Burning someone for not believing in what they cannot see is extremely cruel.

A guy named Counter Apologist made an analogy that explains the cruelty of God's system. This is called the "game show analogy".

Imagine someone traps you in a game show where you have to guess the host's favorite color. The host sends his son in there to tell you his [the host's] favorite color, but he also sends in other boys who also claim to be his son. If you guess right, you get a million dollars, if not, you burn forever. You also don't have a choice as to whether or not you want to be in this game show.

Most people would think this is cruel, and I doubt anyone would be like "this is not cruel, he knows the host's favorite color... in his heart", but this is precisely what J.P. Moreland and anyone who makes this claim is doing.

Conservapedia: Top 10 Arguments Against Homosexuality

This article by the Christian/Conservative pseudo-encyclopedia, Conservapedia, outlines what it thinks are the best arguments against homosexuality. In one section, it outlines what it believes are the top 10 arguments. Well it looks like we're dealing with the best of the best. Let's see.

1. Homosexuality is unhealthy, and it's better to encourage people to adopt healthier lifestyles.

This is not an argument against homosexuality, it's simply an argument against not being cautious while having sexual intercourse. Secondly, homosexuality is not an 'unhealthy lifestyle', it's a sexual orientation. The studies that show that homosexuals get more STDs do not show that homosexuality directly causes said STDs. Those diseases can usually be tied into higher levels of promiscuity amongst homosexuals. Conservapedia is conflating correlation with causation.

2. It's not pro-life - it leads to various diseases, physical and psychological disorders and early death among those who practice homosexual behavior

This is mostly a repeat of the last claim. As far as psychological issues goes, I would presume that conservapedia is referring to things like depression, which you would expect due to homophobic bigotry. Conservapedia also didn't show that these issues would not take lives if they were not homosexual, nor did they show that these people would be more healthy if they were not homosexual. They also did not show that homosexuality is the direct cause of these disorders. Again, Conservapedia is conflating correlation with causation.

3. It's anti-Bible - no other conduct is condemned as much by the Bible as homosexuality.

This says more about the Bible than it does about homosexuality. Shouldn't an all good God spend more time condemning rape or genocide, than a sexual orientation that harms nobody? Secondly, this is not a good argument in a secular nation. The first amendment of the constitution states that a religion cannot be established via the state. Basing a law solely on a religion is clearly the state establishing a religion. This argument also assumes the Bible is true, which is extremely controversial.

4. It's infringing on more important freedoms, like freedom of religion and speech

They cite people suing others for discrimination against homosexuals. This is as much an attack on freedom of speech as someone suing a baker for not selling to blacks for religious reasons. I actually part with some on the left in that I agree that churches should be allowed to descriminate, because that is simply allowing people to practice their religion properly when it doesn't actually harm anyone who is not inside the religion. Businesses, should not have this right because they are not religious institutions. Another thing is that this is an argument against people not wanting to be descriminated against, not homosexuality itself.

5. It's another Leftist political movement, which Communists support

This is an ad hominem fallacy. Conservapedia is saying because leftists support X, X is false by definition. This is ineffably stupid. Furthermore, it is not a movement, but a sexual orientation.

6. It's promoted far too much by the liberal media - if the lifestyle were good, then why would liberal censorship of criticism be necessary?

I stand with conservapedia in that I don't believe opposing viewpoints should be censored. However, saying that because the 'liberal media' supports it, it is therefore wrong, is, again, an ad hominem fallacy. As for whether or not liberal censorship is necessary, if this list of arguments is the best that the anti-homosexual movement has to offer, then it is most certainly not necessary,

7. People should be (and have been) able to leave the lifestyle if they want to, so why are homosexuals working hard to ban conversion therapy?

My personal position on conversion therapy is that it should not be banned, but parents shouldn't be able to force their children to get it against their will. I believe one should be at an age where they can legally be their own legal guardian when they receive conversion therapy. This is not an argument against homosexuality.

8. Homosexuals are wealthier than heterosexuals, so homosexuals don't need any more handouts like benefits for same-sex couples.

Firstly, citation is needed and not provided for a claim like this. Secondly, just because they're rich doesn't mean they shouldn't to marry who they love. Finally, allowing homosexuals to marry or to not be descriminated against is not a handout, it's a right.

9. It's an anti-Christian movement - why aren't homosexual activists suing Muslim or Hindu bakers for not serving same-sex marriage?

Conservapedia hasn't cited any instances where Hindu or Muslim bakers refused to serve homosexuals, and the homosexuals didn't sue them simply because they weren't christians. Also, homosexuality is not a movement, it is a sexual orientation.

10. It's a selfish movement - notice how billionaire homosexuals are not setting up hospitals as Christians have?

Conservapedia is saying 'most of these people aren't great people so I want to deny them the right to marry who they love.' Conservapedia is also conflating correlation with causation, because they haven't demonstrated that these people would be setting up hospitals if they weren't homosexual. Conservapedia calls homosexuality a selfish movement, let's say that it is a movement (and it isn't, it's a sexual orientation), if it was the case that homosexuality was a selfish movement, then a goal of the movement would be to not donate to charity. Conservapedia knows that is not the case. Even in Conservapedia's "Homosexual Agenda" article, they don't sink to the level of saying that destroying charity is an object of the homosexual agenda.


This article is a clear example of Conservapedia's idiocy.

The Absurdity of Christian Salvation

Let's start with some questions. Do you believe in God? Do you believe that salvation comes through faith alone? Do you believe that you need to believe that you need faith to believe? This will be for people who answered yes to 1, and yes to either 2 or 3.

Do you think you would be the same religion if you were born somewhere else; for example, in Saudi Arabia? I would think that you would probably be a Muslim. I think that you would agree with me. This means that your place of birth is the reason why you'll be spending eternity in paradise, if you were born in another place, you would be spending eternity in scorching fire.

Your salvation was based solely on luck.

It doesn't take a genius to see there is something wrong with this. Imagine a school where you have to take a test to get in, and black people have to take a much harder test than white people. The majority of people (everyone who isn't a nazi) would realize the absurdity of that system. How does it differ from only allowing one religion into heaven? Because the majority of people are born with a religion and keep it.

My parents, who are Catholic and don't know the faith very well, believe that God will allow good people who never heard of Christianity into heaven. This is not supported biblically, as Jesus clearly stated that the only way to heaven was through him (John 14:6). The only reason why they would believe this is because they can't comprehend how a good, intelligent God would limit salvation to only those who were born into their religion.

It would be fairly easy to see why a religion would say that it's the only way to salvation. Christianity seems as if it was essentially designed to spread as fast as possible. Just think about it: you either spend eternity in paradise or in a raging fire, and the only way to get the former and not the latter is to be in that religion. Do you think it would have spread as fast if the salvation doctrine was "People who did good for the people around them will get rewarded, people who do nothing but good and suffer for the benefit of others get it even better, people who did more bad than good get adequate punishment; nothing extreme, and those who do extreme bad get eternally punished badly"?

It wouldn't have spread like it did, but it's thousands of times more sensible, and would make the world a better place, because a type of salvation that says "yeah ill forgive whatever you did no questions asked if you believe I will" doesn't punish on any basis other than being wrong. It's simply absurd, and harmful.

A Quick Refutation of the Kantian Moral Argument

The Kantian Moral Argument is one of the weirder arguments in Christian theology. The argument is presented as follows:

1. Moral behavior is rational.
2. Moral behavior is only rational if justice will be done.
3. Justice will only be done if God exists
4. Therefore, God exists.

The first premise, and thus the entire argument, hinges on Morality being objective. We don't have any real evidence to support this conclusion besides our intuition, so we already see that this argument isn't the strongest in the world.

Another way around this premise is to say that morality and reason are basically two separate things. So the premise would still fail. I'm not too sure about this objection, because I feel a way to have morality is to be reasonable and rational.

The second premise seems to simply be describing a bad moral system. It's basically saying "this system makes NO SENSE at ALL unless you accept that you'll be punished if you break it". I think you can have systems of morality that are actually rational. For example, it would be moral to give to charity becuase you're giving to a person who needs it more, which can be considered rational.

Premise 3 is a premise that is actually specifically arguing for types of Gods that will punish you. I think someone can get out of this by inserting some form of karma and reincarnation, but I don't think that's good enough of an objection.

I think, like with the Moral Perfectionist Argument, the premises of the argument do not work in favor of Christianity. This is because most Christians adopt a view of; if you accept Christ as your lord and savior and repent of your sins, then you can go straight to heaven. So Hitler could go to heaven if he did whatever that denomination of Christianity said to do (it varies based on denomination). That would mean killing the Jews was not irrational, because justice will not be done for him. If Hitler cannot be saved, then there would be no rational problem with killing 6 million more Jews, because his eternal damnation was inevitable.

This also works for Catholics who believe in purgatory. This is because Catholics also accept the view of damnation if you don't believe in Christ. So if an atheist or Bhuddist or whatever went and killed ten million babies, they wouldn't be irrational because their belief already made damnation inevitable.

A Quick Refutation of The Moral Perfectionist Argument

The Moral Perfectionist Argument is one of the variations of the moral argument. It is presented as follows:

1. We ought to be morally perfect.
2. If we ought to be morally perfect, then we can be morally perfect.
3. We cannot be morally perfect unless God exists.
Therefore:
4. God exists.

The logic in this argument is sound, so a premise needs to be attacked.

Premise 1 assumes there is some form of objective morality. This premise can be rejected by simply denying it, there is no empirical evidence to suggest it besides our intuitions, which alone should not be used as an argument in complex philosophical or scientific discussion.

So already we see this isn't the best argument in the world.

I'll accept the second premise.

Even if we accept the first two premises, it doesn't show that Christianity is true, it shows it's false. Consider, Christianity claims that all are sinners by nature, we are literally born into sin. If that is true, then we cannot be morally perfect. Thus you don't "ought" to be morally perfect if you accept all of these, since the premise if you ought then you can is represented by p -> q, but since you negate q, you have to negate p. A formulation of this argument would be as follows:

1. If the Christian God exists, we ought to be morally perfect.
2. If we ought to be morally perfect, then we can be morally perfect.
3. Sinners cannot be morally perfect.
4. If the Christian God exists, then all people are sinners. (Otherwise, you could be saved without Christ.)
5. Therefore, if the Christian God exists, we cannot be morally perfect. (From 3 and 4)
6. Therefore, if the Christian God exists, we do not ought to be morally perfect. (From 5 and 2)
7. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. (From the contradiction of 6 and 1)

So which premise are they planning on attacking? I feel that this is actually a decent reason for denial of the Christian God, since my rejection of the premise 1 of the original argument doesn't apply here.

For the last premise (of the original argument), like I said before, it tells us nothing about which God it is, besides being contradictory to Christian doctrine. I would actually assert that it, assuming the rejection of my previous criticism, is only sufficient to proving a perfect moral standard exists contingently in some possible world. You can accept that being "morally perfect" is equivalent to being like "being X", who exists in "World X". There is nothing wrong with asserting this, because it's really no different from asserting one that exists necessarily, in every possible world.

A Short Refutation of The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological argument is one of the most well known, and most often used argument in all of Christian apologetics. The argument can be presented in this form:

1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause.
2. The universe came into existence.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The logic in the argument is sound, it's a simple (1) if p then q. (2) p. (3) therefore q. So I need to attack a premise in order to refute the argument.

It's worth noting that this argument doesn't support any specific God. Alone, it is only sufficient to show a deistic God at best.

I feel it is necessary to define what it means to have a "cause". The main justification for premise 1 is "just think about it". That's all they give. They talk about the absurdity of anything that "happens" without a cause. The problem with this is there are two causes that produce an effect. An efficient cause and a material cause. You can't build a log cabin without any logs, but the theist is trying to show that God created the universe out of nothing, building the log cabin with no logs.

For the next objection, I feel it is necessary to define "come into existence". Come into existence means (1) p exists at t. (2) t is the first time in which p exists. (3) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which p exists timelessly. (4) p's existing at t is a tensed fact.

In the eternalist view of time, the universe's existence is not a tensed fact. There is no objective now, it exists a four dimensional block, where the block is time. Thus, it never actually comes into existence.

If we assume that everything that comes into existence, or anything that begins, has a cause, when what about our choices? You have to trace back our choices to something, so what? Our wills cannot be caused by nothing, because they're tensed, temporal beings, or "things". Notice that no matter what t you try to trace it back too, you will either find that will is determined, or it is random. Either way, our choices are not our own.

But let's ignore all of that, and look at some of the justification for premise 2. One is the view that the second law of thermodynamics implies that the universe will eventually go into a state of heat death, because every time there is an energy transfer some energy will be lost as heat. I'm not a physicist, but there are models of the universe that allow for a recollapse of the universe, so it's like a clock reset. You can read about it here: http://www.universetoday.com/37018/big-crunch/

Another justification for the second premise is that an infinite past is impossible. (Everything from this point on was copied from a previous short post.) A lot of theists believe that an actual infinite is impossible. However, if God existed eternally, then there would be an infinite past, and thus, an actual infinite. So they say God exists outside of time to avoid that problem.

I feel that they cannot actually say this avoids the problem:

Consider, will the universe ever end? Will there be an eternity in heaven? If there was an eternity in the past, then we can consider that an actual infinite, but what about an eternal future?

Think about God existing outside of time, but having an infinite future? If God existed outside of time, and he created something, and it ended, he would experience it in literally no time. But what if God existed outside of time when there is an endless universe? Would God experience this in no time? That would imply an actual infinite.

To help someone understand this problem, imagine there is a world where all that exists is someone counting for eternity, it never ends. Now imagine that there is a being watching over it, which exists at literally every possible point. This being literally saw all of the counting. This is clearly an actual infinite.

The thing about this is, I don't think an actual infinite really is impossible. We simply don't have a solid understanding of what they are. I'll let the theist decide what they think.

God Being Timeless Doesn't Avoid an Actual Infinite

A lot of theists believe that an actual infinite is impossible, this is usually because they want a convenient way to argue for their God. However, if God existed eternally, then there would be an infinite past, and thus, an actual infinite. So they say God exists outside of time to avoid that problem.

I feel that they cannot actually say this avoids the problem:

Consider, will the universe ever end? Will there be an eternity in heaven? If there was an eternity in the past, then we can consider that an actual infinite, but what about an eternal future?

Think about God existing outside of time, but having an infinite future? If God existed outside of time, and he created something, and it ended, he would experience it in literally no time. But what if God existed outside of time when there is an endless universe? Would God experience this in no time? That would imply an actual infinite.

To help someone understand this problem, imagine there is a world where all that exists is someone counting for eternity, it never ends. Now imagine that there is a being watching over it, which exists at literally every possible point. This being literally saw all of the counting. This is clearly an actual infinite.

The thing about this is, I don't think an actual infinite really is impossible. We simply don't have a solid understanding of what they are. I'll let the theist decide what they think.

Refuting ICR's Evidence for God

The Institute for Creation Research, is a website that defends a creationist view of the world. They typically try to use arguments from science in their articles, but they have a section in their website "Evidence for God" showed hilarious attempts at philosophical arguments. This is a list of the articles I'm going to attack:

Evidence for God
     1. Cause and Effect
            1. Everything has a cause
            2. The effect problem
     2. The triune universe
            1. Time, space, and matter
            2. The logical implications
     3. Design and purpose
            1. God caused beauty
            2. God caused justice
            3. God caused love
            4. God caused meaning
            5. God caused order
            6. God caused time, space, and matter
            7. God caused wisdom

1.1. Everything has a Cause

Before I attack what I think they actually meant, I want to say how poorly this was titled. It would be better to have titled it "everything that begins has a cause" or "everything except God has a cause", because saying "everything has a cause" implies that God would also.

The article begins on what people observe about time, that we always assume that there is a cause and effect. That every event can be traced back to another event; a cause. What they left out, is that when we observe cause and effect in action, we see not only an efficient cause, but a material cause. That means, there is the action, and what the action happens to, and that produces the effect. If we assert that a God was the first cause, there was an efficient cause, but no material cause. Now, I don't want to reject the argument based on this alone, but it prevents the theist from just shouting so confidently that God fits right in as an explanation.

The article goes on to explain how all science assumes that there is a cause and effect "law", which is fine, but the question is what exactly is that law if we're going to let go of the principle that both an efficient and material cause are required to produce an effect.

After that, the article explains how you can either accept that there is a first cause, or an infinite regress, but the article doesn't try to explain why we shouldn't accept an infinite regress. Some theists might try to explain that an infinite regress is impossible because any actual infinite is impossible, but I would argue that the existence of God would imply some type of actual infinite. For example, if God were omniscient, it would mean he knew infinite truths. ICR even says that God is infinite (see 2.2 The logical implications).

1.2 The Effect Problem

This argument is part 2 to the last argument. It starts talking about the first two laws of thermodynamics. They define the first one as "There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here". In those exact words. The problem for them is, if we take that definition of the first law of thermodynamics, then we have to completely throw out the idea of all forms of divine of miraculous intervention in the world, because it would result in a violation of the first law. A better way to describe the first law of thermodynamics is "energy in a closed system is conserved". This is how the law is actually defined (see here), and it is consistent with the existence of a God, because we don't really know for sure if the universe is a closed system or not. Once you define the law like that, you see that it doesn't help your case at all.

The article goes on to talk about how the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe had
a beginning. This is because every time there is an energy transfer, some of the energy will be lost as heat. One possible explaination is that there is a "big bounce", which means that the universe retracts and expands, infinitely into the past. I'm not going to to into detail on this, because I'm not very knowledgeable about it.

A large problem with the last two arguments is that they assume a presentist view of time, when there is also an eternalist theory of time. The presentist view is that "now" is the only time that really exists, where the eternalist view is that the past, present, and future all exist just as much. The significance of this in relation to the argument is that if the eternalist view is true, then the universe can simply exist as a four dimensional "block", where the fourth dimension is time, and thus it never actually comes into existence.

The fact that this doesn't seem to be talked about in these articles either shows some lack of knowledge, or intellectual dishonesty on the part of the people at ICR. It's a very complex and big discussion, so a few tiny articles aren't going to end it.

2.1 Time Space, and Matter

The article begins by talking about how huge the universe is, and they make a comment about how we seem to be the most significant part of it. I honestly wonder if they forgot that we haven't seen much in the universe. There are billions and billions of galixies that we haven't seen, yet the people at ICR are just saying how we're the most important part of it, which is fine if you're doing it based on a religious doctrine, but not if you're stating it based on what we've observed through science, because we haven't seen much.

They goes on to make another rush to judgment when they claim that "any attempt to determine the cause of the universe is completely hypothetical", and that they're all based on presuppositions and belief systems. They claim that all of the belief systems break down to either first cause, or infinite regress.

It's not clear what exactly they mean by "belief systems", but I would assume they're talking about uniformitarianism in some way. ICR doesn't like uniformitarianism, but it is a presupposition in a lot of practices, if you don't think it should apply in science, then think about criminal investigation. If you don't assume some kind of uniformitarian system, you can walk in to a court of law when all of the evidence was put against you, and you could say "a ghost did it", and you would be let off. That would be absurd. So if we assume there is a uniformitarian system, then we can essentially go back it time and understand what happened via the scientific method.

The claim that everything breaks down to either first cause, or an infinite regress is a rush to judgment, because it doesn't even consider an eternalist view.

They go on to make the absurd claim that scientists perform the scientific method assuming there is no cause, that there is nothing beyond the natural world . I question what that means, the scientific method doesn't have a bias in favor of a particular religious view, or lack thereof. What it does, is it doesn't treat it as a conclusion you can just jump to, when scientists find cosmic background radiation, they don't shout "it was GHOSTS". Science works within the natural realm, what we get from it can be interpreted through different presuppositions and viewpoints, but science itself works within the natural realm.

They go on to sow just how biased they are when they made the statement "Scientists at ICR hold to the presupposition that the "uncaused first cause" is the creator who exists outside of the physical creation He made" [emphasis mine]. What they are saying right there is that they assume that God exists, and they work from there. That is not what a scientist should do, at least not one who claims to be objective.

2.2 The Logical Implications

This article is an attempt to get around atheists saying the last 3 articles were just describing a God of the gaps argument, they want to show that if there is a first cause, it has to be God. Let's take a look.

"The first cause of limitless space must be infinite"

AHA! By infinite do you mean an actual infinite? One that is impossible? Statements like these would never be said by William lane Craig, who believes actual infinities are impossible. I'm not very sure about whether they are actually possible or not, but them not being possible is one of the largest reasons theists give to justify the premise that "the universe had a beginning".

"The first cause of endless time must be eternal."

I'll grant this one, assuming by eternal they mean exists outside of time.

"The first cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent."

I'll also grant this one, assuming the first cause is a living being.

"The first cause of universal irrelationships must be omnipresent"
Why? This one doesn't seem justified.

 "The first cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient."
No, the first cause just needed to create something huge, and fairly ordered, and it's possible for some complexity to arise from it. Secondly, what is considered "complex" to us may be different from someone different, we don't know everything. Thirdly, there is no "infinite complexity".

"The first cause of spiritual values must be spiritual."
"The first cause of human responsibility must me volitional."
"The first cause of human love must be loving"
"The first cause of life must be living."
These are just goofy. I can make the same argument and say "the first cause of human greed must be greedy", or "the first cause of human evil must be evil", but I acknowledge that that wouldn't be a very good argument to make against the existence of God. There's no end to the arguments atheists could make using this logic.

3.1 God Caused Beauty

The article talks about how there is some form of objective standard for beauty, it doesn't support it. This really shows how hard they're trying to get evidence to support the existence of their God. We know that there are huge differences on who or what is considered beautiful by certain people. For example, Aphrodite was considered the goddess of beauty, but she could be considered unattractive in this day and age. 

They go on to say how animals usually don't have this type of emotion in them, but how could they say that without actually analyzing what goes on inside the brains of animals. Don't jump to conclusions.

It's honestly sad that some people want to preach like this, and basically say "yay for objective standards, you're not just ugly for some people, even God thinks you're ugly, and he's always right, by definition."

3.2 God Caused Justice

This one is just the moral argument. The articles here are so quick, so I'm also going to be fairly quick with this. There is no real hard reason to say that objective morals exist, the reason we have an instinctive desire to follow what we consider moral is because we evolved to be moral creatures, it will ultimately be better for the species.

But even if we grant that that there is some kind of objective standard, I don't think we could just say it was God. Moral divine command theory equivocates good to God's nature. The question a person can ask about this is "why do we want to be like God's nature?" The theist would basically be forced, eventually, to say that it's an axiom, true because it's an axiom. If that is the case, then why don't we just say that there is a logically necessary standard of morality, simply because there is?

3.3 God Caused Love

This one can easily be explained through evolution, we developed love so we would be more willing to mate, and be protective over members of family.

3.4 God Caused Meaning 

This one is just preaching about how great it would be of God existed. It talks about how humans have a special desire to find out what the meaning of life is. It's a fact that animals are curious, curiosity is not special to humans. Since humans are more intelligent than other animals, we get curious about deferent things. 

It's angering how they go obviously to talk about how great it would be if God existed, and that the evolutionary has no good news. Firstly, reality is reality, but ICR is making the argument that because reality would be sad if we accept a certain worldview, it makes that worldview false. But just think about it, does Christianity really have good news? Most people will be damned to a burning fire for not following the right religion, out of the many religions that exist. That's not good news. "Oh, YAY, most of the people in the world will spend eternity in burning fire, but I won't!"

3.5 God Caused Order

This is just the teleological argument. I'll respond to this by simply saying that a multiverse could easily produce this level of order a trillion times. 

3.6 God Caused Time, Space, and Matter

This is just a continuation of the arguments they presented talking about the first cause, so see the refutations above for that.

3.7 God Caused Wisdom

This one just says "humans are smart", but it doesn't give any concrete reason as to why that is so. It talks about how humans are smarter, but that simply means we evolved in a differently way than animals. Furthermore, every animal understand so their enviornmwnt and the nature of reality to some degree. A monkey can look at a tree, and they won't think "look at that banana". All animals have at least some degree of knowledge.

Analysis of the Ten Commandments

In this post, I'm going to be looking at the ten commandments, and seeing whether or not they hold up when looked at critically. It's important to know if they would work in all situations, and if they should be part of the law, because there are some people who want the rule of law to be based on them.

1. You shall have no other Gods before me.

Already, we are seeing that the commandments should not be what determines the law. If we include this in the law, it will mean throwing freedom of religion out the window, and having it so everyone has to follow this religion.

2. You shall make no idols.

Again, there is the issue of freedom of religion. So this is another example of why the commandments should not determine the law.

The above commandments are actually seen fairly reasonable for Christians to follow. If there is really only one God, you shouldn't go making idols of worshipping other Gods. That's just something normal to follow, however if you take a look into the Bible, it goes more in depth about this subject:

"2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky,4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6"

If you show this to a Christian, they will usually just say that since it's the old testamate, it doesn't apply anymore. Jesus disagrees:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." - Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20

I

This sounds suspiciously like Jesus is defending the Old Testament. Hmm.

3. You shall not take the name of the lord in vein.

Again, reasonable within the religion, but should have no place in the law.

4. Keep the sabbath day holy.

This seems reasonable on it's face, but it's described in more detail here:

"Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the lord. Whoever does any work on it, shall be put to death." - Exodus 35:2

Oh how nice. That's a lot of people we need to kill. The thing about these verses is that Christians and Jews would freak out if they saw this in the Quran. They would bring it up as an example of how evil the God of Islam is, and how that God is a monster, so it should not be worshipped, and they would be 100% right.

5. Honor your mother and father.

I think the issues with this one are fairly obvious. Obviously someone like Stalin or Hitler should not be honored by their children, but this commandment said that they should. The Bible gives more parenting advice here:

"For God commanded, 'honor your mother and your father' and 'whoever reviles father or mother must surely die'" - Matthew 15:4

Notice how this is in the New Testament, so the good ole "that doesn't apply now" doesn't work.

6. You shall not murder.

There are some translations that say "you shall not kill", which would mean not even in situations when lives are at risk, but there really isn't an issue with this one if murder is specified. This is probably the only commandment that should apply to the laws in society. However, if you take a look in the Bible, you see some examples of God murdering people.

An easy example of this is when God drowned almost everything living, as described in Genesis chapeters 6-10. Yay for love!

While some people consider the flood story to be allegorical (allegorical for WHAT? Allegorical for showing God is not above murdering people?) there are still many examples in the Bible of God killing people. For a list you can see here: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html?m=1

7. You shall not commit adultery.

Like most of the other commandments, this is not something that should determine the law. The 

Bible elaborates on what it means by "adultery" here:

"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already commuted adultery with her in his heart." - Matthew 5:28

This could seem fairly reasonable to a Christian, I disagree. Some people naturally have more hormones than other people, this could lead to people being more horny or "lustful", and hormones are not willed on to someone by wanting it, its genetic. We've already seen countries try to make it so men wouldn't get horny by seeing women, yet those countries are hated by Christians because they don't give people human rights. Obviously I'm talking about Muslim countries in the Middle East. What I'm saying, is that we're going to be just like countries with Sharia law if we determine our laws based on the Ten Commandments.

8. You shall not steal.

This is one of the commandments where it seems reasonable, but there are cases when it shouldn't apply. For example, imagine if a guy had a baby who was starving and about to die (the details are irrelevant) and he saw a guy left some food on a table, would he have the right to take it to save the baby'a life? I'm sure you can think of some other examples where it would be right to steal. 

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbo

1935, Germany

"No officer, my neighbor is not hiding Jews in his house, hail Hitler."

10. You shall not covet.

Again, this is something that seems reasonable, but should should not determine what the law is. If what is considered illegal goes so far as to control your thoughts, then there will be a real, obvious problem. But let's get a better look at this. 

You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." - Exodus 20:17, the full tenth commandment.

Seems kinda sexist, right?

Final notes

After looking at these commandments, it's bewildering that people would want them to make up the laws that guide how we are supposed to live. Christians also claim that, in our heart, we atheists truly know that these commandments are true, but do we? These commandments should not be placed on national property, because the first three are anti-freedom of religion. The constitution states that the government cannot establish a religion, but the commandments clearly disagree. 

It's perfectly reasonable for a Christian to live thier lives using these commandments, however, that does not change the fact that there are places where they shouldn't apply, as I described above.

Also, why did they have such useless things in the commandments. They spent three talking about how God is the only one to worship, and the last one was just saying "don't be jealous". Why didn't God put more useful things? Such as "you shall not rape". 

Lastly, I have a question to the people who say these apply, even though they're in the Old Testament: Why do these apply, yet the other verses in the Old Testament that I showed above don't count? It seems fairly inconsistent.