-->
@disgusted
prior to the middle ages the word god didn't exist,
And you can show us all your evidence for that claim can you? Let's see it then.
Ramshutu’s Razor
Posts
Total:
315
-->
@Stephen
Get an education. I'm glad I'm not your kindergarten teacher.
-->
@disgusted
--> @disgustedprior to the middle ages the word god didn't exist,And you can show us all your evidence for that claim can you? Let's see it then.Get an education....
So , not surprisingly, that's another No, and failure to produce then. What a buffoon you are.
You continually demand evidence of others but alway fail to back up your own claims when called upon to do so.
-->
@Stephen
You can keep the bait but can I have the line and reel back?
-->
@disgusted
You ever hear the saying, "A rose called by any other name is still a rose?"
Your reasoning is that before roses were called roses, roses did not exist.
-->
@PGA2.0
Apparently you have an objective Moral standard by which you can judge things.
You are also arguing that I am implicitly unable to use your objective moral standard and apply it to the universe.
If I can’t make objective determinations from your objective standard it’s not an objective standard.
What I suspect you’re doing, though, is arguing out of both sides of your mouth: arguing that you have objective values based upon God: but any attempt to actually assess those standards by applying them to the universe in a novel way “don’t count”, because these objective standards are subjective when I use them.
-->
@Mopac
So god is reality and nothing more.
great.
”Reality exists”, but as you’ve defined God as just reality, this doesn’t prove the Christian God exists. You have to equivocate to do that
Whixh ia basically what I’ve been saying all along
-->
@Ramshutu
The Ultimate Reality.
And I'm not equivocating, this is how we have always understood God. The proof is in the writings of the church stretching back thousands of years.
You are simply uneducated about these matters and are being haughty because you are deceived into thinking you know better.
-->
@Mopac
If you think God is more than just reality - than you can’t show God exists without equivocating.
-->
@Ramshutu
Not simply reality, The Ultimate Reality.
And as I have said from the beginning, your only argument is to make God something else and then falsely accuse me of equivocating.
-->
@Mopac
Like I said - if God is more than just reality, you can’t show he exists just by pointing at reality. It’s equivocaing.
-->
@Ramshutu
The Ultimate Reality.
Reality in the truest sense.
Your argument is nonsense. You can't reason God away.
-->
@Mopac
Reality - this exists.
Ultimate Reality - if this is reality, call it reality. If if is “more” than reality, you don’t know it exists.
God - if this is ultimate reality, and the ultimate reality is just reality - then Just call God Reality. If it is more than ultimate reality, or ultimate reality is more than just reality, then you can’t show God exists.
You obviously won’t answer - as it proves where your fallacy is; but you are equivocating at least one of those definitions. By implying it is “just reality”, then more than just reality.
-->
@Ramshutu
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Repent of your wickedness, it would be better for you.
-->
@Mopac
OOPS! You must have realized you’re error!
You're trying to reason God into existence using bad logic.
If “the ultimate reality” is more than just reality - you should call It reality. Otherwise if not you can’t tell if it exists; because it’s not plane and simple reality - the thing we know exists.
if “God” Is more than just reality, you should just call God Reality; otherwise if not you can’t tell if he exists - because he’s not reality - the thing we know exists.
Hence - this is the source of your equivocation, using weasel words and implicit definitions, dodging questions, evading errors.
For one who claims to have the truth you sure appear afraid of asking or answering any questions.
-->
@Ramshutu
No, I am quite confident that you are a fool. The polar opposite of realizing I'm in error.
Your argument is sophistry. Your inability to reconcile "God cannot exist" with "God by definition is existence".
And with that, I urge you to repent of your wickedness and abandon your folly! Those who put their faith in lying vanities forsake their own salvation!
The Truth is what sets you free, and The Truth is God!
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" = know it all dipshitism
-->
@Mopac
You're professing be wise and to know answers, and your arguments boil down to major logical errors.
Why is that passage not applying to you.
-->
@Ramshutu
The Ultimate Reality is God.
God's goal for the universe is for it to exist.
Your razor cannot cut through The Rock! Your razor has been melted in the fire!
For
"This Word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire."
-->
@Mopac
see above:
You're trying to reason God into existence using bad logic.
If “the ultimate reality” is more than just reality - you should call It reality. Otherwise if not you can’t tell if it exists; because it’s not plane and simple reality - the thing we know exists.
if “God” Is more than just reality, you should just call God Reality; otherwise if not you can’t tell if he exists - because he’s not reality - the thing we know exists.
Hence - this is the source of your equivocation, using weasel words and implicit definitions, dodging questions, evading errors.
For one who claims to have the truth you sure appear afraid of asking or answering any questions.
-->
@Ramshutu
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD."
-->
@Ramshutu
Lo and behold - in a universe where morality and these religious values are objective - the universe would be the best possible universe that could be imagined.I would not be able to, say, imaging a small change that would objectively improve it as it pertains to those objective values or objective morality.
The problem is that it is you who are imagining it. How does that make it best?
There maybe subjective areas where you could argue, but there’s unlikely to be any areas where you’ll be completely stumped.
You said it.
Now let’s presume for a moment - that there is no God in this reality. You guys still claim your morality is objective, and your values are objective: but you just think that - it’s not really the case, because your God and religious is fictitious.
This is my point. If it is objective it corresponds to what is, not what someone may think it is. So why is what you think what is objective actually so? Why is you PRESUMPTION that there is no God actually so?
Again, you can claim morality is objective (what is actually so, fact, reality) without God but is this not too just your subjective (personal opinion, assumption, your interpretation) view? What is more, does your subjective opinion meet the criteria of objectivity??? How would you demonstrate this in the area of morality which is not measured in a physically tangible way through the five senses? Morals are intangibles in that they cannot be seen, touched, smelt, heard, or tasted. You can't touch goodness, you can't smell it, it has no tangible weight, you can't see it, you can't hear it for the fact that it is an idea, a concept, a judgment. Again, you equivocate an is with the ought. You apply a physical standard to a mental one when you apply morality to the universe instead of that of a person's values. Demonstrate the universe is personal.
In this universe, I can apply these “Objective” morals and “objective” values to the universe and show that I can EASILY invent a universe that it is better by your own objective values and morality; then as I should be able to do that in the best universe. It proves that we don’t live in a universe where God exists.
This is an is/ought fallacy. What is objectively moral if there is no God, no objective best to compare better too? Your process takes what is (the physical/quantitative universe) and makes an ought out of it (the mental/qualitative morality) by equivocation (A moral being who is capable of thinking moral thoughts is replaced with the universe, an object that does not have thoughts). The "is" has been replaced with the "ought."
The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur. In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. It seeks to make a value of a fact or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs.
Did you get that? It seeks to derive a moral imperative (an ought) from a state of affairs (the is). You take the universe (is) and derive morality (ought) from it.
Equivocation Description: Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading.
Equivocation Fallacy: Meaning
Whenever any word is used in order to make a statement or an argument, ideally, it should be used in a way that it has the same meaning for a consistent period of time, right? Equivocation fallacy begs to differ. Equivocation fallacy occurs when one word has two different meanings. Simply put, the same word is used in two different contexts in the same phrase. Phrases that contain equivocation fallacy are not grammatically incorrect, but a change in the meaning of a word tends to change the subject of that sentence or phrase entirely.
You are equating the universe with thinking being because only thinking beings moralize. Objects such as trees, stones, the universe do not.
The fallacy of ambiguity?
It is, like the name suggests, flawed logic where a phrase or a sentence does not have a concrete, clear, well-understood meaning, but is vague and disoriented. Such types of fallacies not only are capable of misinterpreting any statement, but are also capable of drawing incorrect conclusions. Ambiguous fallacy types are several, and are often used intentionally or unintentionally for making sarcastic or humorous statements. The most popularly used fallacies of ambiguity are accent, amphiboly, composition, division, and equivocation.
I found your logic ambiguous also.
-->
@Ramshutu
Everyone here appears to be making the claim that when you make a value judgement, it’s objective and valid: yet when I make a value judgement - it’s subjective and meaningless.That is nonsensical.
No, I claim that you have not demonstrated you can have objective value judgments without an appeal to a fixed, unchanging best. I keep asking you to produce that best as anything other than your subjective opinion and this whole post has been laced with such language of assumption and assertion. It is a big con job presented by you.
If we both agree that Hitler is worse than Adam Sandler; if you feel that is true based on your objective morals and your objective values - then how on earth is it possible for me making the same statement to be arbitrary and subjective? Especially when I’m applying the same rules as you.
If it is morally objective then it either is what it claims or it is not objectively moral. You can't just say it is objectively moral because you believe it to be. Anyone can do that. For it to be objectively moral then there must be an unchanging, fixed, universal standard of best that we can compare Hitler and Sander's moral character to or else it is subjective and arbitrary, arbitrary meaning that anything goes depending on who thinks it. So, show me you have a system of morality that is based on what actually is the best, fixed, unchanging and universal. Show me you have what is necessary for morality.
If I can’t apply your rules, your morals and your values objectively - then by definition your rules, morals and values are not objective - and you God doesn’t exist.
If they are my rules they are arbitrary since morality needs a fixed (not shifting but solidly stable), unchanging (not subject to change), universal (applying to everyone at all times) measure (reference point) and I am not it.
"Objective" is what is factually so.
If I can apply your “objective” rules, morals and values objectively - and use this to show a better universe judged by these values - then your God can’t exist either for the reasons I covered.
If you can apply them objectively then they confirm that they come from the objective standard which is outside me. First, establish, without God, what is the necessary fixed reference point.
This utterly nonsensical argument put forward by multiple people here makes no sense:You are arguing that your objective morals, rules and values can be applied and are objective.... but hey, wait... an atheist is applying those morals, rules and values... so it’s... uhh... subjective...
Either an Atheist or a Christian can apply what is objective if they use an objective source. So, establish you have the necessary source - what is actually the case since you are not a necessary being and necessary morals would come from a necessary Being.
Morality is a mind thing. Morality is not possible without a mind to perceive right and wrong, good and bad, but what makes that mind your mind?
It’s nonsensical, as I said.What is worse; your mostly arguing in the abstract.
Morality is an abstract, an intangible since you can produce the object "good" or "right." You can only think about it. I can eat "good." I can't smell it. What does good smell like? But I can personally compare a smell to what is "good" in the sense that I subjectively like that smell. That does not mean the smell is good in a moral sense, just that I subjectively like or prefer it to other smells I dislike.
Again, I harp to two DIFFERENT value systems - quantitative (physical) and qualitative (mental).
Why don’t we actually try and see?How about we compare a different universe and compare whether YOU with your objective values and morals can think of a reason why this universe is better?
Are you speaking of "possible worlds/universes"? Do you want to go into the possible or stay in the actual?
Okay, a universe where an objectively knowing, unchanging, morally good and necessary being exists would make it possible for objectively good morals to exist. Heaven is such a place.
It seems everyone is adamant that we shouldn’t even try - that doesn’t strike me as a particularly healthy way of expressing an open mind and strong faith.
Whose mind is open and neutral? You come at this from your particular slant, so do I. Whose mind is without bias? The question is do either of our minds reflect on what is actually fact? Without God and thinking His thoughts after Him I do not see it as possible. Demonstrate it is and quit the con game.
-->
@PGA2.0
The problem is that it is you who are imagining it. How does that make it best?
Because I’m using your values, which you claim are objective. This is the whole point of the razor, and the mai issue you don’t appear to be grasping.
You can’t claim you have an objective system of values them tell me it’s impossible for me to use them, or impossible for you to apply them using the razor. That makes no sense.
If you can’t tell that Adam Sandler is not as bad as Hitler I’m your moral or ethical system: then frankly, you dont need the razor.
-->
@Ramshutu
Apparently you have an objective Moral standard by which you can judge things.
I have what is necessary for one. I have what can make sense of objective morality. I do not believe you do. Demonstrate otherwise.
You are also arguing that I am implicitly unable to use your objective moral standard and apply it to the universe.
No, I am not arguing that. I am arguing that you borrow from the Christian framework when you do make sense of morality as objective. You are being inconsistent with your worldview and where it leads unless you borrow from the Christian framework. That is my claim and argument.
I invite you to show that you can make sense of objective morality starting with your godless framework. Start at the beginning/origins and build upon that. As an atheist what do you believe happened with origins? IOW's, how did we get to where we are today - thinking, intelligent, logical (sometimes) beings from an impersonal, mindless, illogical/unthinking universe? Even go a step further and speculate on how the universe came to be. That would be your starting point. So from the mindless, random chance happenstance, without intent or purpose, up along the chain we go until we arrive at us and "objective" morality.
If I can’t make objective determinations from your objective standard it’s not an objective standard.
And how would you know you have arrived at moral objectivity?
Again, and again, and again, and again, what is your fixed reference point, your ultimate and final measure??? Tell me so I can evaluate it, PLEASE!
What I suspect you’re doing, though, is arguing out of both sides of your mouth: arguing that you have objective values based upon God: but any attempt to actually assess those standards by applying them to the universe in a novel way “don’t count”, because these objective standards are subjective when I use them.
No, I suspect it is you who is arguing out both sides of his mouth and I want you to demonstrate you are not. I do not assess my standards by applying them to the universe - a thing that is illogical, unthinking, impersonal, devoid of mind. You are the one doing that.
The "objective standards" you use are a muse and farce because you lack the necessary starting point for morality, or at least have not demonstrated it to date. You are in a big hole that you have dug for yourself and you can't find a way out. So far all I have received from you is subjective speculation and a whole bunch of what-ifs and possibilities, nothing factual in your claims at all. Start be demonstrating you have what is necessary to have objective morality, then we can test it for its actuality or reasonableness.
-->
@Ramshutu
The problem is that it is you who are imagining it. How does that make it best?Because I’m using your values, which you claim are objective. This is the whole point of the razor, and the mai issue you don’t appear to be grasping.
What values? You arbitrarily claim you are using my Christian values. Mention some of them. Let us get specific. What are these alleged objective values you are speaking of?
You can’t claim you have an objective system of values them tell me it’s impossible for me to use them, or impossible for you to apply them using the razor. That makes no sense.
I never said it was impossible for you to use them. I went out of my way to say that it is possible and you do, but you do so in a way that is inconsistent with your worldview. You do so despite your starting point, the origins of what would be necessary for objective morality. You make no sense.
If you can’t tell that Adam Sandler is not as bad as Hitler I’m your moral or ethical system: then frankly, you dont need the razor.
Bad in what sense? What are you comparing goodness with as your fixed starting point? Is it your personal preferences, your likes, your "feelings?" How do your feelings make something good? Because you like them? You are comparing taste or preference (what is) to something that is morally objective (what ought to be) unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
If you can't establish a fixed starting point and measure for judging Hitler and what he did as wrong in comparison to Sandler then you have boiled your argument down to your tastes and preferences, not goodness. So the question is why is your opinion of Hitler as bad valid? It was just the way his biological make-up reacted that made him do what he did, surely? Your biological make-up reacts one way, his another. What is wrong with that?
-->
@Ramshutu
Fallacy #2 “best means perfect”This is worth reiterating again: as it’s being used multiple times by multiple people.
It depends in which context it is being used and implied.
Best within the confines of objective morality means that which to no better can be thought of and applied. Thus it would be perfect since it complied with the ideal standard and that is what best is.
: excelling all others
: the greatest degree of good or excellence
Perfect in the concept of objective morality means excelling to the highest standard or Being without flaw.
1a: being entirely without fault or defect : FLAWLESS
b: satisfying all requirements : ACCURATE
c: corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept
The “Best” universe, is one that does EVERYTHING God wants it to. To the greatest degree possible.
Again, you are equivocating. You are applying to something that is amoral (the universe) a moral nature (i.e., a personal being has such a nature).
God is not going to create the universe and say “Meh, I could have done better”.
What you fail to understand is that God did pronounce the universe (everything He had made) good until sin was found in Adam. Then He set in motion the imperfect - curses - that were put there for a purpose. The purpose was so that humanity could see and understand their folly in seeking after what is good without God (i.e., moral relativism).
Now - and brace yourself, this will come as a shock - I am not using my personal opinion on what “best” is.From my opening post, I have made it clear that the “best universe” is one that best fulfills Gods Goals.
Best in your sense is not morally best, it is physically best. You confuse the two. Best morally is in the sense that it leads some humans by their will to a relationship with God, the greatest moral Being. The universe is a means to achieve such a goal without violating the human will. Adam chose to disobey God and God allowed it that good would result from it. Adam decided to do what he wanted to do even though it meant going against God's goodness. Thus, he suffered the consequences God told him before hand he would suffer.
God did not program us as robots. Robots cannot disobey. They are determinism and not free willed. Not everyone will submit to God's good, pleasing, and perfect will. Thus, we see the evil in the world. God allows it for a time and for a purpose. Some people look at the evil around them and cry out to God for relief and mercy and He provides a means to achieve such mercy and be restored to the good.
If God wants the universe to be imperfect to allow free will; then the “best” universe will be imperfect - and has to be to satisfy Gods goals.
For a time God allows the evil that good will arise from it. He allows us to see the imperfect that was and is created as a result of our own choices (Ri.e., Adam as the federal head or representative).
The good is finding that relationship humanity was created for through their own volition without being forced into it but compelled by God's goodness to want it. That compelling comes through His word and by His Spirit and Son that bear witness to us of a better reality where there is no injustice, no moral wrong and evil.
This pernicious assumption that the razor applies solely my own criteria, is bellied by the fact I expressly started this is not the case.
Just because you can state something does not necessarily make it so. The best reality is not this physical universe but being in the presence of our loving God.
It appears, given the arguments made and fixation on the meaning of perfection: that those making this argument either haven’t read the razor, or don’t really understand it.So in this case, let’s be clear: a perfect universe is one that best meets the requirements God has, God is not incompetent, and made no mistakes: and given the combination of goals and intent he has for the universe - a mere human can make no improvement to better fulfill those goals.
The universe was subjected to imperfection to lead those who would believe and trust God to the greater reality, being in His presence.
No, a perfect reality/universe is one in which one has an intimate, personal relationship with his/her Creator and the moral evil committed is forgiven and the justice God requires from moral evil is met and paid for.
The Ultimate Reality is God.
God's goal for the universe is for it to exist.
/topic
-->
@Ramshutu
Fallacy #3 God doesn’t condone Paedophilia
He does not condone it; He condemns it. Nothing fallacious about that.
So this is a sub fallacy. Humans have free will, we can be shitty, we can kill, we can be jealous, we can steal and covet our neighbours ass. A universe where these are possible, I can presume is necessary and “best” given the goals of God.In that respect, missed, revenge, jealousy add not condoned by God, they are necessary.Now, regardless of who you are, how much you may or may not sin; no matter how much pressure you’re under, or what scenario you find yourself in: I would place money on the fact that at no point have you been sexually attracted to a toddler. I can imaging you have non-seriously thought of theft or murder in particularly bad moments.The nature of humanity means that I can imagine anyone here saying “I could murder that guy” not acting on it, nor really even meaning it: but the notion and concept is relatable. You’re more likely to have seriously considered pushing or punching someone - you may have even acted on it. Not good, but reasonable. I am also equally sure, that at no point have you!- or anyone on this forum - been in the position where they have considered paedophilia.This raises the key fallacy.If God created humans or the universe with the express intent of creating humans. What we may or may not do, the limits of our free will are set and controlled by God.
How can our will be free if it is set? That is limited will.
Now, I will argue that since the Fall that no individual human will is totally free in the sense that we are in bondage to our wills. We do not always do the good (some cannot even recognize the good their will has been so seared by sin). Thus you still choose what you WANT or desire but you cannot choose to live without sin. Your nature does not allow it because it is infected by the rebellious nature of Adam, your biological ancestor. You have chosen by your own volition to violate God's goodness and perfectly moral standard. Thus, you have a problem before God that you try to justify and rationalize away by ignoring and denying God knowing full well in your conscience that doing such things result in alienation and condemnation by God. Justice will be met when our physical life here on earth is over. We will answer either on our own accord and merit or on the accord and merit of One who did not sin against God.
So, I charge you can't meet God's perfect standard of righteousness on your own even though you choose what to do. Try to live completely free of doing wrong. Try even for a day or a week to live without telling a lie, without thinking impure thoughts about the opposite sex (i.e., lusting after someone who is not your wife - adultery), without getting angry at them (which Jesus likened to murder since from anger comes murderous thoughts and ill-will), without coveting something that does not belong to you but to another, without stealing something (could be as little as a pen from work), or slandering someone falsely because you are jealous of them or don't like them. But above all these, try honouring God above all else, not taking His name in vain, and not constructing other gods that are not God (such as yourself that imposes himself in God's place and declares what is and what should be). Can you do that?
You see, the problem is that by your own will you do what you want to do but you don't do what you SHOULD do. Thus, you are guilty before God. Thus, you seek ways to deny God and make Him out to be evil. You know the fruit of such action, that you will receive what you deserve, yet you do it anyway. So, you are not free. You are in bondage to everything that has influenced you and has control of you because of your likes and wants.