-->
@PressF4Respect
Abattoir or slaughterhouse.And are you aware of how they treat the animals they slaughter?
Are you saying the slaughter is not quick?
Abattoir or slaughterhouse.And are you aware of how they treat the animals they slaughter?
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
The is-ought fallacy is a naturalistic fallacy. It grounds morality in what is (nature) to derive its oughts.<br><br>You have no basis for such an accusation. Explain to me how the is and ought distinction is a naturalist fallacy.
God's character/nature is goodDemonstrate it.
There is always another 'what if.' All I can say is that there is sufficient reason to believe. It is not blind faith. It is not an irrational faith.You don't understand how things work. People just don't change their mind because they hear what you say. People change their mind when you have provided something worth them considering the opposite then changing. You outwardly call people lost causes or in your words people who don't want their mind changed.
You don't understand me nor can you and the failure resides on you.
You show just how little ground that your Religion has when all you do is posture about how bad the other side is.
That is not an argument when there is so many different sides.
It would only be fair if we were just talking about 2 different worldviews but there is a ton out there but you don't seem to understand so here we are at your attempt using your feelings to say how bad 1 out of several worldviews are.
Belief is antithetical to reason. You using as the opposite shows how irrational you are. I don't believe something to be reasonable. I use reason to determine what is true.
You borrow from the Christian worldview in making sense of things. You don't remain in your own worldview, you look outside it.Reason is not a Christian thing unless you are begging the question yet again.
You don't even know how to use it so I would expect nothing less from a person who doesn't even know how words are used.
Thus, you live inconsistently to your starting point of core belief.What is my core belief?
If you deny a personal Being as responsible for creating the universe you would have a naturalistic and materialistic worldview by default.
Since you continually deny God and fight for a naturalistic explanation alone your worldview points to chance happenstance as the explanation for our existence.
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.This doesn't sound like "objective morality" to me.
The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".
All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.
If you deny a personal Being as responsible for creating the universe you would have a naturalistic and materialistic worldview by default.Not necessarily. One could be a DEIST and or an IDEALIST.
Since you continually deny God and fight for a naturalistic explanation alone your worldview points to chance happenstance as the explanation for our existence.Not necessarily. DEISM does not rule-out an "intelligent" "designer" and or (a non-random) NOUMENON.
Are you saying the slaughter is not quick?
Deism begs the question of what this intelligent designer is like. If so, what is this being like?
Are you saying the slaughter is not quick?The treatment of the animal, from the moment they are born to their slaughter, is inhumane. Some would argue that it is immoral.
My point, if you discount a creator then you are left with chance happenstance - no rhyme nor reason behind the universe, it just is.
Deism begs the question of what this intelligent designer is like. If so, what is this being like?
Veal?The treatment of the animal, from the moment they are born to their slaughter, is inhumane. Some would argue that it is immoral.
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.Again the question is what is being killed? Is it a human being? What do you say???
As for your analogy of copulation, only when the result is the conception of a new human life should the moral aspects apply.
The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".The purpose of the law was to show how holy God was and how seriously the covenant they entered into was to be taken.
All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.God did not change His mind, human's changed their minds.
God does permit us to do our thing, for a season. Eventually, we are all accountable.
My point, if you discount a creator then you are left with chance happenstance - no rhyme nor reason behind the universe, it just is.Not necessarily.If you understand your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS, then you would simply say, "that claim is beyond our epistemological limits".Oh, yeah, and MOOT.
Deism begs the question of what this intelligent designer is like. If so, what is this being like?This is exactly the same as trying to guess what god's favorite color is.No, DEISM "begs" no such question. DEISM doesn't even rule-out Promethean style gods. [LINK]
You either operate by a naturalistic system of thought or a supernaturalistic system of thought as your grounding principle or core belief that other beliefs revolve around and are built upon.
It makes no difference if everything was "created" "intentionally" or not.Nevertheless, that takes the argument back to another step. That step is still, whether the universe is created or it is here because of chance happenstance.
Since all religions have different contrary ideas of God/gods only one, if any, can be true to what God/gods is/are.
Nevertheless, whether deism, theism, or chance happenstance the universe is still here either by natural means or supernatural means. Either there is the intention behind the universe or the universe is devoid of intent and purpose.
Thus, you are still left with two options or the belief that everything is an illusion. Do you want to go down the road of illusion?
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.Again the question is what is being killed? Is it a human being? What do you say???By definition, the STATE can only protect CITIZENS.
As for your analogy of copulation, only when the result is the conception of a new human life should the moral aspects apply.Look, I'm perfectly willing to consider a blastocyst a CITIZEN, but if that blastocyst DIES then we must send someone to PRISON.I'm not willing to let a single blastocyst die, EVAR, and neither are you. So make sure to submit your copulation reports on time.
The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".The purpose of the law was to show how holy God was and how seriously the covenant they entered into was to be taken.So are you suggesting that your hypothetical god's law is not really supposed to be treated as a regular law, it's more like a metaphor?
All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.God did not change His mind, human's changed their minds.Who made the humans change their minds?
God does permit us to do our thing, for a season. Eventually, we are all accountable.I see. So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...
You either operate by a naturalistic system of thought or a supernaturalistic system of thought as your grounding principle or core belief that other beliefs revolve around and are built upon.When you say "supernaturalistic" are you suggesting you believe in some kind of Substance-Dualism?
Nevertheless, that takes the argument back to another step. That step is still, whether the universe is created or it is here because of chance happenstance.It makes no difference if everything was "created" "intentionally" or not.
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.
There are zero implications either way.
This renders the distinction MOOT.
There are zero implications either way.There are all kinds of consequences if our universe is created and God is its Maker.
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance.
When you say "supernaturalistic" are you suggesting you believe in some kind of Substance-Dualism?God is Spirit. That is different from a physical body. It is intangible.
So are you suggesting that your hypothetical god's law is not really supposed to be treated as a regular law, it's more like a metaphor?No, what I am suggesting is that there are principles that apply to all human beings and there are situations and laws that God made with particular people (Israel) during a particular time in history (ANE) that reflected these principles but were specific to these people and to ANE customs to an extent.
Who made the humans change their minds?They do, we do. They/we have volition. They/we are not robots.
I see. So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage.
Look, I'm perfectly willing to consider a blastocyst a CITIZEN, but if that blastocyst DIES then we must send someone to PRISON.I'm not willing to let a single blastocyst die, EVAR, and neither are you. So make sure to submit your copulation reports on time.Sex without conception does not result in the different stages of human growth.
That is a private matter and is no concern until conception takes place. Then another human being needs to be taken into consideration.