SkepticalOne is open to anything supported by evidence.Are you speaking for SkepticalOne now?
God is eternal. He has no beginning, so the premise does not apply to Him.Meh, forget it, I don't have the energy to explain special pleading to you.
Now I am not saying that the meanings cannot change with use if enough people like the new buzzword or new meanings for the word. When that happens, another definition is added to the word meaning in a dictionary.I'm ever so glad we can agree on this crucial point.
The GOD principle is a logical concept and worthy of consideration....But theistic belief in an unproven, specific deity, is illogical.I'd go a step further and say that EVEN IFF something like "YHWH" was accepted as an AXIOM (ONTOLOGICAL FACT), that even then, following the supposed teachings of such a thing would be immoral (logically incoherent).In other words, "YHWH" is a FACT and "The Bible" is 100% TRUE, now what? Do you want everyone to stop mixing their fabrics and stone all divorcees to death?
And I would suggest that Axiom and ontology are not compatible...And similarly, ontology and fact are not compatible.
You special plead for the universe causing itself, or that something was before it, or that it is eternal, depending on which stance you take.
So...Would believing any of this actually CHANGE how you acted in-real-life?........No.
So...Would believing any of this actually CHANGE how you acted in-real-life?........No.
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?
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?I don't think so. Chess is only subjective because of our limited knowledge and ability to think through the best combinations, starting from the first moves through to the last. In some situations, we can think of all the best moves for ourselves when our opponent makes an error or chooses a weak opening, such as the various fool's mate openings or a forced mate later in the game. In those situations, you can name mate in four or five or how many moves because for each move; the opponent is forced to reply in a fixed way to avoid mate happening sooner. Your opponent is forced to respond in a specific way to prolong the inevitable. If both players played a perfect game (no errors, playing the optimum move every time), it becomes more difficult because of the massive possibilities available. I don't think we are capable of that with some opening, but the tempo would go to White and be countered by Black until White's next move, and so on. Thus, I think such a perfect game, selecting the strongest opening by both, would result in a draw, or win by White, but I cannot say for sure since I don't know anyone who has determined the best, most perfect move for every opposing best and most perfect move. We know that some openings are stronger than others because they develop the pieces faster and pressure the opponent's defences.I am saying (comparing apples to oranges) that you are making the categorical error in comparing Chess to morality. Best in Chess is not the same as best regarding morality. I can verify best in chess through the senses/empirically. It could be demonstrated in some situations because the best would lead to an opponent's loss if they did not respond in kind. How do you verify something abstract like the good? One is a qualitative value (morality), the other a quantitative value (a Chess move). One can be demonstrated through the senses; the other cannot.Now, if God exists and has revealed, then we can know the moral best in as much as He has revealed it. And from the Ten Commandments, as well as God disclosing His nature and attributes, we can deduce the good from the bad in other scenarios and from the examples of His interaction in the OT and His physical appearance in the NT. The Bible reveals He created us in His image and likeness (moral beings), so it is possible to know the right, the good. I believe we have an innate sense of the good, but that too can be marred by our subjectivity and ignoring His objective decrees. We choose to be relativists
How exactly does the existence of some god(s) solve the problem (if it is a problem) of opinion based morals?PGA2.0 101There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God. Thus, I have what is necessary for I realize that in and of myself I am not necessary in determining the moral good.What would prevent people from picking a different fixed, final moral standard, or people picking a changing, subjective moral standard, or people picking your god's moral standard, but changing their mind or disagreeing on what it entails?
Thought experiment time!If your preferred god came to you in a dream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the"moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow this beings horrible commands?PGA2.0 101Why do you think God would do such a thing?Nice dodge.
PGA2.0 101 to secularmarlinSince you say you are an atheist, where do your moral values come from? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right?When I trace your starting point back as far as I can reasonably go, to origins, how does existence happen? What causes the 'beginning' if you believe there was one. Next, how does something nonliving become living? Then from what is, how do you get what ought to be?[a] Where do God's moral values come from? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right?[b] From what is, how does your god get to what ought to be?
PGA2.0 101 to secularmarlinLikewise, to understand what I mean you must get my meaning not anything you want to make it be or else we have failed to communicate.You want that communication to fail to promote confusion (the Christian's friend).
A revelation God supplies those values.
You're putting the cart before the horse.We can only begin our epistemological exploration right here, within ourselves.PGA2.0 104Although we have our reason and logic to work with are we necessary beings? Not if we derive our existence from something or someone else. If that is the case we are contingent beings. Thus, we have to start somewhere else beyond ourselves[46], unless you want to contend that you are all there is and everything is your mind in operation? Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely.[46] How is that supposed to follow? (No. [a] I am not asking you to repeat all the problems you have identified with reality, nor to repeat the questions you have asked too many times already.)
We gather data, check it for logical coherence and efficacy.We (as individuals) are the origin, our individual curiosity is ground zero.PGA2.0 104You are not the origin of yourself if you had a beginning. So you have to start somewhere else, besides yourself, even though you are using your mind to reason this out, unless you are all there is. So which is it? Did you begin to exist, and do you owe your existence to something or someone else?He probably started with his parents in a bedroom. What relevance does that have to morality?
PGA2.0 119 to fauxlawMorality is complicated and there are lots of examples or scenarios of how Israel was to handle the day to day life of Israel under that covenant law. Some of these Old Covenant examples have been adopted into many legal systems and the principles of the Ten Commandments apply in these legal systems. There are laws for murder, stealing, perjury, adultery, built into most (if not all) legal systems. The idea of two or three credible eyewitnesse testimony is a principle still used in courts for proving guilt and innocence. It is where a country deviates from such a rule of law that injustice happens, like in the case of abortion in the USA. The framers of the Consstitution recognized some basic godly principles such as equality under the law for there to be justice.What evidence can you present that the rejection of group responsibility and inheritance responsibility, as promoted by the Old Testament, causes injustice?
PGA2.0 137 to 3RU7ALThe funny thing about an atheist is that they make themselves or some other relative, subjective human being the object of worship. They become their own authority on all things or leave that in the hands of their idols, their subjective human gods. They pick and choose who they want to believe in every branch of science, or they take other means such as perhaps an atheistic philosopher instead of a scientist as the guru god.Apparrently I was mistaken in believing I was an agnostic atheist.
PGA2.0 144 to 3RU7ALAgain, atheists usually incorporate naturalism in their belief system, if they have done any serious reflection on origins.If you do not ascribe to God or gods, what is left?[47] It would be a system of belief that looks to nature or matter for the answers in origins. Without personal being there would be no intent, no meaning, no value, no purpose.[48] If you want to space our existence that one step further back you could pose aliens, but if they too are not eternal or almighy then there must be another cause beyond them.[49] Or you could pose the ridiculous and unbelievable that everything comes from nothing.[47] How about nature? [a] Most of the people I thought were atheists believe in nature.
[48] There are plenty of personal beings.
[49] Maybe so, but Christianity would still be false.
PGA2.0 157 to 3RU7AL[ . . . ] Although this thread was not created to debate this but rather which worldview better explains and is justified in answering the question of morality, you have not addressed the question. Here it is again:Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?[a] I suppose that atheism can be world view if it is considered to be the collection of all worldviews that do not incorporate a deity.
[b] However, many will have different explanations for morality. I think a better question would be whether nature can account for morality and [c] whether adding one or more deities to nature would sufficiently improve one's ability with the worldview to account for morality to warrant the cost of doing so.
[d] Nature alone can generate morality through evolution by natural selection. [e] In social animals, morality is advantageous. [f] For humans we more or less expect what we see: varying degrees and kinds of rightness and wickedness, more favouring group-thinking [g] (loyalty is good, treason bad) and of course people contradicting each other. [h] I am not clear on what extra mystery a deity would explain, nor how, especially the Christian one.
PGA2.0 162 to 3RU7AL[ . . . ] Quantitative values such as length, weight, height, size can bemeasured and we have a fixed system of measurement. I argue we do also with qualitative values, by necessity. As with quantitative values there has to be a best or fixed measure as a comparison.How would one measure the quality beauty? What is the ultimate, fixed reference for beauty?
If two tribes have conflicting or opposite views on beauty, then which tribe has the true view ?
Although beauty is not a moral value, I would still argue that its ideal is God. He is again the fixed reference point.
PGA2.0 163 to 3RU7ALHow do you know you commit to God as He is? It is easy to assert such things, but show me some evidence. You see, the Christian God is strongly evidenced. There is 66 writings that in themselves give verification to the reasonableness of His Being.[49] These writings have manyverifications from the world of history and archeology as well that Iassert makes your system weak and not as reasonable or sufficient incomparison.[50] The unity is not of one book but of many that areinternally consistent although often misunderstood.[49] These are indirect claims by ancient people. Relying on them to support the existence of Yahweh would constitute an appeal to authority fallacy.
[50] Those verifications only verify part of those writings. That some of it is confirmed, does prove all of it.
You exclude that these claims can be true because you believe these ancient people cannot tell the truth or are not authorities in the matters they speak of and appeal to.
secularmerlin 324No. First takethe guess work out of your argument. Stop telling me what you thinkis immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you mystandard and we can both discuss it because we both agree that thereare humans and that the things we do effect their welfare.PGA2.0 369have 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? Do you want to live as if there is such a fixed standard andthat right and wrong really matter, or do you want to liveinconsistently, deceiving yourself, pretending that things do matterand there is an actual right and an actual wrong to issues? If youwant to live as though things do matter a worldview devoid of an ultimate, absolute, universal, fixed standard is necessary. [ . . . ]
Without a reference moral standard moral claims cannot be (dis)proven.
What kind of fallacy is that, claiming that when many people who share a (lack of) belief make claims, the (lack of) belief also makes those claims?Atheism at best excludes some explanations for the origin of life.
PGA2.0 168 to 3RU7ALIf there is no objective and universal reference point then you do not have right and wrong. You just have 'I like this,' or 'I like that.'Morality is a framework that humans use to discern right and wrong but if there is no final measure it is arbitrary, relative, subjective and contingent. How does a shifting system of belief make something right or good? It just forces its views on others.[a] I don't know what a system of beliefis, but I shall try to answer the question: “How do preferences make something good?” [b] The question assumes that there are preferences that do make something good. I will start from that assumption.[c] One should ask those with those preferences that claim something is good because of them. [d] Whatever explanation they come up with, according to you, it will be because they like it. [e] Thus, if you are correct, liking something makes it good. Hence, according to you, if preferences make something good, it would be by being liked.
PGA2.0 529 3RU7ALWhat you have isa shifting standard. Good can equal whatever you want it to.[113] YOUdo not have what is necessary for morality. All you have is what ispreferable. How does that make anything right? It does not. If itdoes make something right then Nazi Germany and the killing of oversix million Jews becomes right for anyone who agrees.[114]
3RU7AL 455It's exactly thesame as law. Different territories have different laws. It'sexactly the same for people. What's appropriate behavior in front ofyour parents is not always the same as what's considered appropriatebehavior in front of your friends. What's appropriate behavior in onefriend's house is not always what's appropriate behavior at anotherfriends house.PGA2.0 529So at one house,it is 'morally' permissible to rape your neighbour for fun???? Atanother, it is 'morally' permissible to kill your neighbour forfun.[114] That is the implication of this stupid moral relativismidea. You throw away justice because justice needs a fixed moralgood, something that is actually so.[115] [ . . . ]
PGA2.0 428It is [unchanging], except for the Sabbath Day. Jesus reiterated the Ten Commandments in the NT, so do the apostles.3RU7AL 462You just admitted that it changed. Not universal. Not unchanging.PGA2.0 534Perhaps I should have been more clear. See the [added] wording. IOW's it is the same as spoken of in the OT. The difference is the although the NT believer recognizes the law, or Ten Commandments, are good, Jesus has met the standard of the law on our behalf.
3RU7AL 468You start out by saying "NO", but then you go on to explain how it WAS CHANGED.PGA2.0 539The covenant was changed in that the OT required the believer or 'people of God' to sacrifice for their sins, for every time they broke the law (summed up in the Ten). In the NT, Jesus establishes a New Covenant in meeting the Law in Himself for the believer, or 'His people.'So, the covenantchanged, not the Law.
PGA2.0 565 to SkepticalOneWhile atheists can and sometimes do live more morally than many Christians do, from where their worldview starts (their most basic presuppositions), there is no reason they should. Thus, they are inconsistent with their beginning presuppositions (blind, indifferent chance happenstance and meaninglessness).[116] In the 20th-century atheists (consistent with the origin of chance happenstance and meaninglessness) demonstrated just how self-serving and immoral they were in the vast killings of those who did not agree withtheir philosophy.[117]
SkepticalOne 568This appeal to a"fixed reference point" has been shown unnecessary in a post you haven't caught up to yet. A compass doesn't use a fixed reference point, yet the world can be successfully navigated with it.PGA2.0 569"What is true north?
True north is the direction that points directly towards the geographic North Pole.This is a fixed point on the Earth’s globe.True north is a fixed point on the globe. Magnetic north is quite different."There has to be a true north to reference the magnetic north with. You have the same problem with moral views. There is nothing more than preference unless there is something true to fix morality with. You have to have a 'best' to compare 'good' and 'better' to, or else you have better concerning nothing.[115] Thus, you can never be sure that your'better' is actually so because it is always shifting and changing.[116] [ . . . ]
SkepticalOne 568Again, atheism is not a moral philosophy.PGA2.0 569Atheists, like Christians, hold to moral views that originate somewhere, the way they view the world and universe. Morality is a part of their worldview.[117] They do not see moral values coming from an ultimate being. They try to make themselves that being in question.[118] If there is no ultimate, necessary being, the point of reference is changing.[119] Atheists (like you) sometimes try to attach morality to universals and objective values, but they do not have the means to do so. Christians do.[120] You try to attach morality to 'well-being.' The problem is whose well-being? You say humanities, but who decides for humanity - you?[121]
SkepticalOne 568...and the tired old argument of the 'vast killings due to atheism' (in the name of atheism?!) is something that may work in dogmatic echo chambers,but not to any reasoning person. Mao (et al) didn't kill because of atheism - that would be like killing for a-unicornism. It is a nonsense argument.PGA2.0 569[Complaints aboutMao's and Stalin's wicked rules]
That supposedly fixed true north is not really fixed, for the earth's axis precesses over a 26.000 year cycle, not to mention that the whole earth moves.
I am saying that without a reasoning being who created the universe, the universe is without reason for its existence.Oh boy.Is that what you're hung up on?The teleological fallacy?
The reasoning behind such a statement (underlined) is self-evident.
It is from the Book of Numbers which is the fourth book of the Hebrew Bible,and the fourth of five books of the Jewish Torah. In Numbers 5 the woman has to drink a concoctionthat is part water, part dry earth taken from the floor of the sanctuary, andpart an inky residue from a parchment inscribed with a curse. The imprecationis to the effect that if she is guilty of adultery her belly will swell and her thighwill rot, referring, almost certainly, to her uterus and genital area. By and large,critics and translators assume that she is pregnant and thatthe effect of the curse is to cause a miscarriage in the guilty. Num 5:28 is explicitlyabout the innocent: “She shall be free, and retain seed,” that is, her consciencebeing clear, she will carry her child to term.
So, somehow organic molecules happen from inorganic matterMethane, 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.
