Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#871
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
First, what is the origin (reasoning the chain of events back to its furthest point possible) of moral conscious beings?[10] Is such a causal factor intentional (thus mindful) or random, chaotic?[11] A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best).[12]How does SkepticalOne arrive at best? What is the ideal, the fixedreference point? That necessary Being is reasonable to assume sincewe only witness or observe moral mindful beings deriving theirexistence from other moral, mindful beings.[13] With atheism (no Godor gods) what is left for the origins of morality and beforethat conscious beings? I say it is a blind, indifferent, mindless,random chance happenstance.[14] How is that capable of anything, letalone being the cause of moral mindful beings?
***

First, what is the origin (reasoning the chain of events back to its furthest point possible) of moral conscious beings?[10]
[10] I am sure you are superficially familiar with the story. [a] In a nutshell : Big Bang, [b] in homogeneity, separation of fundamental forces, inflation, dark matter, gravity, first generation stars, possibly second generation stars, formation of the solar system, the goldilock zone, comet strikes, organic molecules, appearance of life, cambrian explosion, first social animals.
[a] Just like you?

So, somehow organic molecules happen from inorganic matter and become conscious of their environment? They develop eyes, and hands and everything needed to interact with this chance universe. How does that happen, and where have you ever witnessed it happening? What you propose is great in theory, but it is not experiential. It takes great faith to believe these things. 

[b] Big Bang - That means you support a beginning to the universe. Why did it happen? 

Here is “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God as put forth by William Lane Craig and others:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
5.  Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

Now, chance plays a big part as this agency for the universe (either intent or chance), but what is 'chance'?  Is it a physical thing or an abstract, immaterial concept? So, please, as an atheist, explain what 'chance' is and how it can do anything. How is it a causal factor? Please explain.

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins

Now, if the universe exploded into being, what caused the explosion? (I.e., the agency)

Are you saying that nothing caused the universe to exist, that nothing existed, then suddenly something existed? And what solid proof do you have to your conjecture? Let us see it. 

And no. I don't know all the details perfectly, which is perfectly consistent with my worldview.
Very true!

Is such a causal factor intentional (thus mindful) or random, chaotic?[11]
[11] Or could it be neither?
I'm listening. What do you propose?

A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best).[12]
[12] Moral according to who?
Already explained above. There is only one Being who fits the mould. 

Does it have what is necessary to know what is moral according to itself?
"It?" With a being who is good and knows all things, why not?

What a great achievement! Adolf Hitler also had what is necessary to know what is moral according to himself, despite him lacking of a fixed reference point. Kim Jong Un as well.
I certainly hope you are not serious with that statement, just being facetious? No, Adolf Hitler nor Kim Jung-Un do not have what it takes, what is necessary. They are subjective, relative, limited human beings. Why are they right? First, they do not have to exist for there to be morality. People were making moral judgments long before they existed. Second, morality has to be based on a 'best' for comparison; otherwise, it is relative, and the moral good can be whatever anyone wants to make it. Thus, it does not pass the logical consistency test or that of the laws of logic.    

And while you are at it, that best that there is, is best according to who?
Best in light of God, the ideal, the measure, a necessary being who knows all things and is benevolent by nature. 

How does SkepticalOne arrive at best? What is the ideal, the fixed reference point? That necessary Being is reasonable to assume since we only witness or observe moral mindful beings deriving their existence from other moral, mindful beings.[13]
[13] How is that supposed to follow? Please elaborate your argument.
What part?

How SkepticalOne arrives at best? He can't. All he can do is say, "I prefer this." Preference is descriptive (I like), not prescriptive (You ought). This relative nature does not have what is necessary in and of itself. It has to reference a fixed best to support his relative views and show how they comply with that best. He can't produce one. His views are contrary to other views. 

His reference point? It is shifting. He is not necessary for morality. Many others oppose his views on morality, including me (see our abortion debates).

A necessary being as reasonable? What attributes would such a being need? The ones I described apply to the biblical God. 

What we witness? The experiential test is important in our justification of things. 

Moral beings the causal agent in producing more moral beings? First, morality is a mindful process. It requires conscious, living, intelligent beings to ponder such abstract things. Second, all we ever witness is the conscious moral agents giving birth to other such beings. We don't see them arising out of inorganic matter. 

[14] Or it could be what I summarized in [10].
Return to [10].

Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like? IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine?[15] Is it more reasonable? I say no. It does not have what is necessary for morality. Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?[16]
For example, with a ruler, I, asubjective being, can objectively measure the length of a table. Canyou not do that ?
[15] Define 'better'.
Morally, of superior quality, more excellent than what is good.

[16] Good according to who?
Precisely! If morality is relative to the person or group holding the belief, what makes what you like, your personal taste, good? It just is. Your liking ice-cream is not something I must like. You are not going to convince me abortion is good because you like it as a choice for women in the same way you will not convince me it is good to kill innocent human beings, of which the unborn is. If you think it is good to kill innocent human beings, would you willingly allow you and your family to be the next ones to be killed? The point: you can agree to many things, but you can't live experientially with such thinking. Justice must be equally applied for something to be just. Equality must be applied for all, or else there is no such thing operating. Once you make a law that discriminates and dehumanized one group of humans (i.e., Hitler with the Jews; abortion with the unborn human being), there is no longer fairness there (it becomes unlivable for whoever they want to villanize).  Furthermore, such thinking does not pass the logical consistency test. Good = Good. Good has a specific identity. What is good cannot at the same time be bad regarding the same thing.  Good, then loses its identity. It can mean anything depending on who thinks it (moral relativism and postmodernism, in which all values are deconstructed and rebuilt). 
Topic's author
#872
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.
You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat? 
I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?
No, you are making a categorical error.

One set of evaluations has to do with what is (the descriptive), the other with what ought to be (the prescriptive). If I make the wrong chess move, resulting in my loss to you, it is not morally wrong, just an oversight that affects a game's outcome. It was not my intention to lose, and I played the game for my enjoyment. If I steal and lie to you, and it results in an injury to you, I have harmed you by intent. My evaluation has nothing to do with a moral wrong in a chess game. It does when I intentionally hurt an innocent person for my enjoyment and greed. 
#873
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
So, somehow organic molecules happen from inorganic matter 
Methane, water, hydrogen, and ammonia, these were the prominent elements that made up the early earth, and are thought to be one of the key requirements for abiogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiment reduced a controlled environment to these exclusive ingredients, then shot electric sparks through the mixture. The experiment is hailed for its results as it produced amino acids and other “organic” compounds. This essentially proved that in the right conditions, by chance alone, the building blocks for proteins could come into existence. While this experiment did not create life, it took a very unique set of environmental requirements and proved that components of life could naturally occur.
#874
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.
You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat? 
I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?
No, you are making a categorical error. One set of evaluations has to do with what is (the descriptive), the other with what ought to be (the prescriptive). If I make the wrong chess move, resulting in my loss to you, it is not morally wrong, just an oversight that affects a game's outcome. It was not my intention to lose, and I played the game for my enjoyment. If I steal and lie to you, and it results in an injury to you, I have harmed you by intent. My evaluation has nothing to do with a moral wrong in a chess game. It does when I intentionally hurt an innocent person for my enjoyment and greed. 


That is no answer at all. An evaluation of chess action isn't descriptive because it causes no intentional harm. Likewise, an evaluation of a life action isn't prescriptive because harm might hang in the balance. You are claiming a difference, but providing no explanation beyond assertion. 'Harm' isn't the metric by which we apply the labels  "prescriptive" or "descriptive".
#875
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
My zeal allowed me to read up to post275.

@PGA2.0 :
I notice that you are again systematically omitting to mention the reference standard for almost all your qualitative claims and questions, making them ambiguous. That contributes to you goal of maintaining confusion (the skeptic's enemy).

You're basically saying your moralpreferences are universal and authoritative.
I'm sayingwithout God, a necessary being, what is right is a shiftingpreference that cannot be locked down. It always shifting and that iswhat we see with most cultures for they have rejected the biblicalGod.[53a] Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who isright, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you cancall it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixedaddress.[53b]
[53a] So you claim, but most cultures have rejected most gods. Maybe reality is the way it is because of the rejection of some other god. Or maybe the reality is the way it is because there are no gods. Or maybe reality is the way it is because so many believe in a god.
[54b] So what ? You are supposed toargue that adding your god to a naturalistic worldview would make that worldview a better tool for generating an explanation for the existence for morality. In stead you are complaning about reality. Yet again.

My personal preference would be foreveryone to stop killing each other.
Why is yourpreference significant if there are not absolute, objectivestandards, like with atheism? Maybe you don't like it (again, adescription) but what makes that wrong for someone who does?
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism? Maybe you don't like it, but what makes that wrong for someone who does ?

PGA2.0 176 to 3RU7AL
Again, it is Godwho is wronged. He is just and will not let those who practice eviland will not repent a close relationship with Him and those who do.God has a right to do with His creation as He wishes[54] and He willnot punish innocent creatures. Since we are designed for fellowshipwith Him forever and if we do not choose as much then the option isseparation for eternity, which will be hell since you think the moralrelativism now is bad. When there are no restraints it will be worse.
If God is just by definition, then his existence will be very hard to prove and I doubt that will ever happen. If that is merely a property of God, then on top of God's existence, you would have to prove his justness. I doubt that will ever happen.
[54] According to himself no doubt and being as powerful as he is, he is the one who gets to decide. If I were as mighty as God, I too would like might makes right morality.

There is no"universal" "one-true" language.
So yourconclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or truemoral values?[55] As I have said before, you can think such thoughtssbut you can't live practically with those beliefs[56] for the minutesomeone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members,or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know itis wrong[57], and if you don't I would say you have majorproblems[58]. There is no, 'Well that is your choice but I wouldprefer you did not do it.' There is a definite, 'What you are doingis wrong.'
[55] Although it is unclear what a universal or true moral value is, it looks like such things do not exist.
[56] That a belief is impractical doesn't make it wrong. In school they teach students the Newtonian theory of gravity in stead of the more accurate theory of general relativity. The latter would be impractical in most situations.
[57] a) Wrong according to who ?
b) In such situations one can probably not think rationally and would find phylosophical considerations unimportant. Hence one's knowledge would then probably not be reliable. In such situations one is guided by instinct and emotions, in accordance with the rules of biological evolution.
c) Why would something being wrong, e.g. according to God's moral standard, imply that there that are true or universal moral values ?
[58] If me or my family were tortured, I would have a major problem, indeed. Would you not if you or your family were tortured ?

I notice that the way you establish the alleged fact that something is wrong, is by referring to someone's knowledge. I think, that if that is the only way to establish something, all you get is an opinion. Can you think of a counter-example, an example of a fact (in a different field than morality) that can be established only by relying on someone's knowledge ?

What if two moral knowledges contradict each other ? What if someone knows that snitching one's mischievous friend to the authorities is wrong, while someone else knows that that is right ? They can't both be correct. So who is correct and who is mistaken ?

Wow seems likeyou have found a perfectly reasonable standard for determining themoral correctness of an action which requires no god(s) and no dogma.
No, you arewrong. Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, ifsomeone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills ormight unless there is an objective, universal fixed standard ofappeal - a should or should not that is universal and fixed. All I am saying is that you can't live by a system of thought thatdoes not treat innocent human beings equally, because eventually, youare going to have the tables turned on you where you are innocent andtreated unfairly.[59] While you can argue it matters, how would itultimately matter in a universe devoid of meaning? And it mightmatter for you but someone else might not give a damn. [ . . . ]
[59] Indeed. Such things happen in the real world. Are they not possible in your worldview ?
People not giving a damn, is that also not possible in your worldview ?

PGA2.0 179 to secularism
Whether or not itpasses the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there isno universal wrong does it matter?[60] If there is no universalaccountability what does it matter if you get away with treatingothers unfairly?[61] That is the problem with atheism.[62] It has noobjective, universal court of appeal. Everything is subjective.
[60] Does what matter ?
[61] Personally, I like getting away with treating people unfairly. It is people getting away with treating me unfairly that I have issues with.
[62] That would only be true if we define atheism as a worldview. The worldviews ofmost atheists are based on reality and therefore tend to include many of reality's problems. Does your worldview exclude reality's problems?

PleaseQUANTIFYempirically measurable MORAL AXIOMS.
Morality operateson a different standard than physical objects because it is anabstract concept. Morals are mindful things.
What a coincidence. Opinions and preferences are mindful things too.

PGA2.0 193 to secularmism
But you don'tunderstand the problem. You (all of those of accountable age, plusalso through the representation of our federal head - Adam) havewronged your Creator by your willful sin. Thus, you are accountableto Him. Your nature has too been affected by Adam's sin. It is nolonger open to God. Because of His grace the Son chose to address ourproblem and make our relationship with God good again. Since He madeus for relationship with Him He is willing to fix the wrong withoutsacrificing His justice and righteousness. A good Judge does notoverlook the law or what is right. Neither did God.
In this case the judge wrote the law : “Worshipping me is mandatory. Failure to comply is punishable by death.”
Then God, pointing to a heretic : “Hey you! You failed to worhip me! I am sorry, but the law is clear. I have to punishe you. Otherwise I would be a bad judge.”
I wonder how God would feel when he found himself at the other end of such justice.  Idoubt he would still like might makes right justice.

Withoutexplicit MORAL AXIOMS,your claim to "universal" "objective" morality isindistinguishable from your personal preference.
Please present your moral mathematics.
For example, [MORALMATHEMATICS]
Again, the presentation relies on your merit, your good deeds outweighing your bad deeds. It does not take into account God's moral purity and holiness, and the wrongs we have done that deserve addressing. Remember, God is a good Judge.[63] He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it.[64] Thus, I realize my good deeds do not measure up to His perfection and that I have fallen short of the mark He has set for intimate fellowship and peace and joy with Him. Thatis why I look to the works of another, the Lord Jesus Christ in setting my record straight.
[63] God is agood judge according to who ? Himself ? Remember, Adolf Hitler was also a good judge according to himself. Kim Jong Un is also fond of his own justice.
[64] So did Adolf Hitler and so does Kim Jong Un.
I suspect your good deed didn't even measure up to AH's imperfection.

HOW DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF AXIOMS APPLY TO MORALITY??
They are established by the Ten Commandments. Most nations, most cultures, most groups, most individuals of the world recognize the fundamentals of the Ten Commandments as they relate to human beings - do not murder, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, and do honour your parents. In most legal systems these principles are ruled upon.
There is overlap, but there are important differences between most legislations and the 10 commandments, even among the ones you listed, like the ones about lying, covetting, committing adultry and honouring your parents.

Morality shifts over time, and laws change accordingly, in a democratic society. Christians once thought it was moral to own black people. It was the better moral judgement of others, including some other Christians, that it is in fact immoral, in spite of what's in the bible on the matter.  In any case, at least one group of Christians was reading the bible incorrectly.
Morals shift if there is no objective, fixed standard. Humans make laws that shift. That brings up the question of what is true to what is?
Such ambiguous questions are typically brought up by enemies of clarity (the skeptic's friend).
#876
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
In stead you are complaning about reality.Yet again.
Well stated.
#877
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
I notice that you are again systematically omitting to mention the reference standard for almost all your qualitative claims and questions,
Well stated.
Topic's author
#878
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Please take note of the difference between qualitative values and quantitative values. I describe what I like. That is, I do not prescribe what I like as a must that you like it too. I like ice-cream is a personal preference. I do not force you to eat it too as a moral must. If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one. The words 'should,' 'must,' or 'ought' denote a moral prescription.[17] No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too. That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy. There is no bridge between what is and what ought to be in that one is a mere description of what is liked or what is while the other is what should or must be the case.[18] Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance. How is that more reasonable? Am I missing something here?
[17] One should, must or ought according to a standard or goal. In case of moral prescriptions they refer to a moral opinion or standard.
Which standard or goal??? You forget the goal MUST reflect the good. A moral opinion or standard??? Whose???

Why are your goals any better than any other? Nothing, unless there is an objective, universal, fixed and unchanging reference point. What is that?

[18] Actually there is, but it is not a philosphical bridge. That is, one does not correctly reason from only facts to an obligation. On the other hand, opinions and standards have causes in reality.
Moral opinions have no basis for the good unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging best to compare "good" with. What are you comparing "good" with - someone else's shifting standard? 

Kim Jung-un: My standard of good is killing others before you are killed, looking out for my own interests above all others.

Jack the Ripper: My standard of good is killing others for fun.

Adolf Hitler: My standard of good is ridding society of undesirable groups that are an inferior race. Those who meet my standard are safe from persecution. 

Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism: Whatever promotes happiness and well-being for most by avoiding harm is good, depending on how you define well-being, good, and harm. 

Jesus Christ: THE standard of good is to love others as yourselves and love God. 

 In the first four, the standard is based on personal opinion. Each "good" can mean something different for the person holding the belief. The fourth could be argued as having what is necessary for good: an ultimate, objective, unchanging, omniscient reference point. Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic. 

Facts have an objective identity, a fixed measure; opinions lack an objective that fixed identity since they mean different things to different people. 
#879
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Moral opinions have no basis for the good unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging best to compare "good" with. What are you comparing "good" with - someone else's shifting standard? 

Kim Jung-un: My standard of good is killing others before you are killed, looking out for my own interests above all others.

Jack the Ripper: My standard of good is killing others for fun.

Adolf Hitler: My standard of good is ridding society of undesirable groups that are an inferior race. Those who meet my standard are safe from persecution. 

Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism: Whatever promotes happiness and well-being for most by avoiding harm is good, depending on how you define well-being, good, and harm. 

Jesus Christ: THE standard of good is to love others as yourselves and love God. 


It is questionable that the first three have a "standard of good" which includes killing others. For instance, Jack the Ripper skulked around and hid his actions from the world as though he knew he was doing wrong. Secondly, it can be argued (and it has in this thread) Adolf Hitler's views were informed by Christianity - his hatred of Jews was, at the very least, inspired by their role in the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally, Kim Jung-un thinks he IS a god and might argue a his own 'universal, objective, and unchanging' standard.  Despite how we might disagree with his views, he has the advantage of less than 2 millennia of changing standards Christianity suffers. 

That being said, it should be noted only two from your list were actually engaged in a discussion of morality. The others are a distraction. 

Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic. 
The Law of Identity would apply to all five options - Jesus is not immune from logic. 

Your 'objective, universal, unchanging standard' has already been shown overkill.  A compass works because it points to a non-universal, changing reference point known to be in a general direction. Time to update your argument/views, sir.
#880
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
Morality operateson a different standard than physical objects because it is anabstract concept. Morals are mindful things.
What a coincidence. Opinions and preferences are mindful things too.
Well, (IFF) they're not empirically demonstrable and they're not logically-necessary (THEN) then I'm not sure how they could possibly qualify as "facts" (aka moral facts).

Topic's author
#881
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
It takes faith to be an atheist[19], a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker. How is that reasonable in arriving at morality?[20] Somehow, there is a giant leap from chance happenstance to uniformity of nature and sustainability of these natural laws. We discover these laws, not invent them. And, these laws appear to be a mindful thing because we can use mathematical formulas in expressing and conceptualizing them. Why would that be possible or probable in a blind, indifferent, random chance universe? Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?[21] There is a giant leap between inorganic things and organic mindful, moral people. How does atheism transition between or scale this chasm?[22]
[19] Is there any belief that does not require faith?
No. You start somewhere and build upon that starting or core belief - e.g., God/Chance. Core beliefs are the building blocks that all our other beliefs rest upon, except when we are inconsistent with that system and borrow from other core belief systems. Our worldviews are made up of beliefs, things we place our trust in, but are those beliefs warranted? Can we justify them? Some dichotomize religious beliefs. They are not put on the same scale as other beliefs to naturalists who think they work purely from the empirical, scientific method, which they do not. 

a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker. How is that reasonable in arriving at morality?[20]
[20] People don't arrive at morality that way. Individual moralities are determined mostly by genotype and fenotype.
From an atheistic perspective, genotypes and phenotypes are blind agents, for there is no intent behind them. Intent is reasoning. Intent requires thinking being. Evolution does not. Somehow particular genetic makeup combines at the root causal level to create a specific kind. That information is then inherited or passed down and governed somewhat by the environment (mutations). On the phenotype level, somehow, the environment influences our behaviours, moulds us into group herd beings. The question is why we have these genotypes that operate by biological laws in the first place. We inherit 23 three chromosomes from each parent to make up our genetic structure. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, which differ from other beings.

Christians have a reasonable explanation - 

Genesis 1:20-28 (NASB)
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [a]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [b]in the open [c]expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to [d]their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to [e]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth according to [f]their kind, and the livestock according to [g]their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “[h]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and [i]let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the livestock and all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [j]moves on the earth.”

So what we would expect to find we do actually find, as Christians. We find we are different from animals. We can do things they can't do, like reason and categorize and explain and find logical connections that animals are incapable of finding. We can actually investigate our origins. And the founders of different fields of science apply godly principles but mar them, such as categorization, as found in Genesis 1, but they do not follow the same biblical mould but invent their own. They again believe we derive our existence from a common ancestor, but instead of God, they speculate a chain from a single-celled amoeba that somehow transitions from non-live to living beings. Instead of each to its own kind, it is each to its own species and sub-species, down the line. The kingdoms, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, sub-species became very complicated instead of the simple (Occams Razor) biblical plant, animal, human category. Still, then again, it also expressed God's diversity in creation in human thinking. We discover the intricate connection and complexity of unity in all things to the Creator's mind through the different branches of science - the one and the many/unity in diversity/universe/one spoken. We share common traits (genetically similar structures, like the same foods) because we share common environments.

To the atheist in his/her speculation, these information systems happen for no reason, for there is no mind behind them. He/she spends countless hours and ages explaining, in a reasoning manner, how everything comes about by Chance. They bow down and worship this concept called chance that is unable to do anything. Things just happen for no reason, and then we derive sense and meaning from the things, sense and meaning we should not find from the senseless and meaningless. Go figure?

So, once again, is atheism more reasonable than theism???

Somehow, there is a giant leap from chance happenstance to uniformity of nature and sustainability of these natural laws. We discover these laws, not invent them. And, these laws appear to be a mindful thing because we can use mathematical formulas in expressing and conceptualizing them. Why would that be possible or probable in a blind, indifferent, random chance universe? Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?[21]
[21] Unlike the laws of nature, moral standards, like any standard, are not open to be (dis)proven. They are not floating out there to be discovered.

But they are open to the same abstract, intangible, non-physical logic used in discovering nature's laws. And if the laws of morality have no universal, omniscient, absolute, immutable, eternal ideal (or fixed reference point - God), then why are your ideas of good any better than mine? Better in regards to what? Something shifting that can never be tacked down? The good keeps changing, sometimes falling back on itself and becoming the opposite of what it used to be. Countless examples can be showcased.  

Listen to yourself - "not open to be[ing] (dis)proven." Thus, your worldview cannot say for certain that torturing little children for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you do not like it. Well, what about those who do? They can be no more right than you can in your atheistic system of thought. The 'right' requires a fixed identity, or it can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief. That is logically inconsistent and the logical inconsistency of atheism. Does it make sense to say a thing is not what it is? No, it does not, yet you continually argue for such silly premises. Atheism is a rude joke. 

The laws of morality come from mindful beings, but just any being does not sufficiently explain them; they require a necessary being to make sense of them. On the human level, all we see is people fighting to the death over two opposite ideas of what is good. We see it in cultures and subcultures, groups and individuals, just like you and I do now. The difference is the Christian has what is necessary for morality; the atheist does not.  

There is a giant leap between inorganic things and organic mindful, moral people. How does atheism transition between or scale this chasm?[22]
[22] Atheism doesn't of course. Science attempts to.
You are right there. Your system of thought, as an atheist, can't make sense of itself.

Topic's author
#882
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Human beings are subjective relative beings in that we do not know all things and constantly revise and change our moral views. Once, not long ago,abortion was considered a moral wrong in America, except when the life of the mother was threatened with certain death, such as with a tubal pregnancy. Now, some even condone the abortion of the unborn right up to the time of birth and beyond by choice, by preference, and they pass laws to accommodate their preferences. Who is right?[23] And once again, if there is no objective standard, whatmakes your view any better than mine?[24] Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing.[25] What is good about that?[26] SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint?[27] How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity? An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.[28]
[23] Right according to who or what?
Right or correct in the society's evaluation of the moral good? You can have two opposite moral standards (as per the example of abortion) thought of in the same society or culture and hotly contested about the right or correct assessment by subgroups in the culture (pro-choice vs. pro-life). You can have different societies or cultures with opposite views of morality (In some Middle East countries, it is considered wrong to abort, whereas, in the West, anything goes). Logically, can both be right or correct? You imply they can, which defies logic. 

You again forgot to mention the reference standard and your question is stupid if using God's morality as reference standard.
The reference standard would be an atheistic one because this is a discussion pitting atheism against Christianity to see which is more reasonable. I am asking you to account for morality once you jettison God, as atheism does, in making sense of morality. Please show me your thoughts, as an atheist, can justify morality as good. Take a specific example of dispute (abortion was the example I used) to show me why your position is justifiable.

Again, asserting God's standard is stupid does nothing to further your argument.  

I have already explained to you before that your question is ambiguous. The problem is that God has nothing to do with it, while your worldview requires God to be in there somewhere.
And your worldview does not require God, or so you think. Again, that is an ASSUMPTION coming from your atheistic point of view, that God has nothing to do with morality. Without God, you do not have a morality system but a system of preferences (and I have explained my reasons previously). What makes a preference morally good? 

I keep asking the atheist what is necessary for morality? Can you answer that question?

Hence, that part of reality you refuse to learn about. Hence skeptics can learn about parts of reality that are off limits to you.
You are begging of how we know something such as morality is real. Because I do not adopt from your system of thought, I feel accused of refusing to learn. Learn what? Learn how to think like a drone?

What about the parts of reality that are off limited to you? 

And once again, if there is no objective standard, what makes your view any better than mine?[24]
[24] Better according to [a] who or [b] what?
You push qualitative terms around all day. So, your "good" is not the same as what I perceive as good. Who is right/correct/true to what is the real identity of the good? 

Is the identity of "the good" fixed in your worldview system? If morality is subjective, the question is who is correct and what is morality based upon? 

Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing.[25]
[25] If I understand correctly, such things don't happen in your fictional worldview. Alas, in the realworld they do.
They happen because people do not look to God or an objective necessary standard as the standard. And again, you paint my worldview as the fictional one (hah). Saying so does not necessarily make it so. 

They happen in the real world because people reject the absolute and the objective necessary standard and invent their own subjective standards more in line with what they like or are willing to accept. These systems of thought do not work, as I have shown in my abortion debates and in the examples of tyrants. 

What is good about that?[26]
[26] Presumably there are people benefitting from that. That is good to those people. Personally, I dislike it.
Sure, those in control of the masses, like is apparently we are about to be witnessed in the USA under Biden and the Demagogues, I mean Democrats. 

SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint?[27]
[27] Indeed, it is. Lacking a proper definition of objective morality, all one has to do is give it a defintion of something that exists. QED.
But morality is an abstract concept, not a physical reality. 

How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity? An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.[28]
[28] You are mistaken. Have you forgotten how in 2006 Pluto ceased being a Planet because the IAU dislike Pluto being a planet ? Contrary to what you believe,subjective beings can create objective standards.

I haven't looked into the reason or the standard used. Still, if it was later discovered Pluto did not conform to that (presumed objective) standard after more information was collected, I have nothing critical to say about the determination. But if planets have to meet a particular physical standard and Pluto does not meet that standard, then the scientists were wrong and had to adjust their assessment. The objective is what is the case.

Even (IFF) the "IS" statement contains a god($).
For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINK]
Interesting. Artificial Intelligence professionals ponder morality for their work and they don't seeit as something to be discovered, but as something derived from choices, choices Robert Miles calls terminal goals. It is what I call values.

AI is a program programmed by these professionals. They create this artificial being. Thus, it reflects on their subjective knowledge. Morality requires input by moral beings into these systems. 
Topic's author
#883
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
I wanted to read past past 125, butthen I was overwhelmed by laziness.
Please fix your compute program glitch that keeps running words together. I have corrected the errors below (as I did in your last post), but I left the one above as an example. 

PGA2.0 20 to SkepticalOne
You continue to bring up these red herrings, as if I had the time to examine every worldview. Truth is confirmed or refuted by the worldview examinination and once what is true cannot at the same time be false. That is a logical contradiction. Thus, if Christianity is true, other belief systems cannot also be true except where they agree with Christianity. As I have said many times, your worldview does not have what is necessary for it to be true.
You haven't proven Christianity yet.
That was not my intent in that paragraph, as you can see. I am ARGUING that two opposing worldviews stating opposites cannot both be true on any given subject matter. I am stating that Christianity and atheism cannot reconcile regarding morality. I am asking SkepticalOne/you to justify your atheistic system of thought.

I have given lots of reasonable proof in the past(i.e., my argument from prophecy, morality, existence from a logical and philosophical perspective, etc.). I have presented many logical arguments for God's necessity to make sense of morality that atheists have largely ignored.  

Your impossibility of the contrary seems to rely on the assumption that if atheism were false, your worldview would be true. However, that would not follow.
My question is: Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism? At the moment, I am not arguing against other systems of thought. 


PGA2.0 20 to SkepticalOne
Not true, you do reject Him by looking at the universe in a solely mechanical or mythological naturalistic way. There is not supernatural consideration involved.
PGA deciding what others believe again. Beliefs come with degrees of certainty. That I believe the supermarket to be open today, does not imply I exclude the possibility of it being closed.
SkepticalOne has stated elsewhere he is an atheist, more of an agnostic. Thus, I am stating the logical alternative. By rejecting God/gods, the only other avenue is a naturalistic/materialistic one of thinking about the universe. That is precisely what SkepticalOne does. The describes origins in that way.

I'm not excluding reasonable deductions like the supermarket example. 

If you think by rejecting God/gods, there are other explanations, then present one, and we will take it apart with a closer examination. A closed system looks within itself for the explanation - the naturalistic framework. 

PGA2.0 to SkepticalOne
Yet you have failed to justify how nature alone is capable of explaining anything regarding origins - origins of our existence, the existence of the universe, the existence of conscious beings from things devoid of consciousness, the existence of moral rights and wrongs.
Giving a complete, detailed explanation for most things would be a gargantuan task. Also, assuming atheism, no one can be expected to have the required knowledge.
I'm after a brief outline that I can work on critiquing how morality emerges from it. I'm looking for a justification of atheism as reasonable. I have explained why theism is reasonable. 

I'm glad you realize that!

PGA2.0 to SkepticalOne
I have proposed a comparison and contrast in our two views, starting with the area of morality. Are you going to show me how your system of belief is objectively based where it comes to morality, as you have claimed it is?
We more or less did the same. Your strawman of my worldview was terrible, but less bad than your worldview. So presumably SkepticalOne's worldview is also less bad.
Describe how it is terrible. I have no idea what you are referencing. Be specific. More assertions without proof. I am questioning how morality makes sense of itself by getting to its origins, the root causes. Take the causal tree back to what is necessary. 

Is your thought system, atheism, one in which naturalism and materialism are used as the explanation? 
Do atheists deny God either by stating there is no evidence He exists or excluding Him from any plausible explanation?
How do conscious moral beings arise from non-conscious non-beings, the organic from the inorganic?
How do you counter the is/ought dilemma as proposed by Hume? 
How is your subjective framework objective in determining the good? 
What is fixed about your system of morality? 
Does it have what is necessary for morality, and how do you describe objective - true to what is the case, or some framework that people say is objective because they like it? 
Topic's author
#884
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
...why should we avoid checkmate? 

It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.
We are subjective in our thinking, but in chess (as in morality), there is the best move in any given circumstance. If you could look ahead to every move 'til the endgame and play the perfect game, there would be a fixed reference point for every move, depending on what opening is employed. I still can't decide if the game would end in a draw with particular openings if both players could make every move the perfect move. They can stunt the potential. I believe in tempo, therefore white has the initial advantage. White is able to open up first and should be one step ahead of black in the development of pieces and opening files in putting pressure on the opponent's position. Having said that, some openings are downright weak (i.e., P-R4). Opening up the middle gives the pieces more freedom although the Indian defences can be very effective too.

There is a set move for white for those fool's mate scenarios I gave you earlier that also depend on a set move for black. These are fixed. If white does 'a' and black responds with 'b' it leads to those forced scenarios of checkmate. We do not have the foresight to determine the fixed and best move every time, like when we get ten moves into the game, both players playing a sound game. There are books on openings in which every scenario has been analyzed and documented for a great number of moves for any given opening. When one player exploits the other player's weakness, there again becomes obvious fixed (best) moves five or ten moves ahead that result in checkmate. Every move of your opponent is forced in these checkmate scenarios.  
#885
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
...why should we avoid checkmate? 

It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.
It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.
We are subjective in our thinking, but in chess (as in morality), there is the best move in any given circumstance. If you could look ahead to every move 'til the endgame and play the perfect game, there would be a fixed reference point for every move, depending on what opening is employed. I still can't decide if the game would end in a draw with particular openings if both players could make every move the perfect move. They can stunt the potential. I believe in tempo, therefore white has the initial advantage. White is able to open up first and should be one step ahead of black in the development of pieces and opening files in putting pressure on the opponent's position. Having said that, some openings are downright weak (i.e., P-R4). Opening up the middle gives the pieces more freedom although the Indian defences can be very effective too.

There is a set move for white for those fool's mate scenarios I gave you earlier that also depend on a set move for black. These are fixed. If white does 'a' and black responds with 'b' it leads to those forced scenarios of checkmate. We do not have the foresight to determine the fixed and best move every time, like when we get ten moves into the game, both players playing a sound game. There are books on openings in which every scenario has been analyzed and documented for a great number of moves for any given opening. When one player exploits the other player's weakness, there again becomes obvious fixed (best) moves five or ten moves ahead that result in checkmate. Every move of your opponent is forced in these checkmate scenarios.  

Peter, you have already responded to this post, and we've moved the conversation well beyond. Either you're very disorganized or you're trying to pretend we've never had this exchange.

Let me know when you catch up to where the conversation actually is.





Topic's author
#886
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
Read the research paper, Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay by Sarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal .
Abstract:
During the evolution of cooperation it may have become critical for individuals to compare their own efforts and pay-offs with those of others. Negative reactions may occur when expectations are violated. One theory proposes that aversion to inequity can explain human cooperation within the bounds of the rational choice model, and may in fact be more inclusive than previous explanations. Although there exists substantial cultural variation in its particulars, this ‘sense of fairness’ is probably a human universal that has been shown to prevail in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we are not the only cooperative animals, hence inequity aversion may not be uniquely human. Many highly cooperative nonhuman species seem guided by a set of expectations about the outcome of cooperation and the division of resources. Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion.

As you can see from above, morality is a product of evolution.
I did not read the article. I responded to your comments. My time is limited at the moment.

Again, a particular response is generated by the environment and human or animal conditioning. So what? What is good or bad about that? Cooperation is only desirable when food is in abundant supply or a mutual hunt will benefit all parties concerned. When there is just enough (negative response) for one particular member to survive, then what? The other thing is that human "experimenters" rig a system for a particular outcome. The animal learns quickly what is required for it to eat or survive. 

Topic's author
#887
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Theweakeredge
We don't know what the cause is, suggesting anything to be the cause is presumptious.
Some scenarios make sense of our existence others do not. I do not believe an atheistic explanation can be consistent with its starting presuppositions, its causal roots.

Not to mention we have lots of philsophic and emperical reasons to believe god does not exist
We also have lots of philosophic and empirical reasons to believe He does, the impossibility or improbability of the contrary. Overall, atheism can not make sense of many key aspects of life, such as existence, the universe's origin, and morality. It does not have what is necessary for these three aspects.

With the moral aspect we are dealing with here, atheism lacks a fixed reference point or ideal of comparison. 
#888
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
I have read till post 375, but my sloth prevented me from reading further.

@PGA :
You often mention the identity of things that do not appear to have an identity, like the good or right. I'll assume what you mean is meaning.

The point is thatit isn't a stretch that humans would object to getting killed andunderstand that taking measures against individuals who cannot betrusted not to kill is preferred to no such measure. What else isnecessary in order for us to agree that killing people is wrong thanthe mutual agreement that we would not like to kill each other, bekilled by each other or see each other killed?
Tell that to KimJong Un or Xi Jinping.
Nice dodge.

[ . . . ] Theonus therefore of proving any god(s) or any such code on the oneclaiming they exist. Humans agreeing to live in (relative) harmonywith one another is not evidence for any such.
We can, butothers can't. That is the problem. Some do not recognize some ofthese aforementioned things as wrong.[73] But since you do, are youproposing an objective moral standard? If so, what is the best youderive that from since I have shown you that people do not have thesame views on fairness or wellbeing? In
[73] The world has many problems. People have invented deities, but the problems persist. Religion has even created problems, as people disagreed onwhich deity to worship.

PGA2.0 231 to secularmarlin
Then, how doessuch a standard originate from chance happenstance? There are manyhurdles to straddle.
How does such a standard originate from God ?

God, by your owndefinition, is infinite.  That makes god as an explanationinfinitely complex.  Occam's razor favors multiple explanationsgiven that they are infinitely less complex.
You are confusingGod as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation issimple.

Assuming God the explanation and God the person are the same, how can the former be less complicated than the latter ?

You have addressed that in post 278 to SkepticalOne :
"That is not myargument. The explanation is simple. He merely spoke the universe into existence. Very simple in comparison to let's say the Big Bang."
Don't be silly. Calling only part of the explanation the explanation does not make it any more likely. The complete explanation matters. Otherwise you would require an additional explanation for your explanation. In this example : God.

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
If there is nointention there is no meaning to the universe or behind it. Thus,there is nothing good or bad about anything ultimately. Thus, as anatheist you would be lying to yourself by acting as if there is. Sureyou can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing.
What does ultimately mean in that context? What is the difference not having an attribute and not having an attribute ultimately ? What is the difference between meaning nothing and ultimately meaning nothing ?

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
Why do atheistsseek meaning? Why do they understand information and order and detailand complexity that would have to come from chaos, in theirworldview? Why would that happen? No reason, right? Reason requiresmindfulness. Why is there uniformity of nature, these natural lawsthat keep sustaining the universe and things in the universe? Why arewe able to do science in a universe that is operational by chancehappenstance (no intent)?
What relevance does any of that have ? What would an atheist doing the effort of answering, without any compensation for the work, contribute to add useful, relevant knowledge to this discussion ?
Why would there be God ?

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
Why do wediscover (no intent) the laws of nature? These questions are usuallyleft blank by atheists. Do you care to answer them, or should Iexpect the usual silence?[74]
How does anatheist worldview make sense of any of this? Why is it soinconsistent with its starting points?[75] Why? Because it is anunreasonable system of thought. Its foundation is rotten.
[74] Your question is a contradictio in terminis. Why questions imply intent.T here can be no intent in the absense of intent.
Try ask ingintelligent, clear questions for a change.
[75] Your fallacy of choice is the loaded question. You have so far been unable to demonstrate that an atheist worldview is inconsistent with its starting points and you never will be able to demonstrate that.

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
Job also understood that God is just. He understood that God would not do wrong, as did his friends, and that human beings are wicked and act wickedly when they live outside of God's good decrees and commandments.
So what ? I amsure there were plenty of Nazis around who knew what a wonderful guy Adolf Hitler was and who knew that Jews were wicked. Does that imply any of it is true ? No. It is an appeal to authority fallacy.
You cannot demonstrate God is just, moral, best or whatever you want him to be without choosing a reference standard. And you won't do that in the same paragraph, because that would it make it obvious your claims are empty and because you are not as stupid as you pretend, you know that.

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
In an atheistic worldview, the atheist still has to account for evil.[76] How do youdo that as an atheist?[77] Go ahead, explain how this is done. First, what is the standard by which you, as an atheist, judge evil?[78] Can you answer that? I would like to tear it apart in its unreasonableness.[80] [ . . . ]
[76] So you claim, but can you prove it ?
[77] Atheists don't do that. I do. People noticed the following :
“that which isevil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.”
and they decided to call that evil.
Relevance ?
[78] His own standard.
[80] I am sure you would like that. ;)

Well let's look at the Yahweh's actions and pronouncements as described by the bible.
Commands, condones and commits genocide.
PGA2.0 258
Nope, He brings judgment on the cultures that inhabited the Promised Land for their wickedness.
Can you prove that the victims of Israelite oppression were wicked ?

Holds people guilty until proven innocent (original sin).
PGA2.0 258
God is omniscient, He knows all things. He knows that if it was you or me in the Garden we would have chosen to disobey God, just like Adam. With Adam came the corruption of what God created as good. Adam passed down his traits and influence to his progeny.
Even after your embellishments, I still dislike the biblical god's morality and justice, as I suspect do most people who are not infatuated with him. Assuming God's existence (something yet to be proven), why should those people adopt God's morality and justice i.s.o just relying on their own ?
All these great, subjective attributes you praise God with, presumably reflect your and God's personal opinions, but why should people who find the guy a powerhungry, immature jerk, worship the him ?

If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.
PGA2.0 258
Sure it is good enough. As an atheist how do they get to a standard that is anythingbut arbitrary and changing?[81] How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example inother posts)?[82] How do we identify 'good' when two different people believe the opposite is the case? Who is right then? How does that make sense, two people with opposite views on the same thing bothbeing right? How can it?
[81] Most people get it from their genes, education, life experience and the environment. How do Christians get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and fixed ?
[82] You really still don't know ? Try adopting a worldview based on reality i.s.o.on an invisible sky magician and it should become clear to you.
There are aspects of reality where you believe God is present. Therefore, learning of these parts of reality, how they work without God, would hinder your God-belief, which would be unacceptable. That makes them off limits to you. Hence explaining them to you over and over again has been and would stay being throwing pearls to the swine. That is a serious drawback of your worldview. Atheists can incorporate real morality in their worldview, while you have to invent an invisilble sky magician to somehow generate morality.

To illustrate something that you may have denied in the mean time : all of your moral claims and questions in that paragraph are ambiguous because they fail to include a reference standard. Ambiguity is good for confusion, the Christian's friend.

PGA2.0 258 to secularmerlin
[ . . . ]
Thus theism andChristianity are more reasonable than atheism in this aspect and others.
Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization. Even if your claims directed at secularmerlin were correct, that would still not imply they are correct for all atheists.


#889
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Dogs and cats are two very different species and they see each other as potential prey. But this doesn't mean that they can't get along. In fact, many households have proven that dogs and cats can become best friends. So they have morals even though they are atheists.
Topic's author
#890
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tradesecret
I have admitted the thought of being the only one is absurd.
Which Church flavor do you subscribe to?
I am non-denominational. I believe the body of Christ is not an organization or a building but those who believe in Jesus Christ and what He says and did. 
Hi PGA2.0

I have enjoyed reading your posts. But I have a question for you about the church. I don't want to divert the topic. So would you like me to pm you or to start a new topic or are you ok with it being added here? 
Thanks, Tradesecret, 

If you think it is worthy of a new thread, then please go ahead, or just private message if you want. I always enjoy those conversations. I will be fairly busy this week and the first part of next, so I might not get too many posts between now and then. 


#891
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Some scenarios make sense of our existence others do not. I do not believe an atheistic explanation can be consistent with its starting presuppositions, its causal roots.
A god creating it would make more sense, but it makes less sense that a god is presumed to or exists at all. 



We also have lots of philosophic and empirical reasons to believe He does, the impossibility or improbability of the contrary. Overall, atheism can not make sense of many key aspects of life, such as existence, the universe's origin, and morality. It does not have what is necessary for these three aspects.
I have already explained life, I have already explained existence, and origin, you have not sufficiently rebutted these. 

Morality doesn't matter, because you would have to prove that objective morality exists at all, which you haven't.


With the moral aspect we are dealing with here, atheism lacks a fixed reference point or ideal of comparison. 
Everything lacks a fixed moral point that's demonstratable.

Topic's author
#892
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
The fact is that Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe, and Einstein had a concept of God. 
You are not aware of the vast time difference between Einstein's comments on God.  Einstein said God does not play dice in 1926.  In 1954, one year before he died,
he wrote a letter that said,  “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.” This shows that you manipulate facts to support your claim. 
I think you should investigate further.

Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion, and a personal friend of Einstein, had other thoughts on the subject, including quotes also from 1954. Einstein believed in "a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience" Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 255, and elsewhere stated that he was not an atheist, and said to Hubertus zu Löwenstein that what made Einstein really angry what when people quoted him in support of no God (See citation [22] in the article). 



Topic's author
#893
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
[1] What is "chance?"
Show me it has the ability to do anything.
Let’s start by looking briefly at a few of the possible methods by which abiogenesis could occur by chance. There are a few basic theories by which abiogenesis could happen, and each one has some slightly different environmental requirements in order to occur.
You once again ignored one of my questions. What is "chance?"

You assume it could occur by these (intelligence using) methods, but each in its own right is riddled with problems. On top of that, you assume that a mathematical probability (chance) can do anything. 

Methane, water, hydrogen, and ammonia. These were the prominent elements that made up the early earth, and are thought to be one of the key requirements for abiogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiment reduced a controlled environment to these exclusive ingredients, then shot electric sparks through the mixture. The experiment is hailed for its results as it produced amino acids and other “organic” compounds. This essentially proved that in the right conditions, by chance alone, the building blocks for proteins could come into existence. While this experiment did not create life, it took a very unique set of environmental requirements and proved that components of life could naturally occur.
Please notice the loaded language here. And notice what it has in common with God, a mind/minds produced it in a closed system, controlled environment. Notice it also failed to produce life, by your own admission. So, even in this simulation, a mind was behind it, giving the experiment agency.

The experiment has been proven invalid or problematic for several reasons. 
1. It was doubtful the conditions and atmosphere of early earth were replicated. There is disagreement on what the early conditions were.
2. The chemicals themselves provide problems.
"a) ammonia absorbs ultraviolet radiation from sunlight and would be quickly destroyed by it, and b) the lack of organic molecules in the earliest rocks indicates that methane was not present in abundance...most of the hydrogen would have been lost to space, and the remaining methane and ammonia would likely be oxidized."
2. During the '70s and '80s, the “reducing atmosphere” theory caused doubts about whether oxygen was present which would inhibit and destroy the "prebiotic chemical pathways" from forming these amino acids and organic compounds.
3. The experiment was repeated by others with different results. 
4. The early earth conditions are thought to be hostile to the Miller-Urey experiment and life's building blocks.
5. The experiments required the agency of intelligent human beings to produce any results at all. You do not get the building blocks of life by just mixing or leaving these chemicals together.
6. The theory once disproven was still taught and indoctrinated into students by scientific texts. 

Hachimoji DNA is one of the latest examples of mankind creating DNA within a lab environment. This synthetic version of DNA is different from humanity’s DNA in that it has eight letters rather than a mere four, which is assumed to be a benefit in that it may allow for more efficient information storage. DNA is created and manipulated using a synthetic biology lifecycle method. This method allows researchers testing against a great number of variables to produce desired results. While these processes aren’t exactly “from scratch” and take certain conditions for granted, it goes without saying that this level of progress certainly indicates that it is possible for life to occur naturally.
Again, the whole paragraph is rife with assumptions and human agency. Once again, intelligent human beings are creating and manipulating the conditions with their build in assumptions of benevolence to produce the desired result. The paragraph smacks of agency and assumptions - mankind creation, assumed to benefit, created and manipulated, produce desired results, not from scratch, take CERTAIN conditions for granted, certainly indicated...life occurs naturally. What is natural about this experiment? It is all designed to produce the desired result. 

Genesis 1:26-28
26 Then God said, “[h]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and [i]let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [j]moves on the earth.”

You have not shown me "chance" at all. You have shown me your mind is working from a materialistic perspective, that is all. From my Christian perspective, you have shown me mindful beings trying to replicate the greater mind - God.

#894
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,617
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0

Chance is a possibility of something happening.

In 1954, Einstein said : "About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. [...] As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws."
Also with regard to God, Einstein stated, "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." "A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."
Topic's author
#895
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 80 to 3RU7AL
A preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing?[31] They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right?[32] That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.
[31] That would depend on the preference. For example, a preference of icecream over horse manure could be a survival necessity.
You are again equivocating, confusing two different things.

One is a logical statement about survival (or what will kill you), the other about what you like to eat.  

"'A' is right" is a moral statement. It makes a statement about an intrinsic moral value, about something that ought to be done.  

"'A' tastes good" is subjective like and feelings. It makes a statement about what someone likes to eat. 

Greg Koukle put it this way (paraphrasing); a moral ought is different from a rational ought. The first is a right or wrong based on what is ethical; the other is a right or wrong based on what is logical. I like that distinction. He explains that making a statement about ice-cream is a personal (subjective truth) taste since I am tasting the ice-cream. It does not taste me. Thus, it applies to me. It is different from making an objective moral value statement (objective truth) because it no longer applies strictly to me but everyone. It is a universal truth that cannot be changed by our feelings. It is true whether or not you believe it to be so. Thus, your personal likes or feelings do not change the truth of what is the case. The truth depends on you discovering it, not making it. 

Likewise, a preference is different from an ought since it describes something (you liking ice-cream), whereas a moral ought is a prescription. It prescribes what you ought to do. Moral ought prescribes an obligation, what should be done.  

[32] Personally, I don't think it does. Do you think otherwise ?
Then, you disagree that preference makes things right, at least in the area of tasting ice-cream.

Personally? Don't think? Please notice again; you are making it subjective to your opinion (a preference). Why should I value it if it is not objectively so, universally applying to all, the actual case? Are your thoughts so valuable that I SHOULD believe them?

Greg Koukle again makes what you just said stand out. He asks, how can a relativist make a moral decision? By deciding for themselves exactly what you did. You THINK. Why should I value what you think if it is just a subjective opinion? You are a moral relativist (Yuk)! You continually show me that you cannot make sense of morality. His statement on not identifying a thing from its opposite is fitting because, as you have shown above, the identity between the two is meaningless.

Very well said by him, and I encourage you to check out the entire article!



#896
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Then, you disagree that preference makes things right, at least in the area of tasting ice-cream.
Is that sugar and chocolate ethically sourced, fair trade, and carbon neutral?
#897
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
My laziness did not permit me to read past post 500.

A “not” seems to have gone missing in my post 866. A sentence there should be :
“[50] Those verifications only verify part of those writings. That some of it is confirmed, does not prove all of it.”

I don't thinkit's got much to do with what's 'morally right," it justaddresses why making laws based on morality requiresthose laws to be changeable with the majority view.
Majority view? Isthat what you base right upon? That is an appeal to the people orargumentum ad populum. It is based on the false notion that somethingis true just because the majority accepts it as true.[65] And whatare such laws by the majority based upon can be an appeal to emotion?Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews was both of those, IMO. Theyvillainized the Jews, then passed laws expressing that bias. Werethose laws just? No!
I remember in our discussion on DDO that you criticized my morality and all you could present as an alternative was an even worse one.
[65] No, it isn't. If ludofl3x is like me, then he does not believe what you want him to believe. He merely believes in reality.

So, if you wantjust laws they must be based on what is actually right regardless ofhow many people like such laws.[66] Abortion is just morally wrong,except were there is no choice in that the woman and unborn will diein the case of a tubal pregnancy. At least one can be saved. Itshould not be the woman's right to CHOOSE to kill another INNOCENThuman being.[67] If humans are to be treated equally under the law,that does not give some humans the 'right' to decide whether or notan innocent human being is killed.
[66] Also don't forget, just laws must be based on what is actually right regardless of whether an invisible sky magician likes them.
[67] That is what you claim and it may even be what your god claims, but morality should not be decided by the opinion of a minority or their god.

PGA2.0 228 ludofl3x
You country is aRepublic but the party in power or the party that controls publicopinion so often packs the courts with liberal judges that think in aparticular way that legislates rather than inteprets th
Indeed. Donald Trump placed many liberal judges in the Supreme High Court, one of them just two weeks before the elections. That is what republican presidents do and that is why now a majority of the Supreme High Courtmembers are liberals.

These are twoseparate and distinct notions . It's a pretty simple principle. Youyourself make plenty of arguments like "well it was moral at thetime to stone gays, but that changed when JEsus showed up somehow."
Stoningwas an OT law. It is not carried through to the NT as a physicalpunishment. Remember, Jesus came to a people who lived under the OTLaw. Jesus died to instate a newcovenant. That means the old does not applyand there was a transition taking place during the 1st-century between the OT and NT.
So, it is the OT law that was wrong. Were the Ten Commandments, being in the OT, wrong too ?

PGA2.0 228 ludofl3x
During the OldCovenant, an if/then covenant, God illustrated His holiness andpurity by laws that addressed the times they lived in (they came froma chattel slave state - Egypt). They were instructed not to adopt thesame practices when they entered the Promised Land. In the case ofmarriage, God's decree was a contract or covenant between one man andone woman. It was a sacred bond (still is) and it was symbolic andtypological of the holy union between Christ and His Bride. Thus, thecovenant between God and Israel was a holy covenant not to be brokenwithout punishment. Since the punishment of sin is death, breaking ofsome of the OT laws required the death penalty.
That the punishment of sin is death, does not imply sin requires death as punishment. What is, does not necessarily need to be. That God prefers death being the punishment for sin to satisfy his personal, might-makes-right justice, does not imply it has to be that way.

Hence, it isimpossible for them to argue they have morality - they don't - not asatheists. The only morality they could possibly use is morality theyhave borrowed from other worldviews. This is their cake - they cannoteat it as well. Either they have morality - which means they have ashared doctrine or dogma or they have no morality of their own - butborrow it from everywhere else.
I agree with you100%. I would argue that what atheists call morality is their 'moral'preference, their likes and dislikes.[68] They impose those on othersby laws.[69] But what is good or right they have no ideal or fixedstandard for, thus you are again correct, they borrow from a systemof thought that does.[70] We as Christians have a solid foundationfor right and wrong, they do not. We can justify our worldview inthis area, they can't.[71]
I don't entirely agree with Tradesecret. That atheism would have to borrow from other worldviews, implies it is a worldview itself, in which case it can have it's own morality.
[68] Again, likes and dislikes alone do not make something moral or immoral.
[69] Atheists aren't the only ones who do that.
[70] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[71] Corrections: Christians believe they have a solid foundation and Christians believe they can justify their worldview in this
area.

How of course they are able to measure whether it is good or not - is going to be interesting. They will try and say science - but this is nonsense.Not because science is nonsense - because it is not - but because science is objective - allegedly. Morality is subjective. And cannot be tested scientifically.
I agree that morality cannot be tested through empirical means that science uses. It requires a different standard.[72] [ . . . ]
[72] Indeed. Manythings are like that, all subjective things. Then comes along a group of people, who base their beliefs on texts written by ancient goat herds, telling us that morality is the exception and expecting skeptics to roll over and accept.
Notice how you were unable to see the inaccuray of the prediction Tradesecret made.

Better is asubjective term. It is only useful if we first have a referencepoint. If the reference point is human welfare then I believe my viewis "better" at promoting welfare. If the reference point issome possibly fictional god then until the god is demonstrate alongwith s ok me methodology for unambiguously (not subject tointerpretation) determining the will of said god then even if itexists we are still all just guessing. If I understand your methodproperly it is very suspect specifically because it is subject tointerpretation which allows subjective opinions to again enter theconversation.
PGA2.0 263
How can it be better if it is subjective? Better in relation to what???[83]
Well-being, in whose opinion?[84]
Human welfare in whose opinion, the woman who kills her unborn human child? How is that well-being for the unborn?[85] You selectively choose who you will apply wellbeing to. When food is short are you still going to be looking for the wellbeing of your neighbour? Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, this principle of wellbeing works in most countries of the world, especially socialistand communist atheistic states.[86]
[83] Your worldview is a serious handicap for understanding reality. In order to understand these things you must open up your worldview to it.
It can be better by meeting the definition of better described in the (omitted) standard. Better is a relation. Something is better than something else.
[84] Dude, ask clear questions.
[85] Is that well-being for the unborn ?
[86] Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, God as a source of morility and justice in most countries of the world, especially in religious states.

Remember that there were 19 million miscarriages last year also. Doesn't god know anything about quality control? Why did god use atoms and 10 sextillion suns to create one planet that life would finally form on?
PGA2.0 273
How many of those deaths are attributed to the individual and how they live that results in the miscarriage?
I don't know and I am not told why He used so many atoms.
Cool. Now I can quote you saying “I don't know”, totally out of context and completely misrepresenting what you meant. Just the way you like it.

PGA2.0 247
Sureyou can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing.
Yes, and....? So what?
PGA2.0 273
So you live inconsistently with what you know as true - you live a lie, you deceive yourself.
So do you, but your belief in the lie is stronger. You know the lie to be true.

Or the stuff in the universe was always around in various forms, cycling from big bang to big crunch eternally.
PGA2.0 280
How do you get to the present universe from an infinite of universes? These universes coming and going? They do not all exist simultaneously. So what created the universe? What is this 'stuff' and how can it 'act' as an agent?

You can't have an infinite causality and get to the present causality, can you? Explain how it you think so
What relevance does any of that have ?
First, it is off topic.
Second, suppose ludofl3x doesnt know, so what ? The only attempt at relevance I can see is that you are looking for evidence for the first premise of the God of the gaps argument :
P1 Atheists can't explain how this or that is possible.
P2 God is responsible for everthing atheists can't explain.
C Therefore, God exists.

Officially, most Christians admit it is a bad argument, but they use it anyway, because it works. Why do you think it is that so many people still fall for it ?

[Complaint about God ordering the killing of women and children in Numbers 31: 15-18]
PGA2.0 287
I'm not sure if that particular verse teaches the killing of children (among the little ones), but and innocent life God takes (a life that has not committed sin and is not able to reason or yet be accountable) God will restore to a better place. Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children.
Why would God need to restore the children to a better place ? Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.

PGA2.0 287 to 3RU7AL
The point, thereare explanations for why this happened.
The point is off topic. This is a debate about morality. Behaviours need not be explained, but justified.
#898
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.
This is an incorrect statement in that God will NOT do "whatever". The statement implies,

Anything God does is good and just according to his own standard.

This statement is untrue, and not the position of the bible. The bible's position is, because all of God's actions are morally good, there are some actions God cannot do, ie, morally bad actions, like lie.

Citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard."
#899
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
...there are some actions God cannot do, ie, morally bad actions, like lie.
In 1 Kings 22:23 God's "lying spirits" are put into people's mouths, causing them to lie. This is a double deception: firstly, God is causing (additional) non-truths to prosper. But more than that, God is lying to us, the reader by pretending (through the use of "lying spirits") to be innocent of the lies. The same occurs in 2 Chronicles 18:22 and Ezekiel 14:9. In Jeremiah 20:7 God lies to one person and in Jeremiah 4:10 it lies to a whole community. And finally from the New Testament, God is still at it in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie". Some of those verses are cases where God is punishing/effecting false prophets and the unfaithful, but, the fact remains that in all those cases, God itself is preventing truth from being known - or - more succinctly - God lies.
#900
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
...the fact remains that in all those cases, God itself is preventing truth from being known - or - more succinctly - God lies.
I take it then that this is your definition of "lie"? Preventing truth from being known?

First, the two verses in Jeremiah is not God lying, but the prophet lamenting that God had deceived him. Unless you are like liberal democrats, allegations are not facts. God has not lied every time someone feels they have been deceived.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, God sends them a delusion, but who tells the lie that they believe? Not God, though you seem to believe God is the one who lied. That makes God the liar for a lie told by another!

In none of the cases you mention does God lie. Lies were told, but not by God.

Now I KNOW you have not read the story in 1 Kings 22. Want to know how I know? Because here is what happens.

The King of Israel is going to war and wants to know from the prophet if he will be victorious.
He wants the prophet to swear that he will prophesy good news. The prophet, seeing the desperation of the king, at first says the king will defeat his enemies.

The King doesn't believe the prophet has given him the actual words of God and insists that the prophet tell the truth. So the prophet tells the King that he will be defeated if he goes to war. He further tells the King that his false prophets are liars. For telling the truth the prophet gets slapped by the false prophets who are offended that the prophet called them liars.

The King becomes angry and imprisons the prophet and goes on to ask his own false prophets if he will be successful. They, of course, lie to him.

Cut to the scene in Heaven earlier. One spirit volunteers to feed nonsense to the false prophets. God tells him to go ahead.

But God has already told the King....
1. He will lose the battle
2. His false prophets will lie to him.
The kings response is to put the prophet in prison for telling the truth, and goes on to listen to the lies of his false prophets.

Now, what lie did God tell? God sent a lying spirit to the false prophets you say? Well God TOLD the king that He had put a lying spirit into ALL his false prophets!! What lie then did God tell??

You got this from an atheist website and you didn't know the actual story. God told the King the truth, and told the king about the lying spirit. What lie then is God responsible for if the King chooses to disregard God and believe what he has been told by God are lies?

Now why did God allow the lying spirit? Because He wanted the Kings only option for access to God's word to come from God's true prophet. So God informs the King of the truth (he will lose the war, AND that his false prophets have been rendered liars.

I bet you will not see the unfairness in your judgement that God lied. You say that God was preventing truth from being known, when in fact God told the entire truth, and tried to stop the king from listening to other sources by telling the king that He had rendered those other sources to be liars.

What truth did God prevent? Not that the King would lose the war. The king was told.
Not that his false prophets would lie, the king was told the false prophets had been sent lying spirits by God.

What truth then did God prevent 3RU7AL?

You will write something so ignorant and false about my God, adding insult to injury by referring to Him as an "it". And here we see you are wholly clueless of what actually transpired. God did not prevent any truth. God did not lie.

And I bet you see yourself as a moral person.