Evidence, context, circumstance, objective logic, and arbitration.

Explain to me how the rituals of a courtroom establish true justice, Overcast.

Troy Davis was "found guilty" of murdering a cop. Even tho all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Casey Anthony was "found innocent" of murdering her child. Even tho all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Trials are just ceremonies.

They don't determine anything but the conviction rates of lawyers.

>> ^xxovercastxx:


How do you propose we determine guilt or innocence without a trial?

I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

I don't see a meaningful establishment of a religion in any of it. I do see a bias towards the 80%-90% of the people who believe in some kind of deity.

The Ten Commandments on the courtroom wall, that's a whole other thread. How can you have a courtroom when the Bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged."


>> ^jonny:

@quantumushroom - I don't understand how you define the boundary of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government to espouse one religious doctrine over another.
I absolutely agree that in a free society no one has the right to live free from exposure to ideas (or speech or any other expression) that they don't like. But it's one thing to read a prayer on a billboard, and quite another to read it on the wall of a courtroom. When I see the billboard I know that someone cares about that message enough to spend quite a bit of money on it. When I see it in a courtroom, possibly facing the full weight of government authority, I have to wonder if my own religious beliefs will be used against me if they don't conform to what's on the wall.
I don't have a problem with things like a nativity scene in a public park, so long as it is privately sponsored. I don't really have a problem with references to god on money or in the pledge of allegiance. I don't care for it, but in those cases its as much a figure of speech as a religious statement. (The recitation of the pledge in schools is a larger issue, because there you're dealing with kids in an essentially authoritarian environment.)
I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

@quantumushroom - I don't understand how you define the boundary of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government to espouse one religious doctrine over another.

I absolutely agree that in a free society no one has the right to live free from exposure to ideas (or speech or any other expression) that they don't like. But it's one thing to read a prayer on a billboard, and quite another to read it on the wall of a courtroom. When I see the billboard I know that someone cares about that message enough to spend quite a bit of money on it. When I see it in a courtroom, possibly facing the full weight of government authority, I have to wonder if my own religious beliefs will be used against me if they don't conform to what's on the wall.

I don't have a problem with things like a nativity scene in a public park, so long as it is privately sponsored. I don't really have a problem with references to god on money or in the pledge of allegiance. I don't care for it, but in those cases its as much a figure of speech as a religious statement. (The recitation of the pledge in schools is a larger issue, because there you're dealing with kids in an essentially authoritarian environment.)

I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

I'm glad you reference your video, which is a perfect example of trying to make illogical moral exceptions for your deity. You accuse my comment of being but "a weak appeal to emotions", but it is actually a succinct argument refuting the video's thesis. But since you clearly cannot understand anything with a hint of subtlety, I will spell it out for you:

The video argues that evil must exist in order for there to be freedom of the will. Fine enough, but that only accounts for the kinds of evils done by humans. The things my comment link to are all examples of evils that are not caused by human actions, but by nature (i.e. "acts of God"), and affect perfectly innocent beings. A child who is born with a genetic disorder that will cause it (and it's parents) to suffer for it's whole life is not a matter of "freedom of the will". Answer me this, with a simple "yes/no" answer please: did the 13-day old baby killed by the family dog deserve it?

I know what you'll say: all of humankind, nay, of creation, is tainted because of "original sin". Remember how we've already discussed this ad nauseum? The concept of original sin relies on the story of Creation and the Fall. I know you literally believe that all of humankind is the offspring of an incestuous clusterfuck that started with Adam and Eve, and was renewed when God killed everyone except one family (incest ftw eh?). Let's put aside how utterly disgusting and impossible that is, and concentrate on how it is also a totally immoral belief. You are saying that God, omni-potent/benevolent, lets every single being be "tainted" with "sin" no matter how they live, and thus deserve anything nature's twisted ways will throw at them? All because ONE person did not blindly follow his orders (although without knowing it was wrong to do so)? Do you even realise what a sick, twisted tyrant of a deity you are defending?

It's clear you didn't understand the argument the video was making, or even your own argument:

The video is outlining Plantigas free will defense which states:

God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will who can make moral choices. Freedom (and, often it is said, the loving relationships which would not be possible without freedom) here is intended to provide a morally sufficient reason for God's allowing evil

The FWD neatly solves the logical problem of evil. Now, you make a point from natural evil, but this also addressed by the FWD. The corruption that came into the world was from originl sin. You say it isn't fair that other people have to suffer for the choices of the prior generation, ignoring that every child is impacted by the choices of their parents, and every other generation before them. God would either have had to start over or prevent all evil, and either choice would eliminate free will. What you miss is that people still have the same opportunities to accept or reject Gods offer of salvation, regardless of original sin. Children who have no capacity to make that choice do receive salvation.

What you're really referring to is the Evidential problem of evil which goes like this:

A) It is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God, would allow gratuitous suffering.
B) Gratuitous suffering does exist.
C) Therefore it is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent exists.

There are a few ways to address this argument. In chaos theory, something small and insignificant, like the flapping of a butterlfys wings, can lead to something large and powerful, like the creation of a hurricane. Likewise, the actions we undertake have a ripple effect that go beyond our finite understandings. In the movie sliding doors, there are two timelines to the story, where the heroine is trying to get on a subway, and either makes it at the last minute, or gets there a few seconds late and misses it. In the timeline where she makes it, she goes on to have a happy and successful life, but is suddenly killed in a car accident. In the other, she endures a lot of suffering but ends up living to a ripe old age.

Only an omniscient God could see how all of this is going to play out. Just because something may seem pointless to us at the time doesn't mean it couldn't turn out to be beneficial later. If God is working towards a greater good, suffering may be part of how that ultimate good is achieved. It's easy to think of examples. Let's say you were going to take a trip to Tibet to climb Mt Everest, but you ended up breaking your leg and cancelling the trip. Later you find out that the plane you were going to take crashed into the ocean. What seemed pointless at the time actually saved your life.

The invasion of Normandy resulted in untold casualities, but served the greater good of serving to end the war. So, it isn't something we can really quantify, whether some suffering is pointless or not. It is also an incomplete sample. You can say yes, when you only consider the suffering in the world, God doesn't seem as likely, but that is part of the picture. When you consider all of the good things, the probability starts to balance out.

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.(Job 1:1) The very first verse says Job was perfect. "But that's the narrator speaking!" you might interject. Fine:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 2:3) This is God speaking, and he follows by saying that "[Satan] movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause", i.e. "Satan made me do it". It is not Dan who is twisting the story, but you. Unless, of course, the Bible is not inerrant, but there's no way you'll accept that, now is there.

I've already addressed all of this. Although some translations render the word as "perfect", it is referring to an outstanding moral character and piety towards God, not sinlessness. This is proven by Jobs own words:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

As far as "the devil made me do it", you fail to understand what is going on. Satan is like a prosecuting attorney in Gods courtroom.

Revelation 12:10

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

Satan laid a false accusation against Job, brought him to trial, and Job was tried and tested and found innocent.

Thankfully for you (and everyone else) he is but a figment of your imagination.

You protest too much, hpqp. Your fervent denial shows you have more than a clue. You accuse me of delusion but you're the one fooling yourself.

>> ^hpqp

Of course, just about universally, humans hold very similar moral values about certain behaviours like killing, inflicting pain, caring, protecting and so on. To determine what this entails, I need to know if you agree with this snippet from my earlier comment:

...[our agreed-upon standard definition of "objective moral values" as given verbatim by Craig] entails that if all humans on Earth agreed that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable, that it would still not be morally acceptable. In fact, it also entails that if all humans were dead, those moral values would still exist...

This part of the definition (the "objective" part) is necessary for determining that a god must have made the OMVs.

Yes, I agree that even if every human decided that torturing babies was good, it would still be objectively evil.

On the other hand, if you agree with that quote, then you have to admit that just because humans all exhibit the moral belief that torturing children is bad, it isn't entailed that torturing children would continue to be bad if humans all changed their minds about it or if humans were all wiped out. In other words, to say there is a universal human moral value is not to say that the value itself transcends our DNA and is therefore an objective moral value (by Craig's definition: "independent of whether anybody believes it to be so"). In this case, Premise 2, the existence of an objective moral value, remains unproven.

That there are universal moral values in humanity is clearly evidence for and not against the existence of objective moral values. To turn around and say that just because they exist doesn't automatically mean they are objective isn't an argument. You need to flesh this out. Are you saying there aren't any objective moral values? That it isn't absolutely wrong to torture babies for fun?

In this argument, I have taken no position whatsoever about the nature of moral values. This was on purpose and with great restraint. I've had dozens of serious drawn-out ontological discussions with believers, and when their own position is pushed against the wall, they get desperate to find out what I think, then when I tell them, they point out how it's possible that my theory is wrong or that it doesn't explain everything, and say I'm close-minded for not considering their theory, and dance around the room saying that my theory isn't necessarily true either. It's the "either" that really pisses me off because it implies that their various beliefs are merely "not necessarily true", and on equal footing with my own non-proven beliefs, whereas I have actually shown their beliefs to be self-contradictory, unlike my own.

Well, we haven't gotten anywhere near what you're talking about. I said that your beliefs are relevant in engaging the argument. I do find it fairly common though that atheists will resist revealing their true positions, nearly to the brink of death. Probably for the reason you have revealed, that they balk at there being any inference drawn to a parity between the respective belief systems. I would say though that if you accuse some of having beliefs which lack evidence, and you yourself have beliefs that lack evidence, then there is indeed a parity, no matter how internally consistent you believe you're being.

Or if I have merely shown that one particular assertion of theirs is not necessarily true, they think it's a massive victory to prove the same about something, anything that I believe, and spend a great deal of effort in the process, even though I already knew it wasn't necessarily true when I woke up that morning, and I don't care.

I'm not trying to win the argument, and it isn't important for me to do so. I am only interested in what you believe and having a fruitful dialogue.

"Breaking apart" an argument is how I "engage the argument". What other way is there? You say Craig is right, and I go about proving he's not necessarily right, then you say I'm not engaging the argument because I won't talk about the side issue of my own beliefs. I'll answer any questions you have about my beliefs once this Craig argument is settled. If we can't settle a formal logical debate on logical terms, then I don't see any point in having any logical discussions.

In my reply, I gave a refutation to your objection as well as noting that I would like to advance to the actual argument. I don't have a problem with logical argumentation, I just was somewhat disheartened to see you were trying to kill off the argument without engaging it.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
Of course, just about universally, humans hold very similar moral values about certain behaviours like killing, inflicting pain, caring, protecting and so on. To determine what this entails, I need to know if you agree with this snippet from my earlier comment:
...[our agreed-upon standard definition of "objective moral values" as given verbatim by Craig] entails that if all humans on Earth agreed that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable, that it would still not be morally acceptable. In fact, it also entails that if all humans were dead, those moral values would still exist...
This part of the definition (the "objective" part) is necessary for determining that a god must have made the OMVs.
If you don't agree with that quote, then all you're saying is if any moral values (not necessarily objective moral values) demonstrably exist in humans, then a god exists, without determining what is so special about these moral values that a god must have made them. If human moral values are no more metaphysically significant than large brains, upright posture, self-awareness, reason, guile, or any other human characteristic, then there's no reason to suggest they must have come from a god, and Premise 1 (that a god necessarily created OMVs) remains unproven.
On the other hand, if you agree with that quote, then you have to admit that just because humans all exhibit the moral belief that torturing children is bad, it isn't entailed that torturing children would continue to be bad if humans all changed their minds about it or if humans were all wiped out. In other words, to say there is a universal human moral value is not to say that the value itself transcends our DNA and is therefore an objective moral value (by Craig's definition: "independent of whether anybody believes it to be so"). In this case, Premise 2, the existence of an objective moral value, remains unproven.
what do you believe? That is what is truly relevant to the argument.
If you want to take a position of moral skepticism, then feel free, but you don't get to dismiss the argument over it. How we determine whether premise 2 is true or false is at the heart of how you approach this entire problem. How about you engage the argument rather than trying to break it apart so you don't have to take any position? It would be nice if we could advance the discussion.
I joined this argument to see how you think, and how someone being logical might think that Craig's argument was valid, and to challenge that position. What I personally believe has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Craig's argument, just as a defence attorney's opinion of their client's guilt or innocence holds no weight in the courtroom. It's only the people who make propositions (like Craig) who must defend them. I have no interest in defending my own positions because I know they're not provable, and may even be false. I also don't guide my life by them, so it doesn't matter.
In this argument, I have taken no position whatsoever about the nature of moral values. This was on purpose and with great restraint. I've had dozens of serious drawn-out ontological discussions with believers, and when their own position is pushed against the wall, they get desperate to find out what I think, then when I tell them, they point out how it's possible that my theory is wrong or that it doesn't explain everything, and say I'm close-minded for not considering their theory, and dance around the room saying that my theory isn't necessarily true either. It's the "either" that really pisses me off because it implies that their various beliefs are merely "not necessarily true", and on equal footing with my own non-proven beliefs, whereas I have actually shown their beliefs to be self-contradictory, unlike my own.
Or if I have merely shown that one particular assertion of theirs is not necessarily true, they think it's a massive victory to prove the same about something, anything that I believe, and spend a great deal of effort in the process, even though I already knew it wasn't necessarily true when I woke up that morning, and I don't care.
So as a rule, if I'm in an ontological debate with an opponent and I intend to join the debate seriously, I keep my own opinions out because I'm not trying to prove any propositions, and my own unproven opinions cannot disprove anyone else's anyway. Only logic and reason can do that, so that's what I use. I don't hold anything to be absolutely true, so if they demonstrate what I believe is not necessarily true by proposing an intelligent creator as an alternate theory to mine, I'll just agree.
"Breaking apart" an argument is how I "engage the argument". What other way is there? You say Craig is right, and I go about proving he's not necessarily right, then you say I'm not engaging the argument because I won't talk about the side issue of my own beliefs. I'll answer any questions you have about my beliefs once this Craig argument is settled. If we can't settle a formal logical debate on logical terms, then I don't see any point in having any logical discussions.

@shinyblurry

Of course, just about universally, humans hold very similar moral values about certain behaviours like killing, inflicting pain, caring, protecting and so on. To determine what this entails, I need to know if you agree with this snippet from my earlier comment:

...[our agreed-upon standard definition of "objective moral values" as given verbatim by Craig] entails that if all humans on Earth agreed that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable, that it would still not be morally acceptable. In fact, it also entails that if all humans were dead, those moral values would still exist...

This part of the definition (the "objective" part) is necessary for determining that a god must have made the OMVs.

If you don't agree with that quote, then all you're saying is if any moral values (not necessarily objective moral values) demonstrably exist in humans, then a god exists, without determining what is so special about these moral values that a god must have made them. If human moral values are no more metaphysically significant than large brains, upright posture, self-awareness, reason, guile, or any other human characteristic, then there's no reason to suggest they must have come from a god, and Premise 1 (that a god necessarily created OMVs) remains unproven.

On the other hand, if you agree with that quote, then you have to admit that just because humans all exhibit the moral belief that torturing children is bad, it isn't entailed that torturing children would continue to be bad if humans all changed their minds about it or if humans were all wiped out. In other words, to say there is a universal human moral value is not to say that the value itself transcends our DNA and is therefore an objective moral value (by Craig's definition: "independent of whether anybody believes it to be so"). In this case, Premise 2, the existence of an objective moral value, remains unproven.

what do you believe? That is what is truly relevant to the argument.

If you want to take a position of moral skepticism, then feel free, but you don't get to dismiss the argument over it. How we determine whether premise 2 is true or false is at the heart of how you approach this entire problem. How about you engage the argument rather than trying to break it apart so you don't have to take any position? It would be nice if we could advance the discussion.

I joined this argument to see how you think, and how someone being logical might think that Craig's argument was valid, and to challenge that position. What I personally believe has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Craig's argument, just as a defence attorney's opinion of their client's guilt or innocence holds no weight in the courtroom. It's only the people who make propositions (like Craig) who must defend them. I have no interest in defending my own positions because I know they're not provable, and may even be false. I also don't guide my life by them, so it doesn't matter.

In this argument, I have taken no position whatsoever about the nature of moral values. This was on purpose and with great restraint. I've had dozens of serious drawn-out ontological discussions with believers, and when their own position is pushed against the wall, they get desperate to find out what I think, then when I tell them, they point out how it's possible that my theory is wrong or that it doesn't explain everything, and say I'm close-minded for not considering their theory, and dance around the room saying that my theory isn't necessarily true either. It's the "either" that really pisses me off because it implies that their various beliefs are merely "not necessarily true", and on equal footing with my own non-proven beliefs, whereas I have actually shown their beliefs to be self-contradictory, unlike my own.

Or if I have merely shown that one particular assertion of theirs is not necessarily true, they think it's a massive victory to prove the same about something, anything that I believe, and spend a great deal of effort in the process, even though I already knew it wasn't necessarily true when I woke up that morning, and I don't care.

So as a rule, if I'm in an ontological debate with an opponent and I intend to join the debate seriously, I keep my own opinions out because I'm not trying to prove any propositions, and my own unproven opinions cannot disprove anyone else's anyway. Only logic and reason can do that, so that's what I use. I don't hold anything to be absolutely true, so if they demonstrate what I believe is not necessarily true by proposing an intelligent creator as an alternate theory to mine, I'll just agree.

"Breaking apart" an argument is how I "engage the argument". What other way is there? You say Craig is right, and I go about proving he's not necessarily right, then you say I'm not engaging the argument because I won't talk about the side issue of my own beliefs. I'll answer any questions you have about my beliefs once this Craig argument is settled. If we can't settle a formal logical debate on logical terms, then I don't see any point in having any logical discussions.

Done and Done.>> ^Grimm:

I feel like this from the YT desc should be mentioned here...
Alan Isaacman's speech about Freedom and the futility of Censorship as read verbatim by Ed Norton in the People vs Larry Flynt (1996). Easily one of the greatest movie speeches of all time, it was actually said in the courtroom as Isaacman's closing argument and obviously fell on deaf ears as Flynt was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Flynt is obviously no patriot or hero, but Isaacman is, and this speech is brilliant.

I feel like this from the YT desc should be mentioned here...

Alan Isaacman's speech about Freedom and the futility of Censorship as read verbatim by Ed Norton in the People vs Larry Flynt (1996). Easily one of the greatest movie speeches of all time, it was actually said in the courtroom as Isaacman's closing argument and obviously fell on deaf ears as Flynt was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Flynt is obviously no patriot or hero, but Isaacman is, and this speech is brilliant.

We usually read about superheroes in comics. They are noted for protecting the public to the extent of risking their own safety without expecting any reward. Some people imitate their costume as shown in the picture and do their noted actions. However, there are real life superheroes who don't portray a good image. A Michigan male in a Batman suit found himself in the courtroom for holding a weapon and trespassing. He has been given six months’ probation. He has already been ordered not to put on any costumes for 6 months. Article source: Would-be Batman unmasked in court and sentenced to probation

"Let's see what is going on in our other Stereotype Courtrooms (TM): 2:"Mama mia!" 3:"Oy vey!" 4:"Ayayay!""

>> ^lantern53:

There is far more evidence that God exists than that God does not exist.
Study near-death experiences.


What? How does individuals seeing things count as evidence? First hand experience in subjective unscientific and carries the least weight in a courtroom than anything else. If that's your evidence than you might as well skull-fuck your professors they aren't doing you a damn bit of good.

>> ^budzos:

...like a couple middle aged moms on a pill bender.


Dude if it was that interesting I'd watch everyday!

No controversy really. Anyone who's worked in the field for a company that's fracking knows it's messing up nearby water sources. They all know it's happening, but there's been no "legal" proof so those companies will continue to mantain that it does no harm. Their definition of "harm" being contingent upon a court decision that harm is being done. If your water or land is messed up, it's not really messed up if there's no courtroom decision that it's messed up.

Fracking does harm. Is it worth the cost? Of course it is, as long as the cost continues to fall on the shoulders of the parties affected, rather than the companies doing the damage.

I'm with you. These atheists have taken it way too far. I brought it up with some mixed religious/atheist friends last night and we all sided with Perry.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if Fox completely misrepresented this whole story, and it's actually a government funded event to be held in the oval office itself, campaign donations to be solicited.>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^messenger:
I gotta say, I don't see what the problem is. The only way this private event has anything to do with government is that the guy who is hosting it happens to be a U.S. senator. What's that got to do with separation of church and state? How does it violate anybody's rights?

I will take your message to the next level. I think the balance has tipped. Whereas once atheists were told to "shut the fuck up or else" we are now telling Christians the same. Lawsuit? Really.
Is the governor allowed to attend a funeral if he holds a prayer there? "But it's rallying people." And?
It is not the "Segregation of church and state." Nor is it the "Destruction of church from anything related to state."
I don't think judges should have bibles in their courtroom. But if the President wants to voluntarily place his hand on a bible, so fucking be it! If a teacher wants to hold prayer on the sidewalk before school starts, so be it. If he/she wants to hold it in school, with everyone present, fuck no. There are huge differences that whinny people ignore.
Is Rick Perry a douche? Of course. But I will defend the Sift's rights to free atheist speak, and I will defend this douche his right to speak.

>> ^messenger:

I gotta say, I don't see what the problem is. The only way this private event has anything to do with government is that the guy who is hosting it happens to be a U.S. senator. What's that got to do with separation of church and state? How does it violate anybody's rights?


I will take your message to the next level. I think the balance has tipped. Whereas once atheists were told to "shut the fuck up or else" we are now telling Christians the same. Lawsuit? Really.

Is the governor allowed to attend a funeral if he holds a prayer there? "But it's rallying people." And?

It is not the "Segregation of church and state." Nor is it the "Destruction of church from anything related to state."

I don't think judges should have bibles in their courtroom. But if the President wants to voluntarily place his hand on a bible, so fucking be it! If a teacher wants to hold prayer on the sidewalk before school starts, so be it. If he/she wants to hold it in school, with everyone present, fuck no. There are huge differences that whinny people ignore.

Is Rick Perry a douche? Of course. But I will defend the Sift's rights to free atheist speak, and I will defend this douche his right to speak.