-->
@ethang5
Did "YHWH" lie when they told some guy they wanted him to take his son to the top of a hill and kill them?
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Posts
Total:
1,638
-->
@3RU7AL
Did "YHWH" lie when they told some guy they wanted him to take his son to the top of a hill and kill them?
He didn't tell Abraham he wanted him to "kill" his son. He said He wanted Abraham to "offer" His son. Abraham incorrectly assumed God wanted the boys death.
After Abraham had offered his son, God was satisfied and stopped Abraham from killing the boy. No lies were told.
From the things Abraham said before offering his son, I suspect he did not believe God would require the boys death.
-->
@ethang5
Did "YHWH" anticipate Abraham's "misunderstanding"?
In other words, did "YHWH" intentionally mislead Abraham?
-->
@3RU7AL
If you knew that someone would misunderstand the truth, would you change the truth?
Did "YHWH" anticipate Abraham's "misunderstanding"?
If you're asking, "Did God know Abraham would think He was asking the child's death?" Then of course God would know. But if you're saying God intended to mislead Abraham, then you aren't making sense. Why would God mislead Abraham? It served no purpose.
Now, you might say God needed Abraham to believe his son would die to see if Abraham would still offer him. But God already knew this. He did not need to test Abraham for the answer. God allowed Abraham's misunderstanding because Abraham himself needed to find out if He would offer his son even if He thought the son would die. God told no lies and did not responsible for what Abraham assumed.
If God intended to mislead Abraham, He simply would have asked for the boys death.
In other words, did "YHWH" intentionally mislead Abraham?
To what end? God told Abraham the truth. He wanted Abraham to be willing to "offer" his son as a sacrifice, and that is what God asked. Do you know any other truthful way God could have asked that would be free of your insinuation?
Another answer is from pure logic. An omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being never has a reason to lie. So unless someone is positing that God is lying for no reason, and just for the hell of it, then his argument makes no logical sense given the nature of God.
Now if that someone says God may not be omniscient, omnipotent, or eternal, then it isn't God and all bets are off. For if the atheist would change the nature of God, then all questions about His behavior in the bible become incoherent, as the bible is referring to an omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal God.
A lying God is an oxymoron. A logical contradiction. It is an incoherent idea.
-->
@Amoranemix
THE LAW = CODIFIED MOB RULEIn Hitler's Germany the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other 'undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33] All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time. It defies logic (the law of identity - A=A). At least one belief has to be wrong.[34] So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society that kills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who live in that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for good can mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can be the opposite of another society.[35] It begs the question of which is the actual right for logically they both can't be.
***
In Hitler's Germany the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other 'undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33][33] According to you perhaps and according to me, but not according to the Nazis. Your god also didn't do anything to prevent it.
So, what you are saying with "according to you or me" is a big fat maybe. Maybe it is wrong for us, but it is not wrong for the Nazis.
You: The killing of Jews by the Nazis is wrong.
Nazis: The killing of the Jews is right.
Your relativism says there is no true moral identity. (A=A) You say for some A=B, C, D..., but never A=A. So, it is perfectly permissible for the Nazis to torture and to kill innocent human beings (the Jews) — each to their own. Thus, you can never say torturing little children for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you don't like it. I would be preventing you from accessing my loved ones if you could not tell the difference between a moral right and a moral preference. All you display in your conversations is a preference.
You are a moral relativist, totally uncommitted to the truth. You make up the truth. It ain't true until you say it is true. The problem is your system of thought is unlivable. It not only does not pass the logical, consistent test, but it also fails the experiential and practical test. As soon as someone turns the tables on you and makes you and your family the innocent scapegoat, the ones about to be killed, then you know it is wrong.
All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time. It defies logic (the law of identity - A=A). At least one belief has to be wrong.[34][34] So, if society A claims that strawberry icecream is the tastiest, while society B claims chocolate icecream is the tastiest, then who is right? They can't both be right. At least one belief has to be wrong. In order to determine who is right, which icecream really is the tastiest, a personal being who has revealed himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable and eternal would be necessary to determine what is tasty because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the tasty' (since there is a best). Correct?
You confuse and conflate categories. You make a categorical error in thinking. You confuse something that tastes good (ice-cream) with something that is morally evil (killing innocent human beings). You are switching what a quality is (the moral good/evil) with what a quantity is (taste of the ice-cream). One set of values are physical, tangible objects (how many, what shape, what do they feel like); the other, intangible mental objects or concepts of the mind. One set, the tangible, describes. The other set prescribes what should be.
A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is a person learning that the game of cricket involves team spirit, and after being given a demonstration of each player's role, asking which player performs the "team spirit": team spirit is not a task in the game like bowling or batting, but an aspect of how the team behave as a group.[2]
You are using your five senses in 'tasting' the ice-cream, the sense of taste.
You can't use the five senses in determining 'good,' for it is not a physical object like ice-cream. You cannot taste, hear, see, feel, or smell 'good." It is an abstract, intangible, non-concrete, non-physical concept. Thus, the comparison between taste and morality does not work in the examples given.
Then we could ask that being and if it were to grace us with an answer we would know which icecream really is the tastiest. Otherwise the Nazis could come to power and decide that mokka icecream is the tastiest.
Again, you conflate two different categories, what tastes good (subjective opinion) with morally evil (objective fact). Ice-cram has nothing to do with morality unless someone uses an ice-cream to choke another person to death or harm them.
Morality is of the mind, but without an objective, an absolute, universal, omniscient, unchanging reference point - God - answer me why your moral pronouncements are any BETTER than my opposing views.
So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society that kills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who live in that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for good can mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can be the opposite of another society.[35][35] You are mistaken. Language is conventional. Societies decide the meaning of words, including the words good and tasty. There is a lot of ambiguity and confusion surrounding the meanings of the word good. Some people grab the opportunity to claim that that confusion can only be removed with God.
Different conventions have equivalencies. Those equivalencies do not mean the opposite. The words used have the same or very similar meanings. Yes, sometimes cultures have additional nuances built into the word.
While a particular culture can provide a meaning different from the overall understood meaning and have more elaborate additional interpretations, it would be impossible to communicate if the language barriers did not have equivalencies. Similarly, I know that in some parts of the world, the French word 'oui' can take slightly different pronunciations. However, the word still means the same thing (yes), and it is understood that when you are in Mauritius, the sound is not quite the same as in Paris, but the meaning is the same.
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 80 to 3RU7ALWell bring up your objections so we can discuss them. I gave my opinion and I am wiling to back it up for anyone who wishes to engage. So far you have avoided yet another question I posted.That reminds me of someone I have debated on DDO. ;)
Your posts got tedious because you showed a particular closed mindset, and you never corrected your run together words. I have to edit every post of yours. There must be something wrong with your copy and paste feature. I would consider a formal debate with you on some of these topics.
Please make your preferred definition of "morality" EXPLICIT.PGA2.0 80I already gave what I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is not preference.[36] Morality has to be based on what is actually good, not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like or desire. A moral is something that should or should not be so.[37] Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know the difference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed, absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.[38]You assume that something can be actually good without being a preference. Can you prove that is even possible?
I have already given you a reasonable proof. You keep glossing over it. The laws of logic, the law of contradiction, identity, and middle exclusion. They are necessary, or else the value loses its meaning. It can mean anything, the opposite thing to different people.
I already gave what I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is not preference.[36][36] Perhaps, but you have failed to provide a definition for morality.
Morality - the extent to which something is right or wrong.
Definition of morality
1a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson ended his lecture with a trite morality
1a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson ended his lecture with a trite morality
b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson"Aesop's Fables" is famous as a morality.
2a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct the basic law which an adequate morality ought to state— Marjorie Grene
moralities plural: particular moral principles or rules of conduct we were all brought up on one of these moralities— Psychiatry
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct admitted the expediency of the law but questioned its morality
4: moral conduct: VIRTUE morality today involves a responsible relationship toward the laws of the natural world— P. B. Sears
Morality has to be based on what is actually good, not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like or desire. A moral is something that should or should not be so.[37][37] In other words, it's a preference.
A preference is a personal, subjective like or want. Because I like something does not mean you have to like it too. Moral good is something that, whether you like it or not, that does not change its value. You should do what is good regardless of whether you want to or like doing so or not.
You should like ice-cream. There is no moral compulsion or obligation to like ice-cream.
You should like killing innocent human beings. There are moral compulsion and obligation not to kill innocent human beings.
What you do is blur the line between the two.
Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know the difference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed, absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.[38][38] I assume you mean, moral and immoral iso right and wrong. It could do so by referring to the pertinent moral standard.
What does 'iso' mean? A moral standard identifies the difference between right and wrong. If there are two different moral standards, it begs, which is the correct one. If a person lived on the border between two countries and was a citizen of both, and each had an opposing moral standard, how would they determine the right?
Country A: Abortion is wrong and punishable by death.
Country B: Abortion is right. Feel free to have one.
Which is the correct standard? In Country A, the person will lose their life by having one. In Country B, the person takes the life of an innocent human being with no consequences. Are you saying it is okay for them to do either or both? You see, abortion has lost its moral identity. It can mean two opposite things, thus how can they both be right? Once the line is blurred on right and wrong, anything can pass. The question is, can you live consistently in such a world?
Not only that but within a particular society, say Country A, subgroups and individuals are holding contrary views to the "law of the land." Why are they wrong if a preference is the order of the day? No, you say. Then how can they be punished if they believe the opposite? (Goodbye justice)
Is the majority always in the right?
Is it the minority who holds power? Are they right? If so, then how could anyone outside Nazi Germany condemn what the Nazis did? It would be good to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political opposition in Nazi Germany. How can you say otherwise? To each (preference) his/her own.
-->
@Amoranemix
Do you perhaps have some indicationthat other humans might also dislike being chained to a grind-stone?PGA2.0 80Yes, that is chattel slavery, IMO. I believe that is morally wrong and I determine this based on what I consider a necessary or self-evident truth by pointing to a necessary being revealing it.Most of us disapprove of chattel slavery. A popular reason is religion, another is valuing human freedom.
Are you saying that chattel slavery is objectively wrong, or is this just your own subjective moral preference? If someone likes to have chattel slaves, then to them, is it right?
Is being free your moral preference? What about those who think otherwise of you, that you should not be free? Are they objectively wrong, or is this too just their moral preference?
Your inconsistent language and moral stance imply an actual objective good to judge chattel slavery as wrong. Then you say elsewhere that morality is nothing but a preference. Thus, why are you getting so worked up about what other people believe??? Why should it concern you? It is none of your business what others do to others, even yourself, as long as they think it is "right." It is their PREFERENCE. Stop being a hypocrite and dictating what others should think UNLESS you can show that it is objectively, universally, morally wrong to own chattel slaves. The Christian system of thought can. Yours can't. You borrow from it all the while trying to undermine it. The term for that is hypocritical.
3RU7AL 82 to PGA2.0You say that you have moral preferences.And then you say that your personal moral preferences are not "preferences".You're basically saying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.
God is the necessary objective moral standard since He knows all things, revealing (the factual) that His nature is good. An objective fact is different from a subjective preference. A subjective preference or opinion is not morally binding on all people. An objective moral good or best has a fixed and unchanging identity.
God does not issue moral preferences but moral commands. He is consistent. A moral relativist like yourself is not consistent. Moral relativism is a self-refuting standard. On the one hand, you say, "everything is relative; everything is a preference." On the other, in contrast, demanding that I treat your statement as an absolute, everything is indeed relative except that statement; everything is preferential except that your statement is not preferential. So, as always, you are a walking contradiction. You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? You subjectively like what you push, but why should I?
Be it due to zeal or sloth, I read till post 550.
@ PGA2.0 :
To avoid clarity (the skeptics friend)you keep omitting to mention reference standards for your qualifyingstatements.
Have you managed to distill any moralAXIOMS?PGA2.0 288How do you mean?I believe I have.I work from the principle of the Ten Commandments, which delves into most aspects of moralityfor it deals with what happens when someone wrongs instead of lovesothers. Abortion centers on the "thou shalt not kill/murder"principle. Abortion is a spiteful act that does not take into accountthe life of someone else but thinks of self. It is not loving.[87]All human life is created in the image and likeness of God. It isGod's right to take human life since we are His creatures.[88]God permitsexceptions for civil societies to function. Wrongdoing - life forlife; that would be equal justice. The exception to abortion is whenthe woman will die before the unborn is developed enough to save it.Then it is permissible to take its life because the death of thewoman would be unavoidable and so would that of the unborn. At leatone is saved, so it is the greater outcome of the two - one deadinstead of two. When someone dies unintentionally, in the case ofmanslaughter, the intent is not to do harm (but sometimes it can bebecause of carelessness), but an accident results in death. That isnot the same thing as malicious or spiteful intent - murder - that the commandment deals with.[89]
[87] So is rape. Yet I don't see any prohobition against that in the Ten Commandments. From biological evolution point of view on the other hand, rape is useful, as it helps the distribution of the rape gene. No god is required for that.
[88] How is that supposed to follow ?
[89] I don't see the Ten Commandments mention any of that. Is that just your personal opinion you use to fill the gaps in your moral axioms ?
What if the author fails to make the meaning more clear ? I sometimes debate a Christian who keeps throwing moral attributes around without specifying the referenced moral standard. He assumes that when different people use the same word, like good or right, they mean the same thing. The author appears to want to sow confusion (the Christian's friend).
Secularmerlin 326 to PGA2.0(EITHER) a person's kidney (and theiruterus) are their possessions protected by their right to personalbodily autonomy (in which case NO ONE can use them without consent)(OR) a person's body (such that its use is only a danger to theindividual but they could live through the process) is commonwealthand anyone in possession of two kidneys is just as guilty of murderby proxy as a woman who gets an abortion.
Actually, just now I get the sense of your analogy. You should have explained it. It thought the kidney stood for the fetus. I suspect PGA2.0 didn't get it either.
PGA2.0 330 to SkepticalOneNow you mentiontwo types of foreign slaves, one a war captive and therefore areparation for the damages suffered[90], and the other bought toserve the Hebrew family from a foreign country, again usuallybecoming a slave in a foreign land because of poverty or debt. Evenso, the type of slavery or servitude was different between thetreatment in Israel to that experienced in other ANE nations. But toyour point, the foreigner, during a war, would be responsible for thedamages inflicted on the victor.[91] [ . . . ]
[90] I doubt the Israelite's victims found enslavement sufficient compensation for the damage they suffered.
[91] Might makes right morality. In that respect your fictional worldview does not differ from reality.
PGA2.0 330 to SkepticalOneWar reparationsor restitution was a different principle, the principle of damages owed, damages paid. In our penal system the damages would have to be repaid or else the person would face prison time.
I don't know what banana republic you live in, but in our justice system, it is not necessarily the one who lost a conflict that has to pay the damages. If Bob stole and wrecked Alice's car, in my country it would be Bob who would have to repay the damages to Alice, not the other war round.
SkepticalOne 303I think you, and many people, overly complicate morality. We only need to agree on something by which tomeasure our actions. Your preference is god. Mine is well-being.PGA2.0 331Well-being in whose eyes? Your subjective eyes? No thank you.
His point exactly. You dislike well-being. He dislikes God. In the real world we all have our preferences.
PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOneHow does that answer my question? You continue to evade my questions.
Read who is writing.
PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOneThat is your subjective opinion. What makes that right or anything you say right since you have no objective standard of appeal. Why SHOULD (a moral imperative) I trust your subjective opinion since it appears that is all you have got? Your subjectiveness is what wars are fought over.
Religious wars are far more popular than subjectiveness wars.
PGA2.0 331Abortion bad -abortion good - abortion bad again - abortion good again.
Something you are missing is that in matter of abortion, almost everyone agrees on what has value, i.e.they have shared preferences. Both the rights of the mother and the life of the child have value. The contention is about what has most value. Almost noone is of the opinion that abortion is good. However, many people consider, i.e. are of the opinion, that in some cases no abortion is even worse.
3RU7AL 306You validate the moral codec of "YHWH"by using YOUR moral intuition.PGA2.0 335I validate them by pointing to a standard beyond myself that is necessary because it is fixed and unchanging.[92] Logically, that is what is necessary because the law of identity (A=A) falls to pieces if every subjective being has a different view on what is right and good.[93] So, it is self-evident for anyone who thinks about what is necessary. A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.[94]
[92] That doesn't look like what you are doing. You seem to be of the opinion that slavery is wrong, but the Bible appears to condone slavery. So you torture the Bible to make it say what you want. With success. Now the Bible only rarely condones slavery and the slavery it does condone isn't that bad. *sigh of relief*
Moreover, you have so far been unable to demonstrate that being fixed and unchanging are necessary attributes for a standard.
[93] No, it does not. You have admitted yourself in post 301 a word's meaning depends on context. Hence one person may mean something different with the same word. So, if one person is saying “Trees are marpalent.” and the other is saying “Trees are not marpelent.”, then that could mean :
a) They are contradicting each other. In the real world it happens that people contradict each other. That is why that also happens in the worldview of skeptics, because, unlike you, skeptics base their worldview on the real world.
b) Both persons do not mean the same thing with 'marpalent'. Hence, they would not be contradicting each other. You gave as example in post 301 how green can have more than one meaning. In our debate on debate.org, you said a few times that things can't be both right and wrong in the same sense, because you realize they could be right and wrong in a different sense. But then you also realized that guarding term was underming your argument, so you stopped using it and assumed that the same word always means the same thing, thereby leaving reality and entering your fictional worldview, where there is room for God.
[94] A subjective standard is not supposed to meet what is necessary. My bycicle doesn't meet what is necessary, yet that doesn't make my bycicle wrong and it would be stupid to discard my bicycle because of that.
3RU7AL 306And then you credit "YHWH"for gifting you the moral intuition you use to validate "the ten commandments".PGA2.0 335An objective standard is sel-evident for morality. Without one how do you justifyyour OPINION is BETTER than that of anyone else?[95] Are you going to force your beliefs on others? How does that make it "better."
[95] You seem to be assuming that one needs to be able to justify one's opinion to be better than someone else's. However, if I understand correctly, you yourself are unable to justify your opinion to be better than someone else's. You certainly haven't done so.
Notice again how you omitted to provide a definition or reference standard for “better”. You wouldn't want people to know what exactly you mean with “better”, would you ?
PGA2.0 335Furthermore,since the Bible makes the point that we, as humans, are created in the image and likeness of God, we would have a consciousness that retains some of His goodness [96] (even while denying Him), but the problem is that the moral standard is garbled by the Fall and our subjectiveness without Godbecause we have no clear ideal we can mirror right and wrong against, just a dim reflection.[97] So, even to an extent, Hammurabi can reflect some of the standards of God without that close personal relationship. We see that Caan knew that killing (murdering) his brother was wrong. He hid from God just as Adam did when he took the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
[96] Is that hypothesis supported by evidence ?
You like to ask how questions. Answer one yourself. How did God inscribe morality in our hearts ?
[97] So Godmessed up. Did he mess up on purpose or out of clumsyness ?
Then they would reflect God's personal preference.
3RU7AL 328The same way you do. Moral instinct. Moral intuition.PGA2.0 352It is not moral instinct that I prove what is right and wrong. It is by the revelation of Another, even though we are created in His image and likeness, thus we too are moral beings. The thing is, without His revelation sin prevents us from doing what is right.[98] We want todo what feels pleasant to us or what we desire rather than what isgood.[99] And since the Fall, we are marred with sin. Thus, we thinkapart from God, making up our own moral values that are way too oftencontrary to His standard.
[98] Right according God's personal morality (GM), you mean. So what ? Why should people who don't believe in God and who dislike GM, want to do what is right according to GM ? That sin is preventing me from doing that, doesn't bother me.
[99] Indeed. Biological evolution tends to generate animals that couldn't care less about GM.
So what if the source is not mighty enough to your taste ? I am sure God, were he to exist, could smite all his competitors, but not everyone likes might makes right morality.
PGA2.0 352 to 3RU7AL about the the 10 niyamasWhy is this guru sufficient?
Since when does a guru need to be sufficient ?
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 85 to 3RU7ALBut beyond that distinction, only moral beings can make ought statements, but how did we first cross the divide to get an ought from an is, that is matter, the physical universe, in the case of naturalism or atheism, where a personal being is excluding as the beginning link of the chain?[39] Somehow we got from an is to an ought through naturalistic means according to naturalism, devoid of God/gods.[39] Indeed we did. See [10] in post 798.
What I believe Hume was saying is that we cannot derive the moral from the amoral.
Post 798:
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.[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.
Notice you say we "indeed" did. We did cross the bridge, the divide between the physical non-personal, non-mindful to the non-physical personal and mindful, yet you provide no means of how this happened. Nice avoidance of the problem. Nice assertion with no proof (Indeed we did). Your worldview, without God, is devoid of a suitable or necessary explanation.
Second, only mindful personal beings are capable of making prescriptive judgments. A rock or chemical composition is not. It just is. It is not conscious. It does not think. How does something that is, have the agency to become something conscious of itself? But even if this could happen, there is another problem there too. If there is no absolute, objective reference point, a necessary unchanging mind, whose relative mind is the one we SHOULD trust? Good in whose opinion? So, there is still the problem the is becoming the ought. The ought is a mindful problem. "Nature" is not mindful; it just is. There is No-Ought-From-Is (NOFI). How do you get from the non-moral to the moral (In the same manner, how do you derive logic from something devoid of logic)? You are appealing to a set of values from what is. There is supposedly (from an atheist perspective) no intelligence behind nature, yet intelligent beings are derived from it. Somehow from the unintentional, you get intentionality, beings capable of prescribing. But how can they prescribe the good, the right, the morally just and righteous from what is? Does just saying "I like ice-cream" make it right? Righteousness has to be based on the righteous, the ideal, and that something can only be another mindful being, but which one? You are not the ideal, neither am I.
Truth is based on what is the case, the facts. Mindful beings understand facts. Without such beings, things are. Why should I trust that you know what actually is the case through natural means? You are making moral distinctions based on nature. And, why are your preferences any better than mine? We are the complete opposite on moral issues, such as abortion. We are opposite on how human morality is derived. Who the hell are you to tell me what is moral unless you can convince me that your standard is necessary and reasonable to believe is actual? Nature is quantitative. Values are qualitative. There is a different standard in measuring the two. Yet without the ideal how can we measure the thing? It has to have a best to measure it against otherwise it is meaningless. Additionally, you holding a value does not make it objectively binding on me unless there is an objective fixed reference point or measure. The right needs a set value, an unchanging value.
What we run into is the Naturalistic Fallacy, defining morality in terms of natural properties. Natural properties are tangible properties. You can't grab hold of goodness. It has no tangible qualities. It is an abstract concept. A value has to have a valuer. Nature, in itself, has no valuer. That valuer has to be the ideal or else we have nothing fixed to measure values against. Without the ideal, the best, values are turned on their head and become illogical.
How did we get from an is to an ought according to you?
Ought derives from a necessary mindful being - God.
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened. Very simply, God spoke, and it was so. He said, let there be light, and there was light. He said, 'Let Us make humanity in our image and likeness,' and it happened according to His will, His agency, His intent.
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened. Very simply, God spoke, and it was so. He said, let there be light, and there was light. He said, 'Let Us make humanity in our image and likeness,' and it happened according to His will, His agency, His intent.
Clearly you don't understand Occum's Razor.
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Mopac
@PGA2.0
With The Force awakened in me, I have read till post 600.
@PGA2.0 :
There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. What relevance do their preferences have?
No. First take the guess work out ofyour argument. Stop telling me what you think is immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you my standard and we can bothdiscuss it because we both agree that there are humans and that thethings we do effect their welfare.PGA2.0 369I have told youmany times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends therighteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standardthat we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not,nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more thansubjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want tolive?
You believe that reality reasons like this : “PGA2.0 would dislike it if there is no objective standard that people can measure values against that is fixed and best. He does have a point. Morality would be nothing more than a preference. One wouldn't be able to tell what is really good. That would be terrible. Hence, to please PGA2.0, I make sure that there is such astandard.”
Skeptics on the other hand, know that reality doesn't work that way. They know that reality does not cater to their desires. Hence, which way skeptics want to live is irrelevant to the existence of an objective standard, unless they can create such a standard themselves.
You have claimed to share the Yahwehsstandard. Great. Now please explain not just his pronouncements aboutspecific actions but how he has determined what is and is not moraland if you don't actually know then I'm afraid you don't actuallyhave a standard to present at all.PGA2.0 352Morality is basedon His nature.[100a] The Being that is God is pure, holy, just,compassionate, loving. These are good qualities. Since He knows allthings He knows what is harmful and hurtful to us[100b], thus Hecommands that we do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet(that hurts us, creating all kinds of discord and inner turmoilwithin our life), do not commit adultery, do honour your father andmother, and honour your Maker.
[100a] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
You could of course choose to base your standard on God's nature somehow. The result would then be your favourite standard.
[100b] Harmfull and hurtfull are tied to well(/ill)-being. Are you saying that goodness and God's nature are tied to well-being ?
PGA2.0 352If God allowedHis people to be destroyed by these hostile groups or be grosslyinfluenced it would nullify the prophecies about the Messiah'slineage. Thus, God had the greater good in mind, the salvation of avast number of people in the long run.
No doubt God has his personal greater good in mind, as he is a narcissist. However, what evidence can you present that he had the salvation of a vast number of people in mind and that the promotion of military conquest and the oppression of natives contributed to that ?
PGA2.0 371 to secularmerlinLet me get thisstraight, in 99% of cases sex is consensual.[*] Both parties agree toit recognizing that it could produce another human being and that anew human being is the result of a woman consenting to have sex. Nowyou are telling me that if she gets pregnant she should take noresponsibility for it if she does not want to. She knows if she getspregnant another human being will be sharing her body for a period oftime - roughly nine months
[*] Maybe. I don't know the figures, but what matters is what fraction of pregancies come from consensualsex, which is probably lower. Moreover, that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is disputable.
In addition, on what grounds would the mother have responsibility, beside opinions ? Furthermore, what about the responsibility of the father ? Usually, in the case of abortion, he did nothing for the foetus, yet receives no blame.
secularmerlin 326I'm not sure agree on what exactlyjustice is but let's pretend for a moment that that isn't an issueand that this sounds nice in theory.PGA2.0 382First of all, letme give you an idea of what it is in a nutshell. Justice is equaltreatment under the law. It is not being particular depending onwhether a person is rich or influential. It applies the letter of thelaw equally regardless of persons.
Aha. We have an objective definition for justice. So far you seemed to use justice as if it were whatever is consistent with with God's personal standard of justice. I presume God is exempted from equal treatment and deserves better treatment. That is self-serving favouritism.
Mopac 386The Truth isGod.[101]As atheism is adenial of Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, it is the position ofnihilism.[102]Nihilismdemolishes morality. Anything built off nihilism is like a housebuilt on sand. Morality becomes a matter of convenience for whomeverhas the ability to excercise authority.[103]
[101] What do you mean ?
[102] Can you prove that ?
[103] If morality becomes a matter of convencience, then, contrary to what you claimed, it is not demolished.
Show me you have a fixed standard that is objective or don't call what you believe moral.PGA2.0 400I point you to the Ten Commandments. That is the standard from which we derive many other laws for the principles focus on love for God and love for neighbour. We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours. But what does that mean outside of a fixed, final standard or measure? It would be relative and subjective. Because of that such a system of thought is incapable of providing a fixed and necessary standard.[104] Remember, I have asked SkepticalOne to provide onesince he stated he has one. I am still waiting
[104] So what ? Can any relevant conclusion be drawn from that ?
If so, why haven't you provided or demonstrated it yet ?
Most mammals have the following (moral) instincts,(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTYThese moral instincts are universal (relative to mammals anyway) and unchanging.These moral instincts predate the"discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.PGA2.0 428That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.
Are you disputing that these instincts existed before Abraham ?
3RU7AL is appealing to his preference and you are appealing to your preference. You are blaming atheists for having only their preferences, but you have nothing more. All would you have extra, if your god were to exist, would be an additional option to prefer : You could prefer your god's morality, while atheists can't. Polytheistic religions have aneven bigger advantage though.
(IFF) you are unable to convince someone that your moral code is universal and unchanging (THEN) your moral code is a defacto OPINION.PGA2.0 431Some people cannot be convinced because it runs contrary to what they want to believe.[105]There is proof available in and for the Christian worldview that is most reasonable.[106] It comes from what is necessary for there to be morality. How is yours anything other than opinion?
[105] as everyone who has debated Christians, you in particular, knows well.
[106] Says who ? You ? Why should skeptics believe you, a fallacy king who cannot support his claims ?
[107] See [106].
How does what youlike (your subjective tastes and desires) equal what is good?3RU7AL 339Well,I certainly wouldn't trust you totell me my likes and dislikes.PGA2.0 431You are evading the question, trying to turn it back on me to escape explanation. It is a ploy I have witnessed for those who have nothing to offer use.
I know the feeling. On debate.org I have debated a guy who forgot to answer hundreds of questions. ;)
[108] Your fallacy of choice : the straw man. 3RU7AL did not rely on that erroneous principle. Whether everyone is an Orthodox Jew does in fact depend on the popularity of certain beliefs.
[109] Your god on the other hand seems to think something is good because he believes it. I suggest you tell him the error of his ways.
Can you provide/support such distinction with more than bald assertions ?
Didn't you choose your standard?PGA2.0 434I believe in God who is my standard of righteousness. He first chose me to be in Christ. Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelationof Someone else who is logically necessary for morality.
So you chose Godand his morality. A choice, assuming free will, is subjective.
That your god is necessary for morality is something you have yet to prove. My worldview allows me to explain why you haven't done so yet, because I base it on reality.
So, you choose according to what you believe meets you preference and your preference is the moral standard of someone who has what is necessaryfor morality. But what if Kim Jong Un or Bashar Al Assad has adifferent preference ?
PGA2.0 335Not for those who are true believers.You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part.SkepticalOne 437I want to compliment you, Peter. You admit fault and you've integrated some awareness of logical fallacies into your repertoire. Kudos, sir.
So a good script for evasion seems to be :
1. Miss the point with a nonsensical response.
2. When confronted, admit your mistake.
3. Accept the congratulations.
How do you know the "revelation" is moral?PGA2.0 448It has what is necessary for morality. Subjective humans who have no fixed foundation do not. I keep inviting you to show me a standard (other than the biblical one, since you are not a believer) that does have what is necessary and we will focus on that standard. I have not heard a chirp.
Although you have failed to answer his question, you suggest that something that has what is necessary for morality, is moral (benevolent). Why would that be so ?
You also claim that a fixed foundation is required for morality. Can you prove that ? (Repeating how bad it is without such foundation and repeating fallacious questions do not constitute proof.)
You also seem to be under the impression that asking something gives the recipient of your request the duty to fulfill it. However, that is not so according to the moral standard of most of your recipients.
-->
@Amoranemix
Now the Bible only rarely condones slavery and the slavery it does condone isn't that bad. *sigh of relief*
Well stated.
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 85 to 3RU7ALThe biblical God is described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God. Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know what is good and we have the best to compare values against, provided He exists.[40] Without Him or such an omniscient, unchanging, eternal, omnipotent God what is your fixed standard? Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since you claim to be a deist, describe why your god out does my God in reasonableness.[40] You again forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the Christian's enemy). [a] Assuming you implicitely meant God's moral standard, then [b] so what? [c] Adolf Hitler (AH) was necessary for us to know what is good according to AH and [d] we have what is best according to AH to compare values against. [e] Without AH, what is your perishable standard? [f] Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since you are a theist, describe why your God outdoes AH.
I'm sick of you guys making false charges like this. I have mentioned the reference standard many times - the internal biblical evidence in conjunction with external historical evidence. Not only this, I have given various philosophical and logical arguments, the one presented in this thread (the moral argument) being one of them that support the biblical God. I have invited you and others to show the reasonableness of these arguments (i.e., the moral argument) from your standpoint (without such a God). The overall/constant theme is 1) to ignore any proof/evidence by the atheist (he doesn't present any), or 2) provide countless links that I am then required to read through (pages and pages) instead of highlighting the main point and what he/her wants me to glean. So instead of a two-way conversation, they usually attack the Christian position alone.
The onus is for both the atheist and the theist to present their case. Here is a reminder of the thread's theme - Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
OP: "This topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based...By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods."
Defend your belief.
[a] The Christian God is the only God I believe in, and the only one I defend. I have stated that to you and others before.
[b] So what, you say?
You forget so soon - "The biblical God is described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God. Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know what is good..."
[c] Hitler's view is subjective and relative and does not have what is necessary for us to know the good. It begs why his opinion is any better than anyone else's. Since you make the charge, how do you think it was good? It is nothing more than preference unless he can provide a universal, unchanging reference point. Did he demonstrate that regarding the Jews, Gypsies, gays, the disabled, political opposition and his handling of them? Are you saying what Hitler did was good? Are you saying that the dehumanizing, discriminating, and torturing done against these groups by putting them to death in mass was good? Is that your point? Can you justify it?
You seem to think that just because someone can state something as 'good' makes it so for that person. That is an error in your thinking. It defies logic and reason when speaking of qualitative values. If Joe thought it was good to shoot you and kill you, would that make it good? That is your argument in a nutshell regarding Hitler and those he chose to kill.
[d] According to him? How is Hitler's opinion about good best? Why does he become the best standard? Show me his opinion was the one we should all follow because it is necessary.
[e] It is not perishable, providing this God exists, and it is reasonable to believe He exists. The biblical standard, the Ten Commandments, has what is necessary and is sensible to believe. The commands that apply to human beings (e.g., murder, stealing, lying, coveting, adultery, honouring parents) are found in most cultures of this world. The ones that neglect them are unlivable, such as Nazi Germany.
[f] Are you justifying Hitler's standard as good? If so, show me how it is good. I gave you what was necessary for anything other than mere opinion - 1) a revealed Being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, 2) is the fixed standard that is best that no better can be used in the comparison. Hilter is a relative being whose standards changed during his limited life. He was not necessary for morality since people before and after him have different views on what is good that contradict his views. That begs why he was right in his assessment. Show me he was, that what he did SHOULD be done by everyone because it is morally good to torture, kill, and dehumanize those groups that he did not like or value. Are you willing to have a formal debate on Hitler's standard as being the ultimate standard, you defending that position, or are you making a point you cannot defend adequately?
-->
@ludofl3x
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened. Very simply, God spoke, and it was so. He said, let there be light, and there was light. He said, 'Let Us make humanity in our image and likeness,' and it happened according to His will, His agency, His intent.Clearly you don't understand Occum's Razor.
Defend your claim.
-->
@PGA2.0
Is being free your moral preference?
Individual freedom is impossible without the individual ability to freely generate their own food, clothing and shelter.
-->
@PGA2.0
You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?
You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?
-->
@PGA2.0
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened.
Occam’s Razor (or Ockham’s Razor, also known as the Principle of Parsimony) is the idea that more straightforward explanations are, in general, better. That is, if you have two possible theories that fit all available evidence, the best theory is the one with fewer moving parts.
It’s important to emphasize the part about fitting all available evidence. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is very wrong because it fails to account for all the evidence! In this case, Occam’s Razor does not apply. [***]
It’s important to emphasize the part about fitting all available evidence. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is very wrong because it fails to account for all the evidence! In this case, Occam’s Razor does not apply. [***]
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A COP FINDS A DEAD BODY NEXT TO A WALLET, THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS THAT THE OWNER OF THE WALLET IS THE KILLER.
THIS MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE THE CASE (IT COULD BE A FRAME-UP).
YOU CAN'T JUST USE "OCKHAM'S RAZOR" AS AN EXCUSE TO JUMP-TO-CONCLUSIONS.
-->
@PGA2.0
The onus is for both the atheist and the theist to present their case. Here is a reminder of the thread's theme - Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?OP: "This topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based...By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods."
Atheist: All mammals first defend themselves, then defend their families, then defend their property. This is the natural and obvious basis of ethics & morality.
Theist: My personally preferred version of a magic sky-daddy says you're wrong and that makes it "objectively" "true".
Atheist: So what's this godly moral code, specifically?
Theist: Well, you know, like, the ten commandments and love your neighbor and stuff.
Atheist: So it's perfectly ok for parents to beat their children and slaughter (not neighbor) foreigners?
Theist: Of course not!!
Atheist: I think your godly moral code needs more detail. It covers some basics, but relies too much on interpretation for behaviors not specifically mentioned.
Atheist: For example, when does your godly moral code indicate that it's morally justified to attack a foreign country with deadly force? That would seem to be a big one.
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree with a lot, but the best way to put Occam's Razor is, "Do not needlessly multiply entities" or put in a more useful framing, "One should prefer the explanation with the least amount of assumptions."
-->
@Theweakeredge
I agree with a lot, but the best way to put Occam's Razor is, "Do not needlessly multiply entities" or put in a more useful framing, "One should prefer the explanation with the least amount of assumptions."
My favorite practical example of Occam's Razor in a modern scientific context is "superstringtheory".
"Superstringtheory" is not technically "wrong" it's just ridiculously complicated and is unable to make any NEW (testable) predictions and therefore does not have any detectable superior UTILITY over the existing "standardmodel".
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly, and we would put this Razor to the idea of a god, ie:
Can we demonstrate the supposed axiomatic nature of a god?
Can we demonstrate that there is one?
Can we demonstrate that that god made anything?
Can we demonstrate that that god is using metaphysical material?
Can we demonstrate that this god is not inactive?
Can we demonstrate that this god influenced anything in holy books?
Can we demonstrate that this god would be useful in moral affairs?
Can we demonstrate that this god would have objective morality?
Can we demonstrate that this god would be able to actually explain any phenomena?
Those are some of the base assumptions that this worldview make, and I wonder if any god could actually fulfill these and make them not assumptions while also existing.
Those are some of the base assumptions that this worldview make, and I wonder if any god could actually fulfill these and make them not assumptions while also existing.
-->
@Amoranemix
For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINKPGA2.0 85I listened to the whole thing and agree with some of it. What is the main point that you want me to glean from it?Any artificial intelligent being would be a programmed being. It would only be as good as its maker designed it to be. Its input would determine what kind of moral actions it took.However intelligent or wise that AI may be, it will never be able to deduce an ought from it's knowledge of the real world. Some fundamental oughts, i.e. goals have to be programmed into it.Goals are chosen. You prefer God's goals. Nazis prefer AH's goals. I prefer Mohandas Ghandi's goals.
Goals are chosen based on what - preference? What makes conflicting preferences good? Funnily enough, many of Gandhi's 'preferences' were biblical, such as turning the other cheek, love for your neighbour. But that is beside the point.
1) What makes Gandhi's preferences good if all we are is biological bags of atoms?
2) Why is Gandhi the necessary standard, and what happened before and after him?
So you start from God's oughts, which he allegedly revealed. So you can't deduce what ought solely from what is either.
You start from your position of the highest authority, or else why would you believe it? That, for you, appears to be Gandhi. Is that position the necessary position, and if so, why?
An ought can only come from a personal, intelligent, mindful being. You can't demonstrate it comes from something devoid of these qualities. Nature just is. As for beings, if everything is relative, subjective shifting preference, what makes that 'good?' How do you get an ought from a shifting standard? You don't. You get a preference enforced by might as in Hitler's Germany.
-->
@PGA2.0
a revealed Being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal
The universe is 13.6 billions years old. If we use a day (24 hrs) as a comparison, the life of a human (90 years) is .0006 seconds. It looks like God doesn't have much time for humans.
-->
@PGA2.0
You cannot add something completely undemonstrated and magical ("God breathed us into existence!) and then say "occum's razor!" because you think that somehow that's the SIMPLEST explanation. A supernatural, invisible, undemonstrated being using its breath to make a universe is indeed a simple explanation, but (a) you haven't demonstrated the existence of that creature, therefore we can't infer that's the cause according to the razor because you're ADDING that element without merit. And then you're also ignoring bridging the gap between this faceless power of creativity to your version of it is also, as it stands currently, totally meritless. I'll simplify:
Your wife or husband finds you in bed with the neighbor, sweaty and panting. You calmly explain that you were both jogging which is why you were sweating, then ran into a time travel machine from the movie the Terminator, accidentally stepped into it, which cost you all your clothes, and rematerialized into that neighbor's bed, sometime in the very near past. This explanation is simple...if you can demonstrate the existence of the time machine. You're adding that time machine to the mix, which your partner realizes, concludes you and your neighbor were recently having vigorous sex. Which one of these explanations is actually using Occum's Razor?
Your consistent ability to misunderstand basic logical concepts is pretty scary, man. Listen, if a person calls your cell phone and tells you you're a lottery prize winner if you send them a one time payment, PLEASE don't believe them. I'm really worried about your level of gullibility.
-->
@Amoranemix
No, it is not. There is nothing good about Hitler murdering countless millions. He was evil, not good, and you do not know the difference, which points to your standard of judgment as being morally deficient. As I said before, you can espouse such beliefs, but you can't live by them. They do not meet the experiential test, which you ignore, nor meet the logically consistent test. If you were a Jew in Hitler's Germany, you would more than likely be dead, making Hitler's beliefs unlivable for vast numbers of people. Logically, good must have a fixed best as an appeal, or it becomes meaningless.
God is a standard in only in the sense that he is used (chosen) as a standard by his followers.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. The biblical God meets what is necessary for morality. Please show me that a subjective human being does. Go ahead. Quit your bluff and fluff and show some substance to your position. So far, it is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
[39] Necessary for what?
That was answered. You keep asking these irrelevant questions because you do not read the post. The thread's subject is morality and which position, the atheist's or the Christian's, makes sense of and is necessary for morality.
And why would omniscient, eternal and unchanging be necessary for that?
Because to determine 'good,' you need a fixed best for comparison, a fixed standard, not something that is constantly changing depending on the whims and opinions of limited mindful beings. Knowing all things means you can determine what is good and evil in all circumstances. By nature, God is good. By nature, we are not. Starting in Eden, our relativism makes our morality a shifting standard that can mean the opposite depending on who holds the view. Our minds are limited in what they can perceive. God, as omniscient, is not. He can perceive all things.
Being eternal means that His unchanging nature has always been what it is - good. Thus, He does not derive goodness from something else, nor change His mind, which would make something else sovereign over or above God.
There is one more thing that think is also necessary to be or provide a good moral standard: existence. AH scores badly in that department, but his existence in the past may suffice.
I'm not sure what you mean again. Should that be, "There is one more thing that I think...?
I have already stated that, over and over. Not only existence but conscious of existing. What you seem to be insinuating is that God does not exist. Prove it. You can't, being limited in knowledge.
As I have argued over and over, not only in this thread but every other I have engaged in; God is reasonable to believe in, more reasonable than atheism.
How do you leap from what "IS" to what "OUGHT" to be?PGA2.0 95I base it on God's prescriptive decrees and commands - an authority and necessary being who knows everything and reveals what should be. Thou shalt not kill (murder). Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not lie. Love your neighbour as yourself, etc.You forgot to answer his question.
A being is necessary for ought, and a necessary being for fixing that ought as a moral right. Or wrong. You are not that being. Why should I believe what you are selling? It does not exist.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Those are some of the base assumptions that this worldview make, and I wonder if any god could actually fulfill these and make them not assumptions while also existing.
Try this,
What does the world look like (from an individual's perspective) WITH god($)? = "use your brain to figure out what to do"
What does the world look like (from and individual's perspective) WITHOUT god($)? = "use your brain to figure out what to do"
A world WITH god($) is FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from a world WITHOUT god($), THEREFORE, god($) can be eliminated as a logically inconsequential variable.
-->
@PGA2.0
An ought can only come from a personal, intelligent, mindful being.
Like NANABOZHO.
-->
@PGA2.0
A being is necessary for ought, and a necessary being for fixing that ought as a moral right. Or wrong. You are not that being. Why should I believe what you are selling? It does not exist.
Look,
I'm perfectly willing to accept your AXIOM of "YHWH".
What I'm asking for is HOW I CAN KNOW WHAT IS "RIGHT" AND "WRONG" ("OBJECTIVELY").
The "ten commandments" + "love thy neighbor" leaves a lot to the imagination.
-->
@3RU7AL
That's fair enough, I'll try that one out for sure
-->
@Amoranemix
Please present your ("objective") MORAL AXIOMS.PGA2.0 99God (as revealed in the Bible), as the necessary Being, is required for morals. That is reasonable to believe.[40] I keep explaining why. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal. That is what is necessary.[41][40] OK. So it is not true. It is just something reasonable to believe. I doubt even that.
I never said it is not true. I believe it is true and reasonable to believe as true. You argue the opposite. We both start with core presuppositions - God or no God. I am arguing that without God, you can't make sense of anything, ultimately. I am arguing my belief is more reasonable than your belief as an atheist. Your belief is plain foolish, IMO. You, nor any atheist, has been able to justify your position, when it opposes God, as reasonable or true. I argue adamantly for that and give a supporting argumentation.
I keep explaining why. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal. That is what is necessary.[41][41] You are joking, right? [a] Morality is possible without any of that. They may be [b] terrible moralities (the sort of moralities we see in the real world), but [c] no god is necessary for them.
Wrong. I am serious. I do not joke about such serious matters. What you are doing is making a fallacious appeal to emotion (pity) and appeal to ridicule. There is an underlying insinuation here. You are attempting to bypass justifying why these attributes are unnecessary. Your appeal to pity is a way of making my argument appear irrelevant to the point made (i.e., what a schmuck to believe such things - "You have got to be joking, right? If not, I feel sorry that you could believe such things. Poor you. You are so naive."). You are trying to make it seem that any point of view that opposes yours is false. You are trying to get others to trust your evaluation by making my argument seem like a joke without giving ANY justification for doing so. Your appeal to ridicule is to lampoon my view and alienate it from the audience without providing why your statement is relevant to what is necessary.
[a] Again, you make an assertion. Justify it.
[b] They are not moral without a fixed reference point (I reiterate, again and again). They are preferences. What makes a preference right or wrong morally? A preference is a subjective feeling. It may also be felt and favoured by a group (the likes and dislikes).
[c] Again, an assertion that has not been justified. Quit your fluff and give some substance or at least an argument rather than a statement. Why should I believe what you say? No reason so far. Who are you to preach to me about what is necessary without justifying your stance as logical or reasonable?
PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7ALFirst, God isobjective in the sense that He knows all things and is thecreator of the universe and life on earth. [ … ]Does your god really know all things, or merely all true, knowable things?
I don't understand the question. You can't know something unless it is true. Knowledge conforms to truth. If you have a false belief, it is not knowledge. God is the truth. He knows all things, and concerning His creature - the human - knows all things that they think and whether those things are true or not. He knows when you think untrue things. He does not think untruths. Not only this, He is responsible for all things and because of Him, they are sustainable and hold together. Thus, there is nothing about everything He has made or about Himself that He does not know.