Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#661
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
But you have failed to demonstrate a single solitary unchanging, universal moral axiom.
What would you be willing to believe?
I shouldn't have to "believe" anything.

If you can demonstrate the logical necessity (and specific formula) of a universal, unchanging, "objective" moral code, then, like a mathematical solution, it would become irrefutable.  Just type out the code.  Just the PRIMARY AXIOMS.

No faith would be required.

(IFF) you have a strong survival instinct (AND) hope for a better future (THEN) you will do anything in your power to protect yourself (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your family and loved ones (as it serves priority #1) (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your property (as it serves priorities #1 and #2) (AND) if you are convinced that priorities #1, #2, and #3 are secure, ONLY THEN are you capable of truly free COOPERATION with others (otherwise you are COERCED).
Topic's author
#662
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Not when marital unfaithfulness is present. God even divorced Israel in OT times. Adultery is a reason given in which the offended person may divorce their spouse. 
Isn't the penalty for "marital unfaithfulness" death by stoning?
Yes, under OT law. Well observed! When God divorces Judah in AD 70 to make way for the Bride of Christ (the Church, or body of believers) this happens. Revelation describes Jerusalem as a whore and Josephus describes the fiery stoning by the Roman catapults (per Revelation 16:21) destroying Jerusalem. You can read the chronology (described by Josephus) of the destruction here.
Topic's author
#663
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Or is your standard of "goodness" "let Jesus guide your heart"?
By faith in God through Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is given to the believer that they may know Him better.
So, how do you propose we resolve disputes between "true believers"?
Doing your best to prove your point through the Scriptures. 
#664
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
So, how do you propose we resolve disputes between "true believers"?
Doing your best to prove your point through the Scriptures. 
And then just start your own Church flavor (abandon your original Church)?
#665
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@3RU7AL
1)Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance. 
2)You cannot define your opponent's (true) beliefs.
3)Defining your opponent's position is the very definition of a STRAWMAN.
_______________________________

In the context of this discussion, why would i be incapable of defining my ‘opponent’s true beliefs’, especially if they defined it for me themselves?
Of course, any definition of a proposition has to be done accurately and fairly. Which brings me you your second sentence (2), in which you, imo, inaccurately and unfairly define the position of atheists with regards to the subject of moral values. No atheist would ever make the claim that their moral values are somehow derived from chance and random processes, and yet you make the claim that they do. 

Your third sentence is inaccurate. Defining your opponent’s position has nothing to do with the act of strawmanning. Instead, to straw man someone is to give people the impression that you are refuting an argument when instead, the real argument under question was never refuted or even addressed. 
For example, you attacked atheists for believing that they derive their moral values via random processes, when in fact, no atheist here or there has ever claimed that theirs morals are derived using those processes. You covertly replaced one proposition with another, and attacked them based on a proposition you personally introduced. This is the accurate definition of stawmanning. 

#666
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh my. I just realised you were probably being sarcastic. 
#667
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@PGA2.0
1)Actually, I'm asking atheists to explain morality and give justification for it......I claim the Christian system has what is necessary for morality and that you do not. 

______________________________________________________________________________


Actually, i don’t think you are. You clearly stated earlier that you believed atheists believed that they derive their morals via random processes. 
Are you seriously claiming that Christians are the only moral beings out there, and that morality never existed before Christianity recently came around?

Secondly, while I have a personal preference for sociocultural evolution and evolutionary forces acting at the individual and group level to help explain the existence of morality in humans (and many animals), my position as an atheist has little to do with my position on morality (pls note that these are anything but random processes). There are plenty of atheists that never ask themselves where they derive their moral values from, but  also many religious individuals that admit that moral values are evolutionary and sociocultural constructs. 

A disbelief in your god stems purely from the fact that your arguments are unconvincing. And so my position is: I cannot believe in the existence of God/gods until you provide sufficient evidence for them (and I’m not hedging any bet that you ever will).
#668
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Marko
Are you seriously claiming that Christians are the only moral beings out there, and that morality never existed before Christianity recently came around?
That is exactly what they - Christians -  believe to have the monopoly on: morals. 

They can't  even seem to work out that  there were laws and dictates even before the  ten commandments (which weren't even Hebrew  in origin ) , not to mention morals. 

 No, they believe we were all less than animals going around the place stealing, raping, coveting, telling lies about one another and killing for absolutely no reason at all. 


A disbelief in your god stems purely from the fact that your arguments are unconvincing. And so my position is: I cannot believe in the existence of God/gods until you provide sufficient evidence for them (and I’m not hedging any bet that you ever will).

 Even if you have  1000 times the lung capacity of a Polynesian pearl diver, do not hold your breath. They will attempt to shift the burden of proof for their claim onto you. example  here  where the Reverend Tradesectrete  tells us where the  burden of proof lays for her self created  strawman argument in an attempt to get YOU to validate the existence of god. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5067-what-the-better-explanation-for-the-origin-of-the-universe-god-or-nothing  But what should one  expect from a Lawyer a Pastor and  a Chaplin? #20

It is a very old strategy :  Burden of proof by claim ; Theism


"When asked to support the claim that a god exists, it's not unusual for an apologist to respond with "You can't prove God doesn't exist", or similar statements. Essentially, this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof (a logical fallacy)." 





Topic's author
#669
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Marko
1)Actually, I'm asking atheists to explain morality and give justification for it......I claim the Christian system has what is necessary for morality and that you do not. 

______________________________________________________________________________


Actually, i don’t think you are. You clearly stated earlier that you believed atheists believed that they derive their morals via random processes. 
I understand where you are coming from now.

I am speaking about the origins of morality without a personal necessary being - God/gods. You are not necessary for morality. I'm speaking of tracing morality to its beginnings, its root cause(s). If you do not have a conscious being behind the universe, its cause must be natural/materialistic. That means there is no intent, no agency behind the universe. That means things happen without rhyme or reason. This begs an explanation of how you get conscious living beings from inorganic matter. That is the start of the problem you face. If you have a reasonable explanation for living beings, your next problem is how they arrive at fixed objective qualitative values (morals). We witness no fixed values in the world of atheism (would you like to suggest one from an atheist standpoint), just a subjectivism that changes from culture to culture and from year to year (it is a power thing - might makes 'right.').  

Are you seriously claiming that Christians are the only moral beings out there, and that morality never existed before Christianity recently came around?
That is not what I am claiming at all. I am claiming that Christians have what is necessary for morality and atheists (other worldviews) borrow from such a necessary belief system to make sense of morality. Unless you start with a theistic framework, I do not believe you can make sense of morality, only preference masquerading as morality. 

Secondly, while I have [1] a personal preference for sociocultural evolution and evolutionary forces acting at the individual and group level to help explain the existence of morality in humans (and many animals), my position as an atheist has little to do with my position on morality (pls note that  [2] these are anything but random processes).
[1] A personal preference makes nothing right. It just makes something desirable. There has to be 1) an ideal, a best for moral reference or else they become meaningless. If that reference point is shifting and not fixed, 'right' or 'good' loses its identity because it can mean whatever the individual or group wants it to mean (preference). 2) Preference is descriptive, not prescriptive. Morals are prescriptive. "I like ice-cream" describes what is and not only that; it is a personal taste, subjective opinion. Not everyone has to like ice-cream. Morals are prescriptive; what should/ought/must be. They must be objective, or else right and wrong is shifting and can mean whatever a person or group wants them to mean. 

[2] The question is, how can they be? If there is no intentional Being that gives agency to laws and designs how the universe works, why would you expect to find sustainable patterns, information, and what makes these things happen? You presume they will—big presumption. I like the analogy of dice rolling. First, they have to be an agency that starts the process. Second, what is the chance that they will roll six repeatedly (i.e., the uniformity of nature) millions and millions of times?  NO REASON. Things happen. Third, six will only be rolled by the agent if the dice are fixed. 

Your position on morality has everything to do with your worldview. If there is no ultimate being responsible for existence, the universe, morality, then everything is a result of mindless, blind, indifferent chance happenstance because there is no intent behind it. Things happen without reason. But that is not what you find. You find the anthropic principle everywhere you look. You find laws of nature (i.e., constants) that are discovered (not invented), and the principles can be expressed by human thought in concise formulas because they express a greater mind. Going back to origins (the Big Bang, or whatever you want to postulate), you find reasons for the way things work and why they work that way. Reasons for a mindless process??? There is no sense there. And you can't make sense of origin from your worldview beliefs. That is because there is no sense behind the universe without a Mind creating it. 

There are plenty of atheists that never ask themselves where they derive their moral values from, but  also many religious individuals that admit that moral values are evolutionary and sociocultural constructs.
While either of those propositions is/can be true, the key question is how morality comes about when you take the nuts and bolts off your thinking system to find out how it is put together and WHAT IS BEHIND IT. Then you find its foundation to be faulty, and the system is not functional in and of itself but requires borrowed nuts and bolts from another system of thought to hold it together. 

A disbelief in your god stems purely from the fact that [1] your arguments are unconvincing. And so my position is: I cannot believe in the existence of God/gods until you provide sufficient evidence for them (and I’m [2] not hedging any bet that you ever will).
[1] I find your arguments unconvincing too. What the atheist is guilty of as much or more than any Christian is presupposing origins through scientism, not science. 

[2] Through experience, I am not holding my breath that you will either.

What would you consider sufficient? Let me see how you want to play God in deciding what you will and will not accept, then.

Most of the time, atheists will not discuss the evidence I present. I do not believe they have enough biblical knowledge to hold a reasonable conversation on some of this evidence, like prophetic evidence. Such evidence is reasonable and logical, more so than the alternatives. I have set up threads on the prophetic argument. I use this argument because it is verifiable by historical events in conjunction with the Bible. It is a funny thing that exposes just how little an atheist understands or knows the biblical teachings they pretend to know so much about. I also challenge atheists to make sense of their worldview and supply evidence of why they are right in what they believe regarding origins. I have yet to see an atheist adequately make sense of what they believe once their core beliefs are examples. In every worldview, the core beliefs are those that everything else hinges upon because minor beliefs are built on those core building blocks. If the core is rotten, the whole structure is too because it feeds off this rottenness.  
#670
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@Stephen
Yes I agree, and I sympathise and understand your/our frustrations with them.
#671
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, I owe you absolutely no explanation for anything, given that my stance as an atheist is tied exclusively to the proposition YOU (and like minded religious folks) make with regards to the existence of god/god, and therefore, the origins of morality, etc....
Your hypothesis is one of an infinite number of possible hypotheses out there, and I have given you my personal preference (which was supposed to be taken as a figure of speech, and not literally, aka: the most likely hypothesis) merely to direct the conversation back to a discussion on the origins of morality instead of being bogged down in a debate about absolutely everything.
So in summary, my atheism exists only because of you. If it wasn’t for your hypothesis on god, I just wouldn’t be an atheist.
Again, you consistently make the presumption that a disbelief is somehow equivalent to a belief. My disbelief in your ideas do not require me to replace your hypothesis with a competing one. In contrast, your belief requires you to prove it. 


#672
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheism can simply be, being unconvinced of an assertion, whereas theism is inherently a proposition which is often unfalsifiable. By near definition Atheism is more reasonable.
Topic's author
#673
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
Atheism can simply be, being unconvinced of an assertion, whereas theism is inherently a proposition which is often unfalsifiable. By near definition Atheism is more reasonable.
It is not reasonable at all when you look at its starting presuppositions. If the universe is not a result of mindful intention and agency, it results from blind, indifferent chance happenstance. 
#674
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheism can simply be, being unconvinced of an assertion, whereas theism is inherently a proposition which is often unfalsifiable. By near definition Atheism is more reasonable.
It is not reasonable at all when you look at its starting presuppositions. If the universe is not a result of mindful intention and agency, it results from blind, indifferent chance happenstance. 
Blind and indifferent are unnecessary adjectives which describe the creation of the universe, happenstance? Perhaps, perhaps not. We have only a vague idea of what preceded the big bang (cosmic inflation) with nothing beyond that, to claim a god created a universe is a bigger assumption (because you are presuming god) then to simply accept the proposition that the universe is existent through things that "happenstance" 
Topic's author
#675
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Marko
Again, I owe you absolutely no explanation for anything, given that my stance as an atheist is tied exclusively to the proposition YOU (and like minded religious folks) make with regards to the existence of god/god, and therefore, the origins of morality, etc....
Bye-bye!

Your hypothesis is one of an infinite number of possible hypotheses out there, and I have given you my personal preference (which was supposed to be taken as a figure of speech, and not literally, aka: the most likely hypothesis) merely to direct the conversation back to a discussion on the origins of morality instead of being bogged down in a debate about absolutely everything.
Like what? I only believe in one God. It is a reasonable, logical deduction.

Here are the possibilities. Creation or chance? Mindfulness or materialism? Intention or aimlessness? 

So in summary, my atheism exists only because of you. If it wasn’t for your hypothesis on god, I just wouldn’t be an atheist.
Again, you consistently make the presumption that a disbelief is somehow equivalent to a belief. My disbelief in your ideas do not require me to replace your hypothesis with a competing one. In contrast, your belief requires you to prove it. 
You are either unable or unwilling to take a close look at your belief system. There is no point in further discussion. I'm not interested in your excuses. I'm looking for a discussion on how you can justify your worldview. I am looking for a comparison and contrast between the two different systems of thought. 


Topic's author
#676
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
Atheism can simply be, being unconvinced of an assertion, whereas theism is inherently a proposition which is often unfalsifiable. By near definition Atheism is more reasonable.
It is not reasonable at all when you look at its starting presuppositions. If the universe is not a result of mindful intention and agency, it results from blind, indifferent chance happenstance. 
Blind and indifferent are unnecessary adjectives which describe the creation of the universe, happenstance?
Are you saying that materialism or empiricism is mindful of us? Or do things happen devoid of reason?

Perhaps, perhaps not. We have only a vague idea of what preceded the big bang (cosmic inflation) with nothing beyond that, to claim a god created a universe is a bigger assumption (because you are presuming god) then to simply accept the proposition that the universe is existent through things that "happenstance" 
It is the other way around. You assume all kinds of causes and effects are a result of mindlessness. You assume that the laws of nature are sustainable by what? Nothing? No intent, no agency. Poof, they suddenly happen and continue to substance themselves for no reason. 

Happenstance is not a presupposition that comes from my way of thinking. I do not believe in chance as to why the universe exists or is sustainable. That would have to be your default position once you jettison God. 

If God/gods do not exist, what is the explanation for the universe, existence, morality??? Please give me something to work with from your subjective atheistic viewpoint. Don't run and hide. 

Cosmic inflation dating back to when? This is all guesswork on your part, and what is more, it is unreasonable. 
#677
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
First, things first:

If God/gods do not exist, what is the explanation for the universe, existence, morality??? 
I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates. 

Next, existence - are you referring to our human existence or existence in general? Simple the big bang theory, which I will provide sources to investigate below:


To assume a god was what caused this is simple an assumption, one would have to prove that a god exists to even be a likely candidate to cause the big bang, and the big bang also explains the universe, again, no god required. Further propositions would require evidence to presume.



Happenstance is not a presupposition that comes from my way of thinking. I do not believe in chance as to why the universe exists or is sustainable. That would have to be your default position once you jettison God. 
Care to demonstrate? I have the big bang? Why is chance impossible to have created the universe? If it isn't impossible, and you do prove this, why is a god any more likely than happenstance? 



Cosmic inflation dating back to when? This is all guesswork on your part, and what is more, it is unreasonable. 
Notice the idea of a vague notion, as in it was not a hard position on my part, but simply some ideas that it may or may not have. There is no need for a dating back to when. 



It is the other way around. You assume all kinds of causes and effects are a result of mindlessness. You assume that the laws of nature are sustainable by what? Nothing? No intent, no agency. Poof, they suddenly happen and continue to substance themselves for no reason. 
No I substantiate that they were caused by a what, not a who. You are assuming agency behind it, when the position that assumes less is concluding it a thing, as there already things there, whereas there is no evidence for a mind.

Topic's author
#678
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Adam had free will. He was the only person who could choose to sin or not sin, other than Jesus Christ.
If I made a robot, would that robot be "free from the influence of sin"?
Its programming would depend on your moral character and what you included in the programming. 
In the exact same way that human programming would depend on the moral character of "YHWH".
God chose to give Adam free will, the ability to choose as God chooses and can do. 

Are you capable of making such a robot? 
It seems likely that a robot indistinguishable from a human could be produced at some point.
It would have to be a blank slate with the ability to choose. Can you do that without programming it? Once you start to input the different responses (being a subjective person yourself who does not know what is objectively moral), your robot would be compromised.

I do not believe you are able.
Please respect the hypothetical.
Find, explain how you would do it then. 

A robot does not suggest (to me) a free moral agent.
Why not?
Programmed by subjective and relative human beings. 


Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose? 
Did "YHWH" program humans to make moral choices and did "YHWH" determine what the good was and the boundaries to which humans could choose?
A program suggests a fixed outcome. God did not fix our outcome. We chose it ourselves. Nevertheless, we chose the outcome. God warned us of what would happen if we (Adam) took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

He made us moral beings with the ability to reason and told us if we ate of the tree of knowledge, we would know both good and evil. Up to that point, Adam had only witnessed the goodness of God. Up to that point, he did not know evil. He had not decided whether to obey or disobey God. He had the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He chose to do what was wrong, and the result is humanity knew evil.  

IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness?
IOW's, is there a best that the human can use as its standard for goodness?
Again, you do what you always do. YOU FAIL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I ASK YOU. It demonstrates how inept your system of thought is to make sense of ultimate questions and meaning. 

Yes, what God (who knows all things) has said is good. In our relationship with our fellow human beings, do not steal, lie, murder, covet. Honour your parents. In our relationship to God, love Him, do not create idols or set up false gods for they are powerless, don't take His name in vain or mock Him. 

What is that standard? Yourself? Is your own standard really good? Or do you just suppose so, or call it good even though it is not?
What is that standard?  "YHWH"?  Jesus?  Is the behavior of "YHWH" really good?  Or do you just suppose so, or call it good even though it is not?
Again, a lack of ability on your part to answer simple questions. 

You have already admitted you are the authority that determines whether something is right or wrong. 

Jesus is YHWH. The Bible reveals as much. What is applied solely to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT. In the OT, we are told that God alone saves. In the NT, we are told that Jesus is also Saviour. In the OT, we are told that only God deserves worship. In the NT, we see worship given to Jesus. Jesus tells the crowd that only God can forgive sin (for it is against God that we have done wrong). Then Jesus forgives sin. In the OT, we are told that every knee will bow before God. In the NT, we are told every knee will bow before Jesus Christ. In the OT, we see God leading His people into the Promised Land through the mediator, Moses. in the NT, we see that Jesus does this. Over and over, we see descriptions of Jesus as being God. We see that God will not give His glory to another, yet Jesus receives glory and honour. 

Are the standard those who influence your thoughts? Since you are not almighty, nor omniscient, how could you avoid programming it without including sinful instructions or codes?
Since "YHWH" is almighty and omniscient, how could it program humans with sinful instructions or codes?
God gave humans the ability to choose. They choose evil.

For freedom of choice would it not have to know all things to determine the good, or nothing at all and build from there and choose the right choice every time to avoid sin? 
Since "YHWH" knows all things and can presumably determine the good, wouldn't that mean that every human is acting 100% in accordance with their master plan at all times?
No, God's will is that none SHOULD sin, yet we choose to. God allows us to find out the consequences of sin so that some will seek Him and find Him. 

In other words, (IFF) "YHWH" can only do good things (AND) "YHWH" makes a human (THEN) that human can only always do good things
It was good to make humans with a will. That way, they could seek to know the loving God. They chose not to. Thus God allows the consequences of that choice to play out. Good comes from allowing that choice in that some see the wickedness of lining outside God's will and turn to Him in mercy. 

In other words, (IFF) a human makes a robot (AND) that robot commits a crime or an error (THEN) the crime or error of the robot is REALLY simply a second-order HUMAN ERROR
That assumes that God programmed Adam to commit a crime. If he was not programmed to commit a crime, how could he do so? Rather he was given free will. He could if he wanted to, or he could not if he wanted to. He chose to. I believe Adam was a blank tablet, and as he walked with God (had fellowship), he learned from God and saw His goodness. The day he took of the fruit, God expressly told him not to eat of his eyes were opened to evil or sin. Then he knew what evil was.

Some suggest that Adam was a blank slate, free to choose to sin or not to sin. No influence at first. He only knew the good God had made. That is what he saw. In this way, he was different from every other human being. He could choose not to sin. We can't. It is built into our nature through the Fall.
So you're saying that sin is genetic?
Adam was our federal head. That means that Adam represented humanity. From what Adam did, it affected each one of us. Adam was cut off from an intimate relationship with God the day he ate the fruit of the tree. So, yes, sinful nature is passed down to each one of us. Adams's choice influenced Adams's children, and without the input from God, Adam and Eve became the relative standard they learned from.   

How was Adam a "blank slate" but not Eve or Lilith?
Adam was the one who represented humanity before God. God specifically put the onus on him as to what would happen to his posterity. What he chose would alter his relationship (and ours) with God. 

AND, (IFF) "YHWH" made Adam a "blank slate" (THEN) "YHWH" could have just made Adam infertile and built a new "blank slate" perhaps named "Sammy"(?)
God did. When the Son became human, He learned from the Father and the Spirit, for He too was acting in His human capacity. As a man represented us before God in Adam, so another Man, the Second Adam, also represented us before God. He, too, was tempted to what He would choose, but He was without sin. Thus, His relationship with the pure and holy God was not marred by sin (the perfect Lamb of God). 

He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan)
Hold up.  Full stop.

Who made "Satan"?
God. 

...and then a third, Eve, repeating what Satan had said. Adam chose to sin which impacted the rest of humanity since not only did sin create a barrier between humanity and a holy and pure God but it also gave rise to humans deciding what they would accept as right and wrong (subjectivism/relativism). 
How did "YHWH" screw this up so badly?  Was it lack of foresight?  Poor planning?  Or was this perhaps some sort of 12 dimensional chess game they dreamed up because they were like, super-super bored?
He did not screw up. He made a being who was capable of choosing to love Him. God knew what that being would choose (since He knows all things), yet He allowed Adam the choice. God had a plan to deem humanity even though sin caused the rift. That plan was put in effect before the creation of the universe. Love is not 'love' unless it is freely given. God allowed humanity to see what happens when humans live apart from God. All hell breaks loose. God does not get bored.

Topic's author
#679
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
First, things first:

If God/gods do not exist, what is the explanation for the universe, existence, morality??? 
I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates.
I will look them up and have more to say once I read them.

Two questions for now. If morality is subjective, what makes your thoughts of 'good' or 'right' any better than mine; because you LIKE them more? How do your likes make something good/right? 

Next, existence - are you referring to our human existence or existence in general?
I am speaking of both. Presumably, you agree the universe came first (before our human existence). Without a personal being, it would be explained strictly through naturalistic causes. From a lifeless universe, somehow and for no reason, life came about. 

I have no problem with the evidence. I support it, yet I give an explanation to the Big Bang that makes sense. A willful, intelligent, omniscient, necessary Being chose to create it. Why did the Big Bang happen? You don't have a reason without such a being. First of all, what is 'chance'? 

Definition of chance
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause Which cards you are dealt is simply a matter of chance.
b: the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings: LUCKan outcome decided by chance
c: the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence: CONTINGENCY… you surely have endured strange chances …— Alfred Tennyson
2: a situation favoring some purpose: OPPORTUNITYneeded a chance to relax
3: a fielding opportunity in baseball
4a: the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation What chance has he of pulling through?also: the degree of likelihood of such an outcome small chance of success
b. chances plural: the more likely indications chances are he's already gone
5a: RISK not taking any chances
b: a raffle ticket
by chance
: in the haphazard course of event s they met by chance

1a: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b: the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings
c: the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence: CONTINGENCY
4a: the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation
by chance
: in the haphazard course of events

R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance, The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology, p.5-6, reasons regarding the notion of chance and what influence (none) chance has on the outcome of anything.  Physically, he explains, 'chance' is nothing. Nothing is "not a thing," and "no thing" does not have the ability to do anything, it does not exist physically. "Out of nothing, nothing comes." (p. 8). You would be hard-pressed to show me that nothing is capable of doing something. Chance is a concept that can be thought of and described (in meaning or definition) in two ways concerning the universe, 1) an unguided, non-thinking, chaotic force of some kind responsible for everything that exists, or 2) mathematical possibility or the odds of something happening such as the dice analogy I used in an earlier post. In that case, there is a one in six chance that a six will arise from one die, or a two in twelve for two dice. For every roll, the probability remains the same (a one in six possibilities that six will occur).

Thus, it has no agency, no influence on how things turn out, no power, no ability to do anything because it has no being.

My opponent (in this case, Theweakeredge) may argue that chance is a thing. What exactly is that thing? His argument may go that "things happen." But what is this "thing" called chance? Again, it is nothing. Show me otherwise, Theweakeredge. 

Since he proposes the universe began to exist, the question is from what?

"The Big Bang model states that space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) all began at this moment. That is, matter began at this moment. Space began. Time began. Energy began. This is agreed to by non-theists, such as Hawking."

Thus, in a closed system, the universe, space, time, energy, and matter began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang - i.e., something from nothing or self-creation. Does that make sense to you? 

Since one law of thermodynamics states that energy is dissipating and running out (the universe is dying from a Heat Death). This could be argued for a beginning as well (the running down, winding down or entropy within a system). 

n. pl. en·tro·pies
1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

Look at the underlined definitions above. 
 
1st Law - "In general, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. In a closed system (i.e. there is no transfer of matter into or out of the system),..." 

Now, what does a 'closed system' mean? 

"A closed system is a physical system that does not allow transfer of matter in or out of the system, though, in different contexts, such as physics, chemistry or engineering, the transfer of energy is or is not allowed."

What does an 'isolated system' mean? 

"In physical science, an isolated system is either of the following:
  1. a physical system so far removed from other systems that it does not interact with them.
  2. a thermodynamic system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither mass nor energy can pass."
2nd Law - "The second law of thermodynamics indicates the irreversibility of natural processes, and, in many cases, the tendency of natural processes to lead towards spatial homogeneity of matter and energy, and especially of temperature."

"It implies the existence of a quantity called the entropy of a thermodynamic system. In terms of this quantity it implies that:
When two initially isolated systems in separate but nearby regions of space, each in thermodynamic equilibrium with itself but not necessarily with each other, are then allowed to interact, they will eventually reach a mutual thermodynamic equilibrium. The sum of the initially isolated systems' entropies is less than or equal to the total entropy of the final combination. Equality occurs just when the two original systems have all their respective intensive variables (temperature, pressure) equal; then the final system also has the same values."

Thus, things are going from order to disorder concerning energy, not the other way round within the system.

Third Law - "The third law of thermodynamics states as follows, regarding the properties of closed systems in thermodynamic equilibrium:
The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as its temperature approaches absolute zero.
This constant value cannot depend on any other parameters characterizing the closed system"

***

Self-creation or something from nothing is logically impossible. It has to exist before it exists, a contradiction in terms. So, your system of thought is not more reasonable than mine. It is sheer lunacy. Sorry, but you're nuts. I have the necessary means for the universe, a Being who transcends and creates the universe that is outside of time, matter, and space. 
Topic's author
#680
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge

[1] To assume a god was what caused this is simple an assumption, [2] one would have to prove that a god exists to even be a likely candidate to cause the big bang, and the big bang also explains the universe, again, no god required. Further propositions would require evidence to presume.
[1] No more so than yours is an assumption that it can happen without a necessary being making it happen.

[2] One can not prove the existence any more than one can prove the universe's existence from mere chance happenstance, absolutely. No matter what reasons I give you will likely question them because they go against your starting presupposition that you build your worldview from. You either build on one system of thought or the other - chance or creation, being or non-being. Still, if you want a reason for the universe (literally - 'one spoken'), God is necessary. Since you keep finding reason and arguing from reason, even your own position favours God. After all, why would you expect to find reason in and from a universe devoid of it? We continually can express the way things work in the universe in a mindful way and in formulas that describe what already exists, not what we invent. We discover these laws of nature; we do not invent them. They continue to function, whether we do or not. They do not depend on your grandfather existing, nor mine, but none of us would exist without them. They continually hold together (sustainable), which brings up the questions of how and why? Why would they, if the universe is chance happenstance? No reason. How would they without intention? You have yet to explain this. Instead, you keep finding rational ways of how and why things do happen, despite the origins of such a universe without God. Nothing makes sense from such a universe. The universe is not reasoning, but you continually find a reason, design, purpose in the meaningless, non-thinking, chaotic things that exist?? Go figure. And that begs how such a being such as you or me came out of this meaninglessness???

Now, as for the evidence of God, everything that has been made "speaks" of the existence of such a Being as reasonable, from the micros to the macros, from the simplicity to the complexity, from the apparent design and information in this, from the anthropic principle to the claimed self-revelation - the Bible. On the Bible, there is much reasonable evidence, and I would defy you to show that prophecy is not more reasonable than denying it. 

Happenstance is not a presupposition that comes from my way of thinking. I do not believe in chance as to why the universe exists or is sustainable. That would have to be your default position once you jettison God. 
Care to demonstrate? I have the big bang? Why is chance impossible to have created the universe? If it isn't impossible, and you do prove this, why is a god any more likely than happenstance?
Please show me what chance can do, not what you assume of it. First of all, what is it? What kind of ability does it have? How does chance sustain anything, let alone the uniformity of nature (nature's laws)?

God has what is necessary. From a necessary being comes other contingent beings, of which you are one. From a necessary being comes the laws of nature and explains why things hold together. From a necessary being, we understand life coming from life, consciousness coming from existing and eternal consciousness, the physical universe coming from Being, not from the universe self-creating itself. From a necessary being, there are explanations for the why. When you consider morality, God gives reason for morality. Preference does not, for it does not answer how values originate from something devoid of them or how they could (is/ought fallacy). Morality needs an ideal, a best to compare 'good,' 'right,' 'better' against. If the standard is not fixed, how would you know something is better? Better than what? And people work hard to change systems of morality - to what? To their own changing system of thought on what should be? 

Cosmic inflation dating back to when? This is all guesswork on your part, and what is more, it is unreasonable. 
Notice the idea of a vague notion, as in it was not a hard position on my part, but simply some ideas that it may or may not have. There is no need for a dating back to when. 
How is 'chance' not a vague notion? Your causal chain of events goes back to the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang? Why would it do what it supposedly did?

It is the other way around. You assume all kinds of causes and effects are a result of mindlessness. You assume that the laws of nature are sustainable by what? Nothing? No intent, no agency. Poof, they suddenly happen and continue to substance themselves for no reason. 
No I substantiate that they were caused by a what, not a who.
Well, that is your presuppositional starting point. Show me that 'chance' can do anything, let alone sustain it (the universe) indefinitely. 

You are assuming agency behind it, when the position that assumes less is concluding it a thing, as there already things there, whereas there is no evidence for a mind.
You assume no agency behind it, then. 

The "position that assumes less?" What does that mean?

What things are you speaking of behind the Big Bang? Nothing? Is the universe self-creating, in your OPINION? How is that possible? Where have you ever witnessed self-creation?

Why should I value your opinion? It goes against what is livable and evidential/experiential by what I or anyone witnesses. For instance, I never witness beings coming from non-beings, morality coming from something amoral, or something coming from nothing. In studying the causal nature or causal tree of anything physical, you can trace the effect back to another cause until you get to the root cause. What is your root cause? Show something before the Big Bang. Suddenly the universe explodes or whimpers into existence. How? From what? I say that if the Big Bang is correct, the explanation is God. It is reasonable!!!

You make a big deal of this by suggesting only you have a reasonable explanation for the way things are. You can give me nothing more than speculation, and from where you being, the universe, there is no reason behind it without a necessary being as responsible for it. So, your explanation suffers from insufficient reason. IOW's, it can't make sense of itself. My Christian worldview can. 

#681
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
When I said chance I was referring to something else entirely - this entire notion of chance lacking an agency is nonsense and a misrepresentation of what I was arguing. 

I am clear that we do not know what caused the universe, and you would have to present actual evidence to support the fact that one created the universe. On top of that, before you could even do that, you would have to present evidence that god existed. They are two separate claims, and both must be evidenced.

I never said, chance created the universe, my point there was that it is more likely for life to be present because of chance than it is to claim a super natural god created the universe which supports life.

Next onward, how is it an assumption to think agency is not required to create the universe? We have an example of a non-agent (the big bang) creating the universe, there is no evidence at all that there needed to be an agent to start the big bang. 

Again, the universe we can observe was literally caused by happenstance, that the big bang expanded the way it did and such, that is literally our only example of a universe, that IS MY PROOF, that the universe is here and the aspects of it now were caused by happenstance. You haven't even demonstrated a god.

This is the one I really want to break down because it is the most abhorent:
Now, as for the evidence of God, everything that has been made "speaks" of the existence of such a Being as reasonable, from the micros to the macros, from the simplicity to the complexity, from the apparent design and information in this, from the anthropic principle to the claimed self-revelation - the Bible. On the Bible, there is much reasonable evidence, and I would defy you to show that prophecy is not more reasonable than denying it. 

Micros and macros don't prove anything inherently, logic is a presumed axiom to the point that one cannot point out logic as unreasonable without logic, therefore it is systematically and axiomatically true.  You are making a flaw there whenever you suggest that because something is complex is requires a creator, it obviously doesn't if you agree with the big bang. "Apparent" Not actual design, as you know most of the vastness of space would be fatal for us. The bible? Provide evidence of it's veracity, as any historian would have to do with a document. Prophecy is based on the assumption of the divine and supernatural, where anything that breaks the laws of physics are definitionally physically impossible.

Please show me what chance can do, not what you assume of it. First of all, what is it? What kind of ability does it have? How does chance sustain anything, let alone the uniformity of nature (nature's laws)?
This was simply a mistyping on my part, and I have already explained it.

Literally, all of your positions are based on the assumption that god created the universe. I'm sure there are better people to discuss this with, but I'll still address it. As for agency? The default position is there being no agency, because of the lack of evidence towards one, and then one would have to demonstrate an agency, but you kind of repeat yourself a few times. Why is that? Whenever you don't have a faulty understanding of science and copy and paste misattributions or straw men, your words have a lot less merit than you make them seem


Topic's author
#682
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
Per the discussion on your debate comment section:

YOU: "Either challenge me to a debate or go to my actual forum about moral subjectivity, don't flood a place that's inconvenient to type on:
Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.
What I mean is that objective morality is something that is true as a law (like the laws of physics) regardless of a mind or anything else. That is the literal definition. Your argument is literally proving my point, morality, as is defined, can literally not be objective. That's how morality works, and that was my argument."

***

First, common sense tells me your definition of "Objective morality" does not stand the logic test. That gives me the right to question it. Next, I am willing to take this to the forum, "Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"

The fact is that you mentioned your two debates as a badge of honour. Thus, I brought the subject up here. Do you want me to cut and paste this to the forum?

If you want a formal debate on the subject, I am willing. As I said in my first post here, you would need to change the challenge's wording. I said:

ME (Post 22): "I would have argued that objective morality is necessary for there to be such a thing as morality, rather than just subjective opinion and preference resulting in 'might makes right.' If there is nothing objectively moral, then there is no 'good' or 'right.'"

So, I do not believe objective morality exists unless God exists. If you want to argue along those lines, then we can discuss the details [of such a debate]. I.e., We would also have to agree to terms for such a debate - how many characters, how many rounds, voting format, etcetera.

***

Now, my objections to your debate logic:

Post 23: Your syllogism from Round 1:

YOU:
P1: Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind
P2: Values and principals are made by minds
P3: Objective Morality has Values, Principals, etc..
Con: Therefore, these systems would be made by a mind
This would lead you to conclude them not objective. It's a contradictory statement to say that objective morality is made up of concepts only existent in minds."

***

I question P1 to its validity. The premise is false. Objective morality cannot be independent of mind, since morality is a mindful thing. Morality is not possible without this thing called a mind. I would argue that objective morality is dependent on a necessary Mind (i.e., God), not contingent minds. If God did not exist then morality would be nothing more than preference. Preference is a personal taste or opinion. Thus it describes, not prescribes - "I like ice-cream describes what you like, what tastes yummy to you, not what I SHOULD do (an obligation). You are not obligated to like ice-cream although you may like it if it tastes 'good' to you.

Next, 'good' or 'right' has to be grounded to something for it to be meaningful, a fixed standard. If the standard is not fixed and universal then how can you determine whether it is good or right? Good or right in relation to what? Your personal preference? That makes nothing right. It just makes it doable.

Finally, if there is no objective standard, then life becomes unlivable. You can offer your opinion ("I don't like that") but you can never say it is wrong ("It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun"). Imagine, that would be dependent on who believes it rather than on it being wrong. You can't live by your own system because as soon as someone applies their preferences on you (that harms you) you realize without objective values life becomes unlivable.

So it does not pass the experiential test of life, let alone the logically consistent one (i.e., the law of identity, or a thing it what it is --> A=A; Right = Right). So your thinking is false in a number of ways, per above.

So, it is more reasonable to believe in objective moral values than to dismiss them.





Topic's author
#683
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
Back tomorrow.
#684
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
I'll be here then, I'll try to address all of your stuff sometime tonight
#685
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan)
Hold up.  Full stop.

Who made "Satan"?
God. 
So, when you say "God and Satan" you really just mean "God and God".
#686
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
He did not screw up. He made a being who was capable of choosing to love Him. God knew what that being would choose (since He knows all things), yet He allowed Adam the choice. God had a plan to [re]deem humanity even though sin caused the rift. That plan was put in effect before the creation of the universe.

Love is not 'love' unless it is freely given.
LOVE ME (OR SUFFER ETERNITY IN THE FIRES OF HELL).

This seems slightly coercive.
#687
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
In other words, (IFF) a human makes a robot (AND) that robot commits a crime or an error (THEN) the crime or error of the robot is REALLY simply a second-order HUMAN ERROR
That assumes that God programmed Adam to commit a crime. If he was not programmed to commit a crime, how could he do so? Rather he was given free will.
How do you create a robot with "freewill"?

i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.

the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:

1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.

2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.

3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice.

4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.

5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.

i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap. imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!

obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.

the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.

ipso-facto, no free-will.
Topic's author
#688
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...and within those groups, there is a huge diversity of values and beliefs.
How is this even possible if one group is following universal and unchanging divinely inspired perfect moral dogma?
That is just the point, isn't it? Secular humanity is not following universal and unchanging godly standards. They are doing their own thing. 

How can so many "true Christians" disagree?
Misinterpretation of Scripture. The essential doctrines are agreed upon. Those essentials cannot be compromised (either apostasy or the person was never committed to the faith in the beginning --> the seed that falls on rocky ground, starts to grow, but withers away because it was not planted on good ground or rooted like those heard the message but it does not produce fruit, or the one that gets choked out by the desires of the world) and still be in a close relationship with God, IMO.

Are you the only "true Christian" on planet earth?
You are mocking me. See if what I say is consistent with Scripture. Anything you have an issue with we can discuss by going to the verse and passage and even comparing it to similar verses and passages. 
#689
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you the only "true Christian" on planet earth?
You are mocking me. See if what I say is consistent with Scripture. Anything you have an issue with we can discuss by going to the verse and passage and even comparing it to similar verses and passages. 
That sounds a lot like a "YES" to me.
Topic's author
#690
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
'morality' (in English) is the common term used to describe a particular social normative abstract concept type. It has a specific meaning because of the association we get from the word. If I say morality, I don't mean subjective-morality unless I have developed the wrong association. If a person uses a new word foreign for the meaning 'morality' they fail to communicate or express the standard norm or common usage, but if it catches on, they can invent a new word only if it is widely accepted or communication only between people who know what the person is referring to (or fail to recognize their miscommunication). [1] The point is that the thing describes is what it is, not something else (unless the new meaning and or usage catches on, they can start using it in a novel way if it is widely accepted). If you want to use the word "morality" when speaking of subjective-morality, you will not be understood unless the idea is presented clearly and explicitly and you are pointing to the clear and explicit, rigorously defined definition. Otherwise the person you are communicating with is going to (hopefully) correct you of your misconception (if they even recognize the discrepancy). 
[1] Morality is a set of social norms or conventions that have to have as their basis a fixed standard to know what is the case. Otherwise, all you have is a set of preferences or desires people in power force others to accept.

Again, what is ideal, the best? If you don't have one, then what shifting standard are you comparing the good, the right, the better against? How can you ever say, "This is better" if you have no grounded ideal as the measure in comparing the rightness of morals? It is like saying, "This is better, no wait a minute, this is better, no wait, this is better, hold on a sec, this is better." Better concerning what?