Ramshutu’s Razor

Author: Ramshutu

Posts

Total: 315
#271
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu


We kill and murder because of ourselves - sure. We have the capacity to consider murder, and the capacity to act on it because of Hod.

In this case, when God was creating humanity, he expressly, knowingly and purposefully set those limit to include Paedophilia.
No, there are no limits to what humans will do or imagine once God is jettisoned. We create these evils of all kinds, like them, and do them ourselves. There is no evil in God. He does not think evil thoughts. Any evil becomes permissible and we see evils all around us every day. We identify evil yet we neglect the evil within ourselves. The Bible helps us to focus on such evil. It opens our eyes further to the source of such evil - ourselves. God does not make us do evil. We chose of our own volition to do the evil. God is not there twisting us to do the evil. He forbids it. We do it anyway. What you charge against God you should charge against yourself, especially since you more than likely deny His existence or just plain rebel against Him. 

Creating Adam (humanity) in His image gave humanity the will to choose. Adam's will was free. He had the ability to sin or not to sin. We do not. Since the Fall our ability includes the ability to sin although we do not sin in everything we do we still sin. We no longer have the ability to not sin. If you think so then apply the standards I listed above for a day or week and confirm this ability. Thus, we need a remedy for sin. Jesus Christ provided what is necessary. 



So, in this case, the existence of Paedophilia is sanctioned and condones by God.
No, it is not. It is strictly forbidden by God. It is a moral atrocity and deeply offends God, thus He bars sinners from His presence but in mercy also provides a way to restore the relationship with Him that meets both His righteousness and His justice.

Your comments above show ignorance and misunderstanding of God. 


What is worse: is we are only having this conversation because he set the limit. You and I don’t have the capacity - it’s not something we even consider. God had the ability to create humans and say “You know, I could make a small percentage of people sexually attracted to Toddlers - but I see no need to make that a thing”.
The limit He set was barring us from His presence because WE sinned and offended Him with OUR impurity. Our minds have been so influenced by sin that we cannot live without sinning. Thus our need for a Savior who fixes the problem for us.


Conversely, can you imagine God placing the finishing touches on his creation and thinking: “You know thisnis perfect, the best I can do... but it’s missing something.... ahh yes *snap* now there is a small number of humans that will be attracted to children. Now it’s Perfect!

The universe was subjected to decay for a purpose. It was good until sin was found in it and perpetrated on Creation by Adam who had the free will to choose which way he and his descendants would go. Thus, human history bears witness to his decision - evil abounds because of what he did and what we do by our own volitions, not God's. God opposes evil yet He allows it for a greater purpose. He promised that one day He would eradicate evil and He has done so by sending His Son and by granting eternal life in His presence (heaven). Thus, this life determines by your volition whether you will spend eternity with God or separated from Him (hell).   

#272
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
Are you absolutely certain of that?
Actually yes.
Absolute, then establish it. 


if you had a final, ultimate, universal standard of measure that was objective; then by definition I would be able to follow that measure.

However, you have spent the entire thread telling me that there is no measure that I am able to apply that isn’t arbitrary and subjective.


No, I spent the thread telling you to provide such a measure without God. I'm still waiting. You continue to make assertion after assertion that does not meet the standard of proof or any evidence. You seem to believe that because you can say it then it makes it so without showing anything reasonable or logical to back up your statements/assertions/claims. You create a whole fictitious what-if and tell others that it establishes that there is not God. What a load of baloney. 
#273
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I think a big misunderstanding here is the nature of Christian morality which is not a legalistic thing to begin with.

The discipline is about purifying the heart. The intellect. The nous.

That being the case, idolatry is the big sin, and what people usually say are bad and immoral things tend to be the fruit of idolatry.

Why is idolatry the big sin? It defiles the nous. It obscures the image of God that we as humans are created in. The Christian discipline is about conforming to the likeness of God. It is the path of theosis. As written by the church father Saint Athanasius, “God became man that man might become God,”. And just as Jesus' fleshly nature struggled, but still fully submitted to the divine nature, so we Christians as disciples of Christ strive to abide in the true vine. The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

This is not done through external reasonings or philosophy, for the Kingdom of God is within, and our focus instead should be to still the passions and purify the heart for "blessed are the pure in heart, they shall see God." And then, keeping our eye on God we must be diligent to keep our hearts clean so that most perfect image of God shines through our being, and we are conformed to the likeness of The Son.

Worshipping God in Spirit and Truth. In the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, who is blessed, glorified, and Lord, now and ever unto ages of ages, amen.



Topic's author
#274
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
At this point, I’m not sure if you’re just deliberately dense, or just realize the fault in your argument and simply cannot admit it.

You claim to have an objective standard. If that standard is truly objective. I can use it. If God exists, that standard doesn’t stop being objective because I am an atheist.

This is you’re entire faulty objection; a denial that O can use your own objective standard, and the pretence that the standard you believe is objective would cease to be such when I apply it.

Its a ridiculous argument out of both sides of your mouth that do not appear to be able to factually distinguish how key presuppositions work. Indeed, our appear to be confusing your presupposition about my athiesm, with me presupposing your values incorrectly.

In this whole shit-show of an argument, you presuppose I have already made a mistake in a specific argument I have already presented because I can’t objectively apply an objective standard because I will apply it subjectively - somehow. 

What this really amounts to, is really a form of poisoning the well, you have magic access to objective morality that I can’t use or test logically because the moment I attempt to apply these magic objective morals objectively - you declare I must mistakenly apply them subjectively, without any real reason why.

We can boil it down to specifics because you seem unable to actually be able to talk abstractly about an abstract premise without confusing different frameworks with each other: ironically it appears the concept of a thought experiment appears to be mostly lost.


List the prime qualities of God, according to the Bible, and I will propose a universe that will better meet those qualities: you can determine with your “objective” standards whether I’m being subjective or not.



#275
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@Ramshutu
You got even dumber. 
I wait in eternal optimism for the day you are able to string a logical and coherent argument together instead of launching into insults and vitriol.

Sadly today is not that day.

Ramshutu, it just goes to show that when someone cannot discuss and hold a reasonable conversation on the subject they tend to mock it and the people who enjoy discussing it. 
#276
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,217
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
As a member of four religious groups across three religions and three holy books. I highly doubt you'll meet a more morally moral person then i.
So ummmmmm yeah. 
Ask away. 
 
#277
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Or you are actually stupid trying to sound smart.
#278
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
An atheist liar. Go figure 
#279
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Or you are actually stupid trying to sound smart.
Proverbs 26
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.

I'll try the second option:
 

The last resort --> name-calling. When all else fails a numbskull insults the person. Well done! Or for some, it is the only avenue of dialogue - a professional put down artist who has nothing worthy to contribute to the argument! Which do you fit in? Reading your posts seems to put you in the second category, IMO. What say you?

#280
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
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.

This message was brought to you by the ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages who wrote it. Nothing of any import here.
#281
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
"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."

This message was brought to you by the ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages who wrote it. Nothing of any import here.
#282
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
"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."


This message was brought to you by the ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages who wrote it. Nothing of any import here.
#283
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
No, I claim that you have not demonstrated you can have objective value judgments
If anybody makes a value judgement it by definition cannot be objective. You talk in childish uneducated drivel.

#284
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
God's goal for the universe is for it to exist.

Prove it after you prove your god exists.


#285
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Ramshutu
At this point, I’m not sure if you’re just deliberately dense, or just realize the fault in your argument and simply cannot admit it.
I'll admit it. Your argument is hard to understand what with the spelling and punctuation errors. I also don't see the justification in it.


You claim to have an objective standard.
I point to what is necessary for an objective moral standard. So far you have not rejected my argument.


If that standard is truly objective. I can use it. If God exists, that standard doesn’t stop being objective because I am an atheist.
You probably do resort to the Christian standard more than you realize. A standard does not stop being objective if that is what it is whether you believe in it or not.


This is you’re entire faulty objection; a denial that O can use your own objective standard, and the pretence that the standard you believe is objective would cease to be such when I apply it.
I'm not following. What does "O" mean?

I never, not once, argued the objective standard would cease to be objective if you used it. My argument is that your worldview is incapable of making sense of objective morality even if some of your morals agree with an objective standard. That is putting words in my mouth that I do not believe.


Its a ridiculous argument out of both sides of your mouth that do not appear to be able to factually distinguish how key presuppositions work. Indeed, our appear to be confusing your presupposition about my athiesm, with me presupposing your values incorrectly.
 I'm not following you again. What are you trying to say? "Our appear?" Do you mean "you appear?" I'll take it that was your meaning. 

As an atheist what is the fixed, ultimate measure you use/presuppose for best? Simple question (for the umpteenth time).


In this whole shit-show of an argument, you presuppose I have already made a mistake in a specific argument I have already presented because I can’t objectively apply an objective standard because I will apply it subjectively - somehow. 
You are the one who rules out God. I want to know how you arrive at "better" since you use it in the first two statements of your OP?


What this really amounts to, is really a form of poisoning the well, you have magic access to objective morality that I can’t use or test logically because the moment I attempt to apply these magic objective morals objectively - you declare I must mistakenly apply them subjectively, without any real reason why.
How am I poisoning the well? I love it when people accuse you of poisoning the well by poisoning it themselves! 

I question how you arrive at objective morality without first presupposing God?

I'm not saying you can't believe some moral has an objective basis. I just question how you can get there without a necessary fix, unchanging, omniscient standard and Being? I fully realize that you borrow from the Christian worldview in making sense of objective morality without realizing it. The question is how you prove objective morality from your worldview measure. I await your answer like I have been awaiting it from way, way back in this thread.  

you declare I must mistakenly apply them subjectively, without any real reason why.
No, what I declare is once you jettison God you have no basis for making sense of objective morality, even if you believe some things that are objectively moral like murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, defaming others malisciously for no reason is wrong other than hatred, etc.



We can boil it down to specifics because you seem unable to actually be able to talk abstractly about an abstract premise without confusing different frameworks with each other: ironically it appears the concept of a thought experiment appears to be mostly lost.
Okay, what specifically shall we boil it down too? How about abortion. Is killing another INNOCENT human being wrong? Is killing an innocent human being murder? Once you answer the questions reveal your measure or reference point for coming to the conclusion you do.



List the prime qualities of God, according to the Bible, and I will propose a universe that will better meet those qualities: you can determine with your “objective” standards whether I’m being subjective or not.



I'll list a few since the list is long.
1. All-knowing/omniscient.
2. Good/omnibenevolent.
3. Eternal.
4. Unchanging.
5. Personal Being. 
6. Intentional and purposeful.
7. Merciful.
8. Just. 
#286
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
We create these evils of all kinds,
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Who is lying you or your god?
Did your god ever dictate what was to be included in the bible or did he only inspire the authors?

No, it is not. It is strictly forbidden by God. It is a moral atrocity and deeply offends God,
Citation please, I mean it was so important to him that he put it FIRST in his 10 commandments, oh wait he never mentions it.

#287
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
No, I claim that you have not demonstrated you can have objective value judgments
If anybody makes a value judgement it by definition cannot be objective. You talk in childish uneducated drivel.

It can if it comes from an objective, omniscient standard and measure. 

Again, as usual, you paint me with insults. No wonder I ignore a good portion of your posts.
#288
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You claim to have an objective moral standard but your standard has been set by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages. That fails to meet even the most casual definition of objective.
#289
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You don't ignore my posts you avoid them because you have no answers, dogma just can't cut it against intelligent thought.
#290
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
objective, omniscient standard and measure. 
And where do you get that?

#291
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
You claim to have an objective moral standard but your standard has been set by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages. That fails to meet even the most casual definition of objective.
I gave what I consider the necessary criteria. You said, "If anybody makes a value judgement it by definition cannot be objective." That was your statement I answered. Debate whether that criterion (i.e., objective, omniscient standard and measure) is sufficient or take your bald-faced assertions somewhere else. 

#292
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
it just goes to show that when someone cannot discuss and hold a reasonable conversation on the subject
You're missing the point entirely, it is YOU who cannot discuss or hold a "REASONABLE" conversation on the subject.

#293
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
objective, omniscient standard and measure
Produce it. You've been running away from this for years. Try for once in your life to try the truth.

#294
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Try responding honestly to posts 283, 286, 288, 290 and 293
#295
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't have a "moral framework" - what i have is a rag-tag collection of instincts and intuitions that result in me judging some things as good and other things as bad.  
I don't know, but I firmly believe, humans evolved a 'sense of morality' because it encourages behaviour suitable for a eusoial species.
#296
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @PGA2.0
Other than God all you have is subjective preference and the question becomes why is Hitler's preference any worse than Mother Teresa's. 
What makes some god(s) preference better than that of Hitler or mother Teresa (by all accounts both Terrible people but neither of whom commanded quite as many genocides as the god depicted in the bible.)

Show me why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared? 
Show me why some god(s) moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared? 

While you are about it perhaps you can also explainhow you have determined any god(s) moral preferences in the first place.

One other thing. I don't think we actually need a universal standard just one we agree upon. 

#297
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
if free will can only exist in an imperfect world, then an imperfect world makes sense. or in other words, what sounds imperfect is in some sense perfect for the purposes of God. 
Is heaven not a perfect world?
you guys are assuming a perfect world is best. 
No I did not. You presented a hypothetical in which freewill is impossible in a perfect world. I asked for a clarification of this thought experiment.

#298
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
We create these evils of all kinds,
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Who is lying you or your god?
Did your god ever dictate what was to be included in the bible or did he only inspire the authors?

Isaiah 45:7 (NKJV)
7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’

Even the New King James translation committee did not like the Old King James rendering of this verse. 

Isaiah 45:7 (NASB)
7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

Isaiah 45:7 (NIV)
7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7(ESV)
7 I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am theLord, who does all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 (NRSV)
7 I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the Lord do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 Amplified Bible (AMP)
7 
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.

No, it is not. It is strictly forbidden by God. It is a moral atrocity and deeply offends God,
Citation please, I mean it was so important to him that he put it FIRST in his 10 commandments, oh wait he never mentions it.
Matthew 18:5 Whoever receives and welcomes one child like this in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble and sin [by leading him away from My teaching], it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone [as large as one turned by a donkey] hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Amp)

Matthew 18:2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (NASB)



#299
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
it just goes to show that when someone cannot discuss and hold a reasonable conversation on the subject
You're missing the point entirely, it is YOU who cannot discuss or hold a "REASONABLE" conversation on the subject. 

Thanks once again for your opinion and assertion!
#300
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
objective, omniscient standard and measure
Produce it. You've been running away from this for years. Try for once in your life to try the truth.
I have gone through this many times with you and I still get the same old talking points. I consider it a waste of my time in documenting this once again to someone who can't hear or understand the argument because they have a colossal bias.