Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Come again? If I have an opt out (I take this to mean reason for belief?) the Bible is less reliable? You may have to give an example of how you feel I would opt out in a way that is illogical or invalid.

What I mean is that there is no way for me to pin you down and show you an error in the bible, you will always come up with a way out of it... It's unfalsifiable.

While yes, I agree that it may not be possible for me alone to know what God's entire will is, if the bible describes his will (and is divinely inspired) than I can infer what his will is for situations I find myself in.

You really can't, what you mean when you say 'infer' is basically 'make it up', which is about as good as anyone who might disagree with you.

 

[BradCube]

There is no point discussing this as God, by definition, is a concept that can not be proven or dis-proven and should have no bearing on one's morals or behavior.

Why shouldn't God have bearing on one's moral behaviour?

 

[boris]

So philosophical problems, emotional problems and any other problems outside of tangible testable scenarios do not exist? Therefore they should be ignored or disregarded entirely?

No. They shouldn't be.
But a scientific solution to emotional problems is just as valid as somebody who finds solace in God to remedy their emotional problems. To me science can explain how they feel emotional where as seeking solace in the Bible can't.

And my point is that tangible scenarios and situations are not the only scenarios and situations humans face on earth.

And I guess what I was saying was that the solutions to these scenarios can be solved by science, to a degree. It's hard to articulate when we can't come up with one.

It's no where near the same argument over the existence for God. For one thing we know that we are both describing or discussing the same thing (or cat in the previous example). Secondly it is simple to show whether a cat is brown or black by objectively testing. Such tests cannot be applied to a being which is beyond our natural realm however.

Tests cannot be applied to the original big bang, but tests have been replicated to show it is a feasible explanation. Christians have blind faith in a book that cannot be proven as divinely inspired, just as I have faith in a science which is at the moment still out of our grasp.

The problem lies in that it is logically flawed to believe that you came into existence uncaused since we know that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. It seems that you affirm this position because you believe every effect has a cause. With that belief in mind you cannot say that the effect of your existence simply "just is" and is uncaused.

And as you would have read, I said that I myself do not hold the belief that I exist just because. What I was saying was that if somebody else wants to believe this then their belief is no less valid than yours or mine. I doubt a lot of people believe this, but there are probably a lot more who simply don't care about the origins of life. And why should they. Why are humans that narcissistic that they feel they have to seek the answers to life?

 

[boris]

Why shouldn't God have bearing on one's moral behaviour?

Why should God have bearing on ones moral behaviour?

 

[BradCube]

What I mean is that there is no way for me to pin you down and show you an error in the bible, you will always come up with a way out of it... It's unfalsifiable.

Please give a reasonable example here. As far as I can tell, having a source that is never proven to be wrong is a pretty good reason to trust it. There are plenty of claims in the bible that could be shown to be false if in fact they were.

You really can't, what you mean when you say 'infer' is basically 'make it up', which is about as good as anyone who might disagree with you.

Ha ha, no, not at all. What I meant was that situations which exist today may not have existed in the times when the bible was written but we can still infer based on what it did say what we should do today.

For example, if I were to look at the issue of downloading a song from the internet which I did not own I could infer from the bible that this is wrong because it is stealing.

 

[BradCube]

No. They shouldn't be.
But a scientific solution to emotional problems is just as valid as somebody who finds solace in God to remedy their emotional problems. To me science can explain how they feel emotional where as seeking solace in the Bible can't.

Science can explain why chemicals in a person can cause them to feel a certain way. Can science however explain the cause of certain chemicals based on situations. ie, can science explain why emotional feelings related to love cause the chemicals that they do?

And I guess what I was saying was that the solutions to these scenarios can be solved by science, to a degree. It's hard to articulate when we can't come up with one.

Well I thought we did come up with one that could not be tested by science - that of philosophical arguments. You however said that since this cannot be tested my science it does not exist and has no meaning since it relies on words to describe it.

Tests cannot be applied to the original big bang, but tests have been replicated to show it is a feasible explanation. Christians have blind faith in a book that cannot be proven as divinely inspired, just as I have faith in a science which is at the moment still out of our grasp.

So then, science is just as invalid as Christianity? Either way, proofs of why someone believes what they do about a belief should be given rather than just stated.

Also just making sure: You don't feel that the big bang is a explanation unto itself do you?

And as you would have read, I said that I myself do not hold the belief that I exist just because. What I was saying was that if somebody else wants to believe this then their belief is no less valid than yours or mine.

Sure the belief in itself is valid. But it does not hold up when presented with other evidence. It would be the same for me to claim that the USA doesn't exist because Australia is all I know and have chosen to believe exists. The belief doesn't falsify itself and it certainly doesn't falsify that the USA exists. However, when presented with new evidence or information, the belief has to be re-evaluated or the evidence has to be dismissed for some reason.

Not looking evidence contrary to your belief is one thing, but ignoring evidence when it is presented to them is what I am addressing.

I doubt a lot of people believe this, but there are probably a lot more who simply don't care about the origins of life. And why should they.

I would think that most people would care because the implications of the existence of God could have huge ramifications for their entire life and everything they believe in.

Why are humans that narcissistic that they feel they have to seek the answers to life?

No idea, but it seems we are that narcissistic.

 

[BradCube]

Why should God have bearing on ones moral behaviour?

ha ha. I wanted a response from toadstooltown before the burden of proof was switched!

I feel as though I have gone through my position on this earlier in the thread, but I will re-iterate. If morals are based around Gods character, which I believe they are, then there are objective morals in our world today. Depending on your definition of should (as in must comply, or would be wise to etc) then God should have bearing on our morals since he is the authority on what they are.

 

[boris]

ha ha. I wanted a response from toadstooltown before the burden of proof was switched!

I feel as though I have gone through my position on this earlier in the thread, but I will re-iterate. If morals are based around Gods character, which I believe they are, then there are objective morals in our world today. Depending on your definition of should (as in must comply, or would be wise to etc) then God should have bearing on our morals since he is the authority on what they are.

Haha
I was just being a pest. I knew somebody would get in with it eventually, figured it may as well be me.

 

[BradCube]

Heh heh, fair enough then

 

[xeuyrawp]

You seem to be talking here as if you have complete knowledge of what God would be like if in fact he did exist. I find it quite difficult to see how you can maintain this position knowing that you say you "neither know, care, nor will spend time trying to figure out whether god exists." If you have such a view point how can you possibley know so much about what he would be like if he did exist?

Just because I don't think something exists doesn't mean that I can't speculate on its form if it did, mate.

For example, if I said to you 'There is a pencil in this box, describe it to me'. You could say 'I don't think there's a pencil in the box. However, if there is one, it would be like ____'. This is because you've been informed as to what a pencil is, maybe you've thought about them before, maybe you realise that a pencil can only take a certain number of manifestations.

It would appear that you have a misunderstanding of the normal concepts relating to heaven and hell if you would choose hell over heaven. Also of interest is that you believe that God requires your prayers? What does belief this stem from? It seems pretty limiting for an omnipotent God.

It would appear you're being patronising and can't read or comprehend even basic arguments. Maybe you're not reading things, here, I'll repeat it for you:

If there is a god, it doesn't want you wasting time talking to it, converting people, killing people for it, or even believe in it, otherwise it wouldn't have given us the capacity to do otherwise

^ Ie, I'm in agreement with you that god really wouldn't require prayers.

I for the life of me cannot understand this. You don't care to try and figure out whether God exists? What do you feel is more important than working out the origins of absolutely everything in front of us?

It could be my personality so don't take this too much to heart. It would seem to me that every other question or time filler is rendered meaningless if in fact we have no answer to those biggest questions in life regarding our existence.

Again, I totally understand what you're saying.

My argument is this: As far as I'm concerned, I can never figure out whether god exists. There's no point spending time thinking about it further, because it's just a waste of time.

If god does exist, the only consequence for me is whether I go to heaven: Believing in god would not change me in any way; it wouldn't make me happier, nicer, more intelligent, or better looking. I think prayer is a waste of time, and I would think that any god would think the same. I can only do good by whatever social norms I've adopted, and hope that I go to heaven.

Therefore, unless god is not what I think he would be (if he existed), I'm doing the right thing by not giving a shit whether he exists. If god is not what I think he is -- ie if he requires prayers, or if he hates me for not believing in him, or if he hates queers, etc etc -- then I do not want to be in heaven.

However, I would say that the existence of theism is simply a product of the process I outlined above. Theism in all forms is visibly older than any current religions; I don't know how anyone can say that x religion is new.

Some people devote their time to figuring out whether god exists, and that's cool, but I'm too much of a scientist to think that I will come to a different conclusion to anybody else: That there is no evidence that god exists. Rather, there is a lot of evidence to place all of the main religions into a tradition of primitive superstitions and religions.

Edit:

I don't think it's quite the same.

Neither.

But I think that theists see god as a far more likely source of these inexplicable things than ghosts.

But to scientists, as you've pointed out, there's no real reason why ghosts aren't as valid as god. In fact, evidence of ancestor cult worship (ghosts, to an extent) is older than evidence of theism proper. It's believed that the first elements of any religious belief system is the whole world of the living / world of the dead relationship. These elements aren't in the developed religions (Christianity, etc) because they give something to look back upon as primitive.

 

[BradCube]

Just because I don't think something exists doesn't mean that I can't speculate on its form if it did, mate.

For example, if I said to you 'There is a pencil in this box, describe it to me'. You could say 'I don't think there's a pencil in the box. However, if there is one, it would be like ____'. This is because you've been informed as to what a pencil is, maybe you've thought about them before, maybe you realise that a pencil can only take a certain number of manifestations.

Agreed, but this is not what I was pointing to. The problem lies for me that you don't care to research reasons for Gods existence, but still maintain that you would know what God would be like if He did exist. Surely if you don't care to spend the time investigating existence, then you haven't spent the time to know of His nature? I find it confusing on my behalf, because the proofs for Gods existence can speak directly of his nature.

So I suppose in the end my question really was asking how do you know what you claim to know about Gods character and nature?

It would appear you're being patronising and can't read or comprehend even basic arguments.

I apologize if I appeared to sound that way, I can assure you that it was not intentional. I was only stating what I thought plainly and frankly and so again I apologize if it was offensive in any way.

The section you quoted regarding prayers seems vastly different to what we are talking about here. ie, in one God doesn't need prayers and in the other God does not want prayers. I would assert that God does not need prayers but does want prayers. I guess this is where the confusion lied in what I originally quoted from you and how I interpreted it.

My argument is this: As far as I'm concerned, I can never figure out whether god exists. There's no point spending time thinking about it further, because it's just a waste of time.

This implies though that there is no way you will never make any progress through your time spent investigating. I don't know that this is as easy to hold to as you make it sound. If this could be proven to be true, then I would probably agree with you that there is no point in investigating the existence of God since neither a positive or negative outcome could be reached. In some sense I agree with you, but I have found through my own investigation that I have made significant progress in my reasons for belief regarding God and our existence.

If god does exist, the only consequence for me is whether I go to heaven: Believing in god would not change me in any way; it wouldn't make me happier, nicer, more intelligent, or better looking. I think prayer is a waste of time, and I would think that any god would think the same. I can only do good by whatever social norms I've adopted, and hope that I go to heaven.

The consequence you reach here assumes that God cannot and will not influence your life on earth, but only after you have died. Now while this is one view of God, I don't think it represents the majority, or certainly at least not the only option in the nature of God. Christianity poses for example, that you can have an active relationship with God while on earth. I would think that if the Christian view of God is correct, then there are far bigger consequences than just going to heaven.

However, I would say that the existence of theism is simply a product of the process I outlined above. Theism in all forms is visibly older than any current religions; I don't know how anyone can say that x religion is new.

That seems to be a pretty agreeable statement.

Some people devote their time to figuring out whether god exists, and that's cool, but I'm too much of a scientist to think that I will come to a different conclusion to anybody else: That there is no evidence that god exists.

Sure, there is no empirically testable evidence such as science could use to actually "detect" or show that God exists. There is evidence that I would claim is highly peculiar or interesting without a Gods existence (such as the probability of life on earth).

 

[Kwayera]

Science can explain why chemicals in a person can cause them to feel a certain way. Can science however explain the cause of certain chemicals based on situations. ie, can science explain why emotional feelings related to love cause the chemicals that they do?

Uh, actually science can explain this. I'm no endocrinologist, but there is certainly an evolutionary link between chemicals produced in the brain, their subsequent useful physiological effect and thus their survival within human genes is quite well documented.

 

[Kwayera]

Sure, there is no empirically testable evidence such as science could use to actually "detect" or show that God exists. There is evidence that I would claim is highly peculiar or interesting without a Gods existence (such as the probability of life on earth).

But the whole point behind science and evidence is that it is quantitative, not qualitative. You can have philosophical "evidence" (which is always open to interpretation based on one's subjectivisms), certainly, but that can never prove the existence of a God, as much as it could prove the existence of a celestial teapot.

What such evidence?

 

[Slidey]

Science can explain why chemicals in a person can cause them to feel a certain way. Can science however explain the cause of certain chemicals based on situations. ie, can science explain why emotional feelings related to love cause the chemicals that they do?

I don't think you'd even need to know about the endocrine system or limbic system to see how that doesn't require god. And if you don't know about them, having faith that god controls them seems a little far-fetched, no?

How can you think that certain chemicals in the brain cause a feeling, but that god personally releases these chemicals in each individual person's brain to trigger that feeling?

Anyway, chemicals (e.g. dopamine and serotonin) aren't the only things which influence mood. Love is a veriety of moods and emotions; depending on what stage it is, it could be obsession, adoration, contentment, etc, so you can hardly try to pinpoint one mechanism to it. Different areas of the brain are responsible for different moods and emotions. The brain is like a massive set of extremely complex parallel neural nets. Neurotransmitters are like extra messengers between these neural nets; they don't make a person feel differently, they change the inputs of the neural net, which changes the state of the neural net - and if it is the neural net that helps produce the emotion of love, then obviously you'll feel more loving.

Scientists have produced feelings, memories and emotions by the electrical stimulation of certain areas of the brain. They've also demonstrated that removal of certain parts of the brain prevents things like agression, love, etc. This is the disgusting practice of lobotomy. Still, I hardly think the god goes "oh, you removed this part of the brain, so now I'll stop letting these people be happy."

The human brain is one of the biggest mysteries in science and mankind's most important scientific question. But to say that we don't understand it would be silly. I mean this literally: every single day somebody around the world unlocks one new secret about the human brain. And on a holistic level we already understand a great deal about it.

Really, the biggest problem facing neuroscience is not the problem that the brain is potentially controlled by god and not physical laws, but that no single human is capable of understanding and processing all the information required to understand entirely how human brain works. Rather ironic, no?

Honestly, you need to read a book on complexity theory and how it relates to the physical world. Considering all the questions you have about things like evolution, the human brain, physics, etc (and rightly so! questions are never a bad thing), it would go a long way to helping your understanding. It helps if you're a holistic thinker of course. People who focus too much on the details don't tend to 'get' complexity theory or many areas of science in general, nor do people who actively refuse to accept science can explain something they thought god was directly responsible for.

My suggestion: 'Frontiers of Complexity'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_net#The_brain.2C_neural_networks_and_computers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neural_network

 

[Stevo.]

Now this thread is getting somewhere.

 

[BradCube]

Uh, actually science can explain this. I'm no endocrinologist, but there is certainly an evolutionary link between chemicals produced in the brain, their subsequent useful physiological effect and thus their survival within human genes is quite well documented.

Ok, awesome. This was a sincere question and not really an attack so it is good to have an answer. Could anyone expand upon this idea more than just: evolution results in chemicals that, in situations, promote survivability?

EDIT: Changed my original assertion that evolution causes chemicals (for obvious reasons as is documented in posts below). This false assertion was not what I originally intended to imply anyhow.

But the whole point behind science and evidence is that it is quantitative, not qualitative. You can have philosophical "evidence" (which is always open to interpretation based on one's subjectivisms), certainly, but that can never prove the existence of a God, as much as it could prove the existence of a celestial teapot.

Wow, I never thought I would come up against so much opposition to philosophy being used as a viable means of gaining knowledge. It surprises me very much since much of our proofs and statements we make in this very forum have roots in philosophy and it's truths. If we throw away philosophy we have thrown away all of our logic and reasoning along with it.

Now we know that science only tests what is quantitative but this presents us with a problem since a theory of God poses that he is beyond quantitative measure. So then how do we look for existence of God using only science? No matter which way you slice it, it's going to be pretty difficult but I would think that some observable scientific facts could lead us to question the cause of those facts.

For example the improbability of life existing in the universe borders on what I would reason to be closer to impossibility. This leads me to think that there must be a reason for this occurrence. As of yet, I haven't seen any reasonable reason given that makes more sense to me than the design argument.

The inability to explain the cause of the universe using scientific measures is a gaping hole in my opinion that demands a response. I am not content simply to ignore this on the belief that science could one day find an answer.

 

[BradCube]

I don't think you'd even need to know about the endocrine system or limbic system to see how that doesn't require god. And if you don't know about them, having faith that god controls them seems a little far-fetched, no?

As I pointed out in my reply to Kwayera, I didn't mean to imply that I thought God was responsible for each emotion we feel. I was just asking a sincere question.

Thanks for your reply. Just ordered the book you recommended. Thanks

With that, I'm off to watch Prison Break for the rest of the night. Thanks everyone for the discussion today

 

[xeuyrawp]

Agreed, but this is not what I was pointing to. The problem lies for me that you don't care to research reasons for Gods existence, but still maintain that you would know what God would be like if He did exist. Surely if you don't care to spend the time investigating existence, then you haven't spent the time to know of His nature? I find it confusing on my behalf, because the proofs for Gods existence can speak directly of his nature.

So I suppose in the end my question really was asking how do you know what you claim to know about Gods character and nature?
I apologize if I appeared to sound that way, I can assure you that it was not intentional. I was only stating what I thought plainly and frankly and so again I apologize if it was offensive in any way.

The section you quoted regarding prayers seems vastly different to what we are talking about here. ie, in one God doesn't need prayers and in the other God does not want prayers. I would assert that God does not need prayers but does want prayers. I guess this is where the confusion lied in what I originally quoted from you and how I interpreted it.


This implies though that there is no way you will never make any progress through your time spent investigating. I don't know that this is as easy to hold to as you make it sound. If this could be proven to be true, then I would probably agree with you that there is no point in investigating the existence of God since neither a positive or negative outcome could be reached. In some sense I agree with you, but I have found through my own investigation that I have made significant progress in my reasons for belief regarding God and our existence.

The consequence you reach here assumes that God cannot and will not influence your life on earth, but only after you have died. Now while this is one view of God, I don't think it represents the majority, or certainly at least not the only option in the nature of God. Christianity poses for example, that you can have an active relationship with God while on earth. I would think that if the Christian view of God is correct, then there are far bigger consequences than just going to heaven.


That seems to be a pretty agreeable statement.

Sure, there is no empirically testable evidence such as science could use to actually "detect" or show that God exists. There is evidence that I would claim is highly peculiar or interesting without a Gods existence (such as the probability of life on earth).

The probably of life on earth is less of a force for the existence of god than a historical eye is against. ;p

With regards to research, you're again confusing religion (which I'm very interested in) and theism (which I really don't care for).

 

[Kwayera]

Ok, awesome. This was a sincere question and not really an attack so it is good to have an answer. Could anyone expand upon this idea more than just: evolution causes chemicals in situations to promote survivability?

Evolution doesn't CAUSE things. Evolution is the result of things, which are better than other things. (To put it extraordinarily simply). Slidey expands on it nicely, but one could summarise that a chemical "behavioural stimulant" occurs in the brain, causes a favourable reaction (i.e. the emotions of love, to use your example, encourage pair-bonding which ensues in a lower infant mortality rate), which is then passed on.

Wow, I never thought I would come up against so much opposition to philosophy being used as a viable means of gaining knowledge. It surprises me very much since much of our proofs and statements we make in this very forum have roots in philosophy and it's truths. If we throw away philosophy we have thrown away all of our logic and reasoning along with it.

Since when was all our logic and reasoning based in philosophy? That idea is totally alien to me.

Now we know that science only tests what is quantitative but this presents us with a problem since a theory of God poses that he is beyond quantitative measure. So then how do we look for existence of God using only science? No matter which way you slice it, it's going to be pretty difficult but I would think that some observable scientific facts could lead us to question the cause of those facts.

And therein lies our point. You can't prove or even look for God's existence using science. And science, for us, is the ONLY way to explain our world and life and the universe yadda yadda. And while there are observable scientific facts that lead us to the cause of those facts, they never, in any way, are undiscoverable to the point that the only explanation is that God created them; most of the time we just don't have the technology yet.

I.e. CERN, its LHC and the Higgs boson.

For example the improbability of life existing in the universe borders on what I would reason to be closer to impossibility. This leads me to think that there must be a reason for this occurrence. As of yet, I haven't seen any reasonable reason given that makes more sense to me than the design argument.

But it doesn't. It only borders on "impossible" because of what YOU conceive to be statistically significant; ignoring the Drake equation (which has so many holes in it one could drain pasta with it), life within certain zones, on certain types of planets around certain types of stars (which are average, and thus reasonably common), in terms of statistical probability, aren't extremely unlikely at all. You need to be a certain distance from a long-lived star for liquid water and an atmosphere, and for life (not necessarily complex life, but life) as we know it, that's all you need.

It's a big universe, and the conditions that life as we know it requires aren't unique to our planet. The fact that we haven't found any life elsewhere yet is most likely due to the inferiority of our technology and the fact that the universe is so freaking huge.

The inability to explain the cause of the universe using scientific measures is a gaping hole in my opinion that demands a response. I am not content simply to ignore this on the belief that science could one day find an answer.

We have explained the cause of the universe according to every available scrap of data available, and the most likely theory remains the Big Bang. What caused THAT? We don't know yet, and again, that is largely due to the inferiority of our technology. The LHC, if it detects a Higgs boson, could use it to explain the expansion of the universe in the first few seconds after the Big Bang; and so it goes.

I don't believe we'll eternally remain ignorant about the origins of the universe, like we now know our origins. We don't ignore it, we keep looking. Explaining it away as "an act of God" is the ultimate act of betrayal to all that, because essentially permits one to give up the search: "well, we don't know yet why the universe began, let's just call it an act of God and leave it at that".

 

[KFunk]

So we come back to Euthyphro's dilemma. My position is that there is a third option and that is that what is good is defined through and by Gods character. In this way there is no way he "could" have chosen differently since it is based on his own unchanging character. It also means that he did not prescribe to a form of morality that is external to him (that he would have to submit to) since he is the reason alone for that true sense of "good".

In such a case it seems that there is neither rhyme nor reason to god's preferences - they simply are what they are and we just accept them. This seems fairly unsatisfying to me.

However, there still seems to be a problem to me (let me know if I am getting too pedantic here). If god's preferences are not to be contingent (i.e. arbitrary, such as would generate a 'divine' form of relativism) they must be necessary. But it is then worth asking: in virtue of what can something (a proposition, say) be deemed necessary? A couple possibilities emerge:

- A proposition may have a properly basic character. For example, logical laws might be said to be necessary on this basis.
- A proposition might follow logically from other necessary truths, making it either a logical theorem or a logical extension of some set of truths.

You seem to want to avoid the second possibility (so that there is no moral 'court of appeal' beyond god) so I will only consider the first possibility. I'm not sure how one would even make sense of the suggestion that, for example, 'god prefers heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones' is a necessary truth with an indubitability on par with logical truths. If there is an apparent truth there, I don't see it. Given the strength of the claim you have to make in order to assert that gods preferences are both necessary, and in a properly basic sense no less, I just don't think you have a very good case.

Yes very true. This is why I added on the end of my statement originally that "In this case, a cause that transcends the natural laws of the universe being created". I find that we can assert something of the cause if the universe by knowing what the universe currently consists of - that is all space time reality including all matter and energy. Does it not follow then that the cause of this must transcend that which it is creating? ie the cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being or object beyond space and time. As a starting point for discussion I find that to be quite a good description of what most believe God to be.

In answer to the question (bolded by me): no, I don't think so. All you can say is that the space-time(-energy?) fabric of our universe was created - not that the very possibility of space-time was created (we don't have the evidence to make this claim). That the cause of our universe generated our space-time does not mean that it can't exist in some kind of space which is 'external' to ours in the right way. Of course I know next to zero physics/maths/topology etc. so I really should hold my tongue in this territory. In any case, I don't think your argument for transcendence, as it currently stands, holds up.

I will be honest with you and say that I am having a difficult enough time trying to understand what you have written let alone formulate an answer to it! With that in mind I will will endeavor to provide you with a response to your questions here.

Is it at all feasible to derive prescriptive facts from descriptive empirical facts?

Well in relation to prescriptive facts relating to empirical data than yes it is feasible. Predictions are constantly made everyday about how something scientifically "ought" to work based on empirical data. However I assume you are talking about whether morally prescriptive ideas or facts can be supported by empirical description or data. If that is the case then the answer is a clear no since empirical data is neutral to any moral issues. This is the reason why without a God there is no real objective or absolute morality.

Is it possible to justify moral claims using logic?
Interesting question. Sure I think that logic can be used in justifying certain moral claims but only in the assumption that moral's actually truly exist. For example logic could be used to justify that raping two people is morally wrong just as it is wrong to rape one person. However, this comes with the belief that it is wrong for a human to rape another human in the first place.

Is it possible to justify morals using only logic outside of morals? Then probably not. I don't find this to be an area for concern however. It is akin to asking me to write an essay using only numbers. (Assuming the essay is not a math proof of course )

Mightn't there exist moral claims which could be considered 'properly basic'?
This is where we may differ in our opinions. I would be inclined to believe that there are moral claims which are properly basic. Just as I observe the physical world around me using properly basic beliefs (ie that my eyes, brain, senses etc are not lying to me) I can also observe the moral state of affairs around me using properly basic beliefs.

On your responses -

(1) Empirical data: Yeah, I agree that empirical facts are moral-neutral.

(2) Logic: I also agree that logic may be used validly as part of moral reasoning, and that logic alone does not yield moral principles.

(3) Properly basic beliefs: sadly we hit a road block here. You see 'the truth' and I don't. I would suggest, however, that highly controversial beliefs make dubious candidates for the 'properly basic' category.