Consider: A recipe calls for three cups of flour, but my measuring cup only holds one cup. I mst throw up my hands in despair and give up baking.

Consider: I need to measure a plot of land the size of a football field, but my stride only covers about three feet at a time. It is hopeless, since my standard of measure is small than the thing to be measured.

Consider: Your statement about measuring systems fails to hold water.

The way we define ‘human’ determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Many
problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.

Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.

Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or trans-
cendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with
foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lack-
ing foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and
is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, collectivism,
averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an
unworthy worship.

The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:

1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.

The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future. Only the Creator,
who made us in His own image, is qualified to define
us accurately.

Human is earth’s Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature’s God a creature of Choice - and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe.

- from The HUMAN PARADIGM

(A)theism and morality: Dan already covered this, so I’ll give it a different angle. Theoretically, the link between theistic authority and morality has been in trouble since Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, written about 2400 years ago. Experimentally, Christian morality is problematic to anyone who explores the disagreement between what is generally considered moral today, and what is written in the Bible (slavery, rape, genocide, etc.) Many Christians simply do not know their scriptures.

Free will: I believe you already had a thread on this not long ago. It is a difficult topic to discuss, since “free will” means something quite different to an atheist vs. to a theist. Also, the definition is not well set. Many people try to save free will by redefining it. Since free will is so poorly established, using it as justification for belief in god(s) is highly questionable.

(1) scientists can’t explain how X occurs
(2) therefore telic explanation is correct
(3) skip over fact that the telic explanation can’t explain how X occurs either
(where X in this case is the evidence of “matter” and “free will”)

The simple point is that “God did it” is a cop-out, at least as far as science goes. Science involves asking questions such as “how” or “why.” Theology doesn’t do this, it just accepts “God” as the final word in any argument.

And also, one of the first things that each and every student of science has drummed into their heads in grad school is this- it’s perfectly OK to say “I don’t know” to a question, but providing an explanation that cannot be supported by citable evidence is a significant embarrassment to oneself. Quinn would do well to learn that bit - its an important distinction that every critical thinker should learn.

Well, I would say the existence of matter itself. I would say the existence of morality. Myself and Richard Dawkins have a really different understanding of the origins of morality. I would say, free will. If you are an atheist, if you are an atheist, logically speaking, you cannot believe in objective morality. You cannot believe in free will. These are two things that the vast majority of humankind implicitly believe in. We believe, for example, that if a person carries out a bad action, we can call that person “bad” because we believe they are freely choosing those actions.

So let’s take that apart one reason at a time:

1) Matter itself: How is that evidence for God? As an if-then statement, that makes no sense: If matter exists, then God exists.

2) Morality: This one has been debunked so many times already. Simply put, I’m not going to become a murderer or a rapist if God doesn’t exist, neither is Dawkins, and the ability to distinguish right from wrong is a sociological/psychological phenomenon, not a theological one.

I’m not well-versed on discussions of free will, but I just don’t see how this is relevant. Perhaps it is, but I’d like to see some hard data on the link between God and free will. Certainly though, “nature” and “nurture” play significant roles in determining sociological norms and values, but that doesn’t quite close the door to “free will” entirely. So where’s the hard data, or is “free will” exclusively a philosophical matter?

Later, Quinn says:

It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask yourself, “where does matter come from?” And it’s perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer God created matter.

Sure, just as it’s reasonable to posit that gnomes made the Universe. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Or fairies. All of them appear equally plausible, right? Of course not - because we’re told that God did it from an early age, and therefore we’re inclined to believe that God is a more plausible explanation. But that’s dogma - it’s not even a good basis for philosophical arguments.

But let’s just say that Quinn is right, and that God created the Universe, matter, and free will. Which God then? As Dawkins points out elsewhere, it could have been any God. How about the Greek mythological explanation. Oh, but that’s silly you might say - well, go and tell that to the ancient Greeks, and I bet they’d get as mad at you as Christians are of atheists in America today.