Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#991
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. 


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".
a) It is not moral or immoral to play chess. It is immoral to lie and deceive someone with the intent of physically hurting them. It was not required (a moral obligation) to play chess; I did so because I enjoyed doing it. It was not a moral obligation. Thus the categories are not the same or similar as Skone has stated.  

b) Describing the harm is descriptive. John is murdering Joe is descriptive. It describes a moral wrong. The moral wrong is prescriptive (You shall not murder), something that should not be done. Describing a behaviour does not determine moral wrong. It can describe a moral wrong. We can apply the label right or wrong only if there is such a right and wrong. If there is no fixed, absolute, objective, unchanging thing as right, there is nothing to compare "better" against. Once Skone uses the term "better" in a moral sense, he compares something to a standard. What is that standard? Is it descriptive in the sense that you can use your senses to measure it? No, moral standards are not of that sought. They are qualitative, not quantitative. Qualitative values are not tangible. They are abstract, non-physical values and concepts. You can't describe moral right in a physical sense like you can a game of chess. So, if the right does not exist as anything other than a relative opinion, then it is meaningless, for it can mean anything, whatever Skone wants to make it mean. Right and wrong are moral concepts, not physically tangible things. They are non-descript in a physically observable sense, for you cannot grab hold of right, taste or touch it. They do not express what is but what ought to be. Thus, you cannot put them in the same category as a chess game for these reasons (a + b). 
Topic's author
#992
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 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).
In reference to what? Give examples. I think your statement is misleading. I am usually referencing, critiquing or asking what the atheist would have to believe and asking them to defend their beliefs.

Whenever I defend my own standards, I refer to the Christian God and no other god. You have actually quoted me saying "without God." I am a Christian. I speak of no other God. That is my reference standard, and it has what is necessary for objective morality, providing this God exists. You even quote me in Post 175 (see below) as saying without God... My statements and inferences find their bearing in the biblical God.  


You're basically saying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.
I'm saying without God, a necessary being, what is right is a shifting preference that cannot be locked down. It always shifting and that is what we see with most cultures for they have rejected the biblical God.[53a] Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who is right, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you can call it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixed address.[53b]
[53a] [i] 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. [ii] 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.
[i] That is my point. Without God (and to clarify repeatedly, I speak of no other God than the Judeo-Christian God as my standard), as an objective fixed, unchanging standard, morality is the way it is because humans are relative and changing. What is moral, when there is no fixed, objective, unchanging standard, you can't call it morality but a subjective preference. 

[ii] That is all you have, maybe. 

It boils down to one of two options, the God or chance happenstance option. The whole idea of this thread is to examine which is more reasonable. Show me your rejection of God answers the question of morality. Please show me your standard is something more than fleeting and relative and show me why what you say as of right is actually so. 

I have been inviting atheists to demonstrate they can make sense of morality since this thread's inception with little success. 

Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who is right, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you can call it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixed address.[53b]
[54b] So what? [i] You are supposed to argue that adding your god to a naturalistic worldview would make that worldview a [ii] better tool for generating an explanation for the existence for morality. In stead you are complaning about reality. Yet again.
You mean [53b], right? 

So what? So, the atheist cannot explain morality, just preference. How is preference good or right? It just is what you like/desire/feel/want. So what? Provide the standard you use to measure morality. 

[i] No, you are misrepresenting me again. I am arguing a supernatural worldview as opposed to a naturalistic worldview answers morality. A naturalistic worldview does not address morality. I am arguing for what is capable/necessary for making sense of morality. Is the atheistic or Christian God more reasonable? To do this, I have listed what would be necessary, and the Christian God fits the description. 

[ii] You are using a term (better) that is comparative. You can't use it without thinking of a standard of comparison. Better requires a standard. Without God, how do you measure better morally?  
#993
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
In contention is whether chess actions and moral actions are comparable. PGA suggest an apples and oranges comparison because, in his view, chess is descriptive whereas morality is a prescribed. This is false. Statements regarding chess and/or morality can be descriptive (Pawn to A4 is a bad move/Murder is bad) or prescriptive (You should not move your pawn there/You should not murder). The difference suggested between the two is non-existent and suggesting otherwise is, whether PGA admits to it or not, a category error.

What PGA tries very hard to discount is that both chess and morality have an understood reference point - neither of which God or gods are required to explain. 
 



Topic's author
#994
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
My personal preference would be foreveryone to stop killing each other.
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, 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?
It is not unless I can charismatically convince others or force my views on those who don't like them, for that is all I would have if there were no objective, universal, unchanging standard to appeal to. But the Christian claim is that God has revealed, so we have that objective standard as our appeal. 

Maybe you don't like it, but what makes that wrong for someone who does? 
Exactly! What makes it wrong? If there is no objective, universal standard, what makes your opinion any better than mine? 


PGA2.0 176 to 3RU7AL
Again, it is God who is wronged. He is just and will not let those who practice evil and 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 will not punish innocent creatures. Since we are designed for fellowship with Him forever and if we do not choose as much then the option is separation for eternity, which will be hell since you think the moral relativism 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 [a] on top of God's existence, you would have to prove his justness. I doubt that will ever happen.
I do not limit God, but your language certainly shows how closed you are. Your statements beg the question of what you would accept. Let me test you on this further. 

Do you think a just and good judge would compromise justice? Would such a judge overlook evil, or would that judge address it and issue a penalty for doing evil?

Why is there evil, or do you not recognize anything as evil? That is a question both the atheist and Christian has to answer. So I await your answer before I proceed further. 

[a] Why does it have to be on top of God's nature? Why can't justice be part of His nature, to want good and to punish evil? If God has given humanity a will, a volition, then eventually we will all be accountable to Him, yet He may choose to let us use our wills to discover the problem of evil. Evil would be doing something again His good nature and against the light of His revealed word. 

God has a right to do with His creation as He wishes[54] and He will not punish innocent creatures.
[54] According to himself no doubt and being as powerful as he is, he is the one who gets to decide. [a] If I were as mighty as God, I too would like might makes right morality.
Yes, according to Himself. Who greater could He appeal to? Do you think your authority and your limited mind would be greater than God's? You still have not been able to show me that your moral views are true and right. I am still awaiting you to reveal a semblance of logic on why what you believe is right and good. I actually focused on abortion to get your opinion on what is right with that particular judgment of yours. 

You forget, the biblical God is revealed as omniscient. Thus, He knows all things. Thus, He commands us, as creatures with the ability to know and reason, to live righteously, or we will answer for our wrongs (in one of two ways - on our own imperfect merit alone, or on the merit of Another who has met God's righteous requirements). Since we are His creatures, made by Him, made in His image and likeness, He has the right to determine what should and should not be done. 

[a] You are under the mistaken idea that might, in itself, actually make something right. Explain why you think so.
Topic's author
#995
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
There is no "universal" "one-true" language.
So your conclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or true moral values?[55] As I have said before, you can think such thoughts but you can't live practically with those beliefs [56] for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know it is wrong [57], and if you don't I would say you have major problems[58]. There is no, 'Well that is your choice but I would prefer you did not do it.' There is a definite, 'What you are doing is wrong.'
***

So your conclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or true moral values?[55]
[55] [a] Although it is unclear what a universal or true moral value is, [b] it looks like such things do not exist.
[a] It is unclear what is universal for you because you do not have what is necessary to make sense of morality. If you think otherwise, then show me how you do. 

[b] Are you then saying that what you believe is not moral, but what you like?

As I have said before, you can think such thoughts but you can't live practically with those beliefs[56]
[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.
We are speaking apples and oranges again. I was giving a moral example. Newton's laws are not moral. I was speaking of morality. Can you live practically or experientially with a moral issue? 

Morally wise, what I was referring to fails a reasoning test, experience. If you could not live by it, would it be reasonable to impose it on someone else? Sure, you can espouse something, but if it makes it impossible to live by such a standard once turned upon you, you will not be around long.

for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know it is wrong [57]
[57] a) Wrong according to who?
Seriously? Do you not think it is wrong, universally, for someone to torture innocent people? That is definitely a problem you have with your worldview. You do not appear to have the means to universally say it is wrong to torture innocent little children for fun. You just leave it to each person to decide for themselves. That is the downfall of relative changing values. Anything can go, depending on who holds the view and is capable of enforcing it. 


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.
Again, can you say for certain for everyone that torturing innocent little children for fun is wrong??? 

c) Why would something being wrong, e.g. according to God's moral standard, imply that there that are true or universal moral values?
Because God is loving and good (being omniscient), knows all things and knows the short term and long term effects of moral action. You do not.

[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?
But can you say for certain that torturing your innocent family members is wrong for everyone and know this is so? If not, all you can do when someone does such harm (heaven forbid it would happen, but if it did) is morally "right" for them and even though I don't like it, to each his/her own. Again, it comes down to not being able to live experientially with such a system of thought. It is not reasonable to think about such things in the way you are. 

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?
How can you establish something as knowledge unless it conforms to what is - the fact? I am asking what is necessary for the knowledge of morality? I am saying you need an objective, universal, omniscient, unchanging, eternal standard as best to compare moral values against. Do you have such a system, and if not, then how do you establish morality? I am saying, out of necessity, that all facts are God's facts. He made things for what they are in this physical universe, and He made us reflect on His moral virtues. The Fall changed the paradigm. We jettisoned godly values and imposed our own. Thus, we have a relative system of values that can't make sense of itself when pressed. As an atheist, I am asking you to show how you can make sense of morality because I believe I can show it is not reasonable to believe like the biblical explanation of morality is reasonable to believe. 

[a] What if two moral knowledges contradict each other? [b] 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 ?

[a] Then one must be false. The contrary of true is false, the contrary of right is wrong. A standard that is contrary is the opposite.

[b] It depends on the moral degree of the wrong. Stealing a pen does not warrant turning your friend over to the police. Any wrong is wrong. It depends on whether the friend has actually done something wrong (the has to be a standard of comparison) and the severity of the wrong as to whether it is right to turn them in. Each circumstance would be different. 
#996
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
Powered by The Force my zeal let me plow through up to post 775.

PGA2.0 continues to throw words like 'good', 'right' and 'better' around without proving clarity about the standards required to evaluate these qualifications.

...and I supposeyou think murder, theft, dishonesty etc., were all consideredcompletely acceptable before Judaism/Christianity? It's a wondermankind made it 10,000/100,000's years until "God" decidedto finally reveal himself!
PGA2.0 569
No, I believehumanity is made in the image and likeness of God. They understand(deep down) these things are wrong (their consciences bear witness toeach), but because they are naturally inclined to sin, they ignoreGod and His standards and try to justify their own. The problem is,without an ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging reference point,anything goes. It just depends on who holds power.
Your explanation is : God did it. The explanation of most atheists is : nature did it. However, as an explanation, nature has a big advantage : it exists.
The problem that you mention and have mentioned too often already is off topic. Read the original post to discover what this thread should be about.

PGA2.0 569 SkepticalOne
If you thinkhumanism came before God that is your burden. You can't say humanismcame before the biblical God and then supply no evidence that whatyou say is true. Let's face it; you work from a particularpresuppositional point of view.
Dude, he just said he does not think humanism came before God. You are again trying to distract from the fact that you don't have a case.

First, let mesquash the notion that you can overcome the Hume's guillotine byappealing to "God is". You can't. Ought from "God is"is still an ought from an is, and there is no getting around that.
PGA2.0 572
[ . . . ]
A stone just is.It is not good or bad because it does not have an INTENT or agency todo things. It does not ponder how things are or ought to be. It hasno means of acquiring intention. A mind does. The question from the'what is' is how we get to the 'what ought to be?' How do we getconsciousness from something that just is? How does something that'is' acquire consciousness? What gives it this ability? Doesit pick up the ability from nothing, just not having then suddenlyhaving - poof, magic?[122]

Humebegins with the is, the descriptive from an empirical standard. We,as Christians do not. We begin with a non-physical moral being, abeing who is conscious, who is capable of reason and who isprescriptive.[123] Hume begins with the 'is,' and can't understandhow to get an ought from it. For Hume, the ought cannot be observedor explained from what is, the descriptive. HUMANISM derives theought from what is.[124] Christianity does not. It has what isnecessary, a conscious, mindful, reasoning Being who knows allthings.[125] Thus, how can you describe Him as subjective?
[122] That is another red red herring, for that is not what Hume's guillotine is about.
[123] Christians face the same problem and to their credit, they recognize they cannot solve it. To their shame, they still deny being in the same boat as everyone else.
[124] I didn't know that. How did humanists manage to prove Hume wrong and derive an ought from an is ?
[125] Actually, if you look at Christianity as a worldview, then indeed it has what is necessary. The problem is that if reality does not have what is necessary, Christianity would be a reality+, i.e. reality with with a few desirable additions.
Reality also has conscious, mindful, reasoning beings. Of the attributes you listed for you god, reality's beings only miss omniscience, which is not required for morality.

PGA2.0 572
Preferences aredescriptions. "I like ice-cream" is describing what I like.There is nothing morally prescriptive or obligatory about that. Whatis morally prescriptive is when you say, "I like ice-cream andyou MUST like it too." You imply a penalty for not liking it andthat it is morally wrong. But why, based on your preference?
Prescriptions are not necessarily moral, i.e. in the moral domain. From “I like icecream” and the assumption (which would serve as a presupposition) “Someone should promote what they like” can be derived the prescription “I should eat ice cream”.
Your prescription could be derived with the assumption “Others should like what I like.”

Secondly, thebasis of your morality is subjective not objective. From "Godis" you derive God's will. This is a subjective standard. Youvalue this and think everyone else should as well. God's will, as youunderstand it, disallows abortion (for instance). With God's will asthe (subjective) standard, abortion is objectively wrong. If I agreeto your interpretation of God's will, then you and I couldobjectively determine moral views.
PGA2.0 573
The point is not'God is' but 'God has revealed' that makes the standard. 'God is'does not give us a standard. God reveals does.[126] [ . . . ] Now, only one covenant remained. Before that point in time, two covenants existed, and there was a transition taking place. Unbelievers show from the way they live that they areconscious of the wrong of breaking these commandments[127], so they will be judged outside of Christ's provision.
[126] How did that work ? Are there existing moral standards that God revealed or did God reveal those standards into existence ?
What you are saying contradicts what I have read before, I think even from you, namely that God's nature is the moral standard. You have even claimed that God is the standard.
[127] How so ?

On the other hand, a moral basis of human well-being is something generally accepted.
PGA2.0 573
It begs the question of whose and why are they right in their assessment.
Not for everyone, but it does for those who don't understand morality. Those are usually the people whose god relies their ignorance as a place of residence.

Fortunately, most people agree to this standard, and if they don't, well, they have no business weighing in on human morality (and I don't even think they are talking about morality).
PGA2.0 573
What you find in the world is that people push their standards of 'well-being' onothers to the detriment of many. Regime after regime could be named. Well-being only goes as far as competing for food or some other desired thing for many, especially in life and death situations. The Christian worldview surpasses these standards.
Stop pretending to be stupid. Is SkepticalOne pretending to believe that you are proposing that everyone invent their own god ? No, because atheism doesn't require stupidity. Atheism isn't so embarrassing that it requires perverting the beliefs of others to make it look less bad in comparison.
Turn on your brain and ponder what he really could be proposing. Then present your conclusions.

PGA2.0 573 to SkepticalOne
The woman knew there was a chance of pregnancy and a moral obligation once she CONSENTED to sex (somewhere around 95% of all cases). [ . . . ]
Assuming the woman had consented to sex - something you have so far been unable to prove - what evidence can you present that she knew that there was a chance of pregnancy and a moral obligation ?

PGA2.0 573 to SkepticalOne
Your arguments are totally nuts. [ . . . ]
says the guy who just added another fallacious argment to a long list.

Already addressed: "[...] I know an indirect argument against abortion can be extricated from the Bible as well, but this can hardly stand against an explicitly pro-abortion god."
PGA2.0 574
God is not pro-abortion. That is a gross misinterpretation of the biblical text. You isolate verses to make them a pretext. When you see God judging a people, you immediately believe that any innocent blood taken will not be restored to a better place, or you believe that it is wrong for God to judge evil. And often humans are the ones making the killing in obedience to God's judgment on wicked people. God uses human beings to bring judgment on the guilty, but final judgment is for Him alone.
You assume from the get-go that the Bible is consistent. If author A says : “It is OK to smother your wife” and author B says : “You should love your wife” then you assume that author A must have meant that it is OK to smother your wife with love, figuratively. You a priory exclude that author A and B simply disagreed on how wives ought to betreated.

What is this'see-saw' you refer to? My core position is simple and unchanging: there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
PGA2.0 574
The woman is violating the body of the unborn TO KILL IT and without its consent. That unborn contains her own DNA. The unborn is her own offspring, her own child. You see-saw, depending on which bodily autonomy is spoken of. For you, it is perfectly justifiable to kill some innocent human beings and violate their bodily autonomy if they are in thei rnatural habitat, the womb. On the other hand, it is not okay to violate the innocent woman's fundamental right to life if she is in her natural environment, the world. Your worldview smacks of hypocrisy that you seem unaware of.
Do you and your god make a distinction between death through inaction and death through action ? What if a pregnant woman allowed her foetus to die by ceasing to feed it oxigen and nutrients ? That would render the situation more similar to the case of refusing to give a child in need a kidney.

Also, I don't determine anything from an "atheistic framework" Atheism is not a moral philosophy. Your inability to understand this is an issue you need to resolve - it holds us from having a much more meaningful conversation.
PGA2.0 574
Atheists view life (their worldview) as devoid of a God or gods. Therefore, they seek nature or materialism as the answer to morality rather than God or gods. That is what they build upon. [ . . . ]
What evidence can you present to support those claims ?

PGA2.0 574 to SkepticalOne
Even in a secular nation, there must be equality for there to be justice. But how often do you find justice in such nations? How does a secular nationdetermine justice? They do so on preference. That is not just.
Preference isn't unjust either.

PGA2.0 574
don't understand how people who have been lied to, and the proof is out there, continue to vote these dishonest people in based on their dislike and hatred for a President who has put their interests first.
Indeed. That is a problem with your worldview : it not only makes explaining reality difficult, but even your perversion of it.

More the scriptures than Christianity per se. Although, Christianity and not necessarily the New Testament has been the cause of many millions innocent deaths. Matthew Hopkins leaps to mind as do the Salem witch trials , and the burning alive of the Templars, to mention a few.
PGA2.0 574
[more manslaughter by communist governments than in the name of Christianity]
How many manslaughters were there in the name of humanism ?

Then there is the massacre of the Cathars and on and on you maniacs go and all in thename of Christianity, where as Jesus preached exactly the opposite and to love thy neighbour, give to the poor.
PGA2.0 574
Yes, Jesus preached the opposite than people who profess the name of Jesus oftendo. So what?
Indeed. “So what ?” is a pertinent question for much of what you post.




Topic's author
#997
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Powered by The Force my zeal let me plow through up to post 775.
Congratulations! You are not far behind me. I am on your Post 875. You have slowed me down to a crawl! (^8
Topic's author
#998
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Wow seems like you have found a perfectly reasonable standard for determining the moral correctness of an action which requires no god(s) and no dogma.
No, you are wrong. Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills or might unless there is an objective, universal fixed standard of appeal - 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 that does not treat innocent human beings equally, because eventually, you are going to have the tables turned on you where you are innocent and treated unfairly.[59] While you can argue it matters, how would it ultimately matter in a universe devoid of meaning? And it might matter 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?
My Christian worldview operates in this physical realm so such things happen and Christians do not live up to the ideal of our Saviour, yet unequal treatment of innocent people opposes the Christian worldview.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

People not giving a damn, is that also not possible in your worldview?
Yes, it is possible when people do not live up to the Christian standard of loving our neighbours as ourselves. And Jesus defined a neighbour as more than the person who lives in close proximity (i.e., everyone). 
Topic's author
#999
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix

PGA2.0 179 to secularism
Whether or not it passes the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there is no universal wrong does it matter?[60] If there is no universal accountability what does it matter if you get away with treating others unfairly?[61] That is the problem with atheism.[62] It has no objective, universal court of appeal. Everything is subjective.
***

Whether or not it passes the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there is no universal wrong does it matter?[60]
[60] Does what matter?
What people do to one another. If this life is all you have and there is no ultimate meaning in anything, does it matter that you are trying to create meaning for the insignificant number of days you will live? Are you not creating artificial meaning (there is no fixed value for meaning, humans just invent it). Before you existed nothing mattered, and after you die nothing will matter, yet for some reason, you are trying to make it matter now. It seems inconsistent with your core beliefs - a chance happenstance universe. 

If there is no universal accountability what does it matter if you get away with treating others unfairly?[61]
[61] Personally, I like getting away with treating people unfairly. It is people getting away with treating me unfairly that I have issues with.
Your right, ultimately it does not matter how you treat others if God does not exist and we owe our existence to blind indifferent chance happenstance. Why should I care what you like if there is no universal accountability and ultimately everything is meaningless? I would probably join in by treating you unfairly if I lived consistently with such a worldview devoid of God (dog eat dog!) unless you were willing to do something beneficial for me. 

That is the problem with atheism.[62]
[62] That would only be true if we define atheism as a worldview. The worldviews of most atheists are based on reality and therefore tend to include many of reality's problems. Does your worldview exclude reality's problems?
As I have argued before, it is a worldview. The same criterion used to classify other worldviews is operational in an atheist's thinking. You look at everything from a naturalistic framework that excludes God.

Please QUANTIFY empirically measurable MORAL AXIOMS.
Morality operates on a different standard than physical objects because it is an abstract concept. Morals are mindful things.
What a coincidence. Opinions and preferences are mindful things too.
And opinions and preferences are subjective, sometimes a collective subjectivity. Morality requires an objective standard or else it is relative and subjective. 
Topic's author
#1000
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix

PGA2.0 193 to secularmism
But you don'tunderstand the problem. You (all of those of accountable age, plus also through the representation of our federal head - Adam) have wronged your Creator by your willful sin. Thus, you are accountable to Him. Your nature has too been affected by Adam's sin. It is no longer open to God. Because of His grace the Son chose to address our problem and make our relationship with God good again. Since He made us for relationship with Him He is willing to fix the wrong without sacrificing His justice and righteousness. A good Judge does not overlook 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.  I doubt he would still like might makes right justice.
Worship is giving Someone who deserves it their due. Christians realize that God is worthy of such worship as the greatest Being possible and our Creator and Redeemer. Worship is deserved! And when are before His majesty and glory and realize who He is, you will bow before Him you of your own accord, even though you do not think that is possible now.


Without explicit MORAL AXIOMS, your claim to "universal" "objective" morality is indistinguishable 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. That is why I look to the works of another, the Lord Jesus Christ in setting my record straight.
[63] [a] God is a good judge according to who? Himself? Remember, [b] Adolf Hitler was also a good judge according to himself. Kim Jong Un is also fond of his own justice.
[a] According to the greatest Being, God Himself. No greater appeal can be made. 

[b] That is the problem with subjectivity that I am arguing against. How can you say Kim Jong-Un's morality is better than yours if the standard is changing and subjective?

He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it.[64]
[64] So did Adolf Hitler and so does Kim Jong Un.

That is just my point. You can't argue that AH's morality is any "better" than yours unless there is an objective court of appeal. 

I suspect your good deed didn't even measure up to AH's imperfection.
Not if morality is subjective. I argue that for morality to exist, it must have a universal fixed, unchanging measure. That is not AH or you or me. 
Topic's author
#1001
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
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.
How so? 


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).

Nice ad hom! Your own statement is very ambiguous. I only see one question. Which others are you speaking of from Post 227?
#1002
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Seriously? Do you not think it is wrong, universally, for someone to torture innocent people? 
...isn't that literally the basis of the salvation offered by the crucifixion of Jesus - a perfectly innocent being tortured and killed for the sins of humanity?
#1003
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
Partly due to laziness and partlty due to seeing a lecture on God and morality, I only managed to reach post 800. But I did reach the first of my posts, i.e. 798.

PGA2.0 578 to secularmerlin
Do you notunderstand the concept of innocence under the law? A person who isguilty has done something that breaks the law. A person who is notguilty should not be punished for something they did not do. Howwould that be just?
There are many laws. Hence a person can be both guilty (according to one law) and innocent (according to another law). That leads to another aparrent contradiction that is possible in reality, but not in your worldview. Differences between a worldview and reality are a sign of make-believe.

3RU7AL 545
Is your standardof "goodness" the "ten commandments"?
PGA2.0 583
My standard ofgoodness is God. The Ten Commandments are a standard or revelationfor humanity in which the love of God is laid out. They display whatlove is, both love for God and love for your neighbour.
Hence your standard of goodness is not even a standard. I use a standard as moral standard.

So, the covenantchanged, not the Law.
3RU7AL 548
Hairsplitting.
PGA2.0 586
It changes forthe believer because he/she is not judged by the law but by whatJesus Christ did in his/her stead. The NT tells the believerrepeatedly; we live by grace, not by the works of the law. By theworks of the law, no human is justified because no accountable humanother than Jesus has been able to live without sin.
Hence there is no justice, as people are to be treated not based on whether they obeyed the law, but based on other criteria. It seems your worldview is even worse than reality.

3RU7AL 552
What is theactual right? You can't produce one. All you can say is "I likethis [old book] view."
PGA2.0 589
Do you think itis right to murder, to take an innocent life out of maliceintentionally? Can you live without condemning murder as wrong? Assoon as someone decides you are to be murdered because they hate you,you can no longer live with your condoning murder.
Please clearly indicate where 3RU7AL has condoned murder.
Normally you would produce the alleged actual right after which I would ask you to prove it is the actual right, which you would be unable to do. Alas, you forgot to answer 3RU7AL's question.

I want to analyse in more detail your accusation that atheists cannot live consistently with their moral belief being opinions, rather than a universal, absolute, fixed standard.

Suppose that I believe - and this is a caricature - that moral opinions are nothing more than likes and dislikes, as would be the taste of ice cream. Suppose also that I care about my likes and dislikes and suppose as well that I dislike stealing.
Suppose you believe that moral beliefs are universal, absolute, fixed values. Suppose also that you care about those values and suppose 'One ought not steal' is such a value.
Furthermore, suppose we both notice someone stealing. What will we do ?
I will act to prevent it, because I dislike stealing. I can say to the thief : “Stealing is really wrong !” if I believe that will work.
You will act to prevent it, because it ought not be done. You can say to the thief : “Stealing is really wrong !” if you believe that will work.

You have also said a few times that it becomes unlivable once the atheist becomes the victim. However, if I am being stolen from, I would dislike it even more. So, I would still act to prevent it.

I don't see how my behaviour is supposed to be inconsistent with my beliefs. Please explain how it is.

There is one more issue. What is the relevance of the livability of a worldview ? Is it an attribute that influences the worldview's usefulness for explaining the existence of morality ? If so, how ?


You'reconfusing ONTOLOGY with "objective reality".
PGA2.0 607
Words havemeaning, and "dog" is the meaning we give to a specifictype of animal. You are confusing the word we identify with that typeof ontology with another word. We use a particular word to describethe nature of that particular being. Failing to do so fails tocommunicate or jive with social norms. In societies, specific wordshave specific meanings.[128]
How can 'dog' have meaning in a world that comes from blind, indifferent chance happenstance and meaninglessness ?
[128] That would be illogical, for it could lead to contradictions. If in two societies the word wapuhah has different meanings, then Alice from one society could say “A wapuhah is round” and Bob from a different society could say “A wapuhah is not round”.  Who is right ? Your system does not meet the experiential test nor the livability test, nor the logical consistence test (A=A; wapuhah=wapuhah). Your standard fails the test of the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of middle exclusion. You can't place an objective identity on what is a wapuhah, thus wapuhah can mean anything.

PGA2.0 613 to 3RU7AL
If we are al larbiters and say the opposite of the other, logically, we can't both be right since we are stating contradictory things.
My point exactly. For a dog to exist a universal, absolute, fixed dogness standard is necessary. Otherwise the Nazis could come to power and decide that adog is cat and shoot everyone who disagrees with them. So a dog would then be cat (illogical) just because they like it and have the power to impose it.

3RU7AL 556
You never explain why your "objective" standard is or can be better than anyone else's?
PGA2.0 613
Because it has what is necessary for making sense of morality. I can point to Someone necessary for morality outside my subjectiveness in that such a necessary Person would know all things, thus being objective. Subjectivity and subjective people are limited in knowledge.
Why would subjectivity and objectivity be related to knowledge ? What evidence can you present that is the case ?
Your argument appears to be the following :
P1. PGA2.0's moral standard exists and is objective.
P2 PGA2.0's moral standard has what is necessary for allowing people to understand morality.
C. Therefore PGA2.0's moral standard is better than than other moral standards.

Is that indeed your argument ?
That argument is invalid, as the conclusion does follow from the premises.

3RU7AL 556
Is it "objective" because you believe it?
PGA2.0 613
No, it is objective only if it corresponds to what is the case.
You are confusing objective with true.

3RU7AL 556
Does your OPINION that it is "objective" make something good?
PGA2.0 613
No, once again, opinions are only valid if they correspond to what is the case.
So, the opinion that Jessica Alba is beautiful is only valid if Jessica Alba is actually beautiful ?
Is Jessica Alba actually beautiful ? How could we establish that ?

3RU7AL 556
(IFF) you have a son, and you call this son "son" (THEN) should everyone on earth call your son "son"?
PGA2.0 613
No, you are confusing what the word son means in this context and what it is associated with - a particular person. It applies to the biological or adopted offspring of a person in this case.
Ignoring your claim that 3RU7AL is confusing things, you are saying sensible things. The reason is that you don't believe God has anything to do with it. If you did, you would decimate your intelligence, permittingyou to superficially believe the rubbish you would then utter to argue God must be in there somewhere, like one person saying “Bob is my son” and another saying “Bob is not my son” and they can't both be right and we need an ultimate, absolute, fixed standard for my-sonness and Christianity has what is necessary.

Sonness is a relationship between two people. In order to establish whether that relationship exists, one needs two pieces of information : the candidate parent and the candidate offspring.

Beauty is a qualification of appearance according to a beauty standard. In orde rto establish the quality one needs two things : the appearance and the standard.

Goodness/Benevolenceis a qualification of behaviour according to a moral standard. Inorder to establish the quality one needs two things : the behaviour and the standard. 9 Times out of 10 you omit the latter, making it impossible to establish the qualification and hence the meaning of the claim or question.
To 9 out of 10 of your moral questions have the relatively good short answer is : “It depends on the implicitly referenced moral standard.” and that leads nowhere. That prevents having a meaningful discussion, which is probably your goal.

3RU7AL 556
That's not how belief works.
PGA2.0 613
Do you recognize that 'right' has to have a fixed value? Something that is right cannot, at the same time, be wrong. It either is the case that something is right or that something is wrong. "Right" has a specific value.

You can't say, "Torturing innocent babies for fun" is right, and"Torturing innocent babies for fun is wrong." Either it is right, or it is wrong. It cannot be both. Forcing you to believe torturing innocent babies for fun is right does not make it right just because you believe it to be. You keep blurring the meaning of 'right.'
Do you recognize that 'beautiful' has to have a fixed value? Something that is beautiful cannot, at the same time, be ugly. It either is the case that something is beautiful or that something is ugly. "Beautiful" has a specific value.

You can't say, "Barbara Streisand is beautiful”, and "Barbara Streisand is ugly." Either she is beautiful, or she is ugly. She cannot be both. Forcing you to believe Barbara Streisand is beautiful does not make her so just because you believe her to be. You keep blurring the meaning of 'beautiful'.

3RU7AL 556
Great.
So, we don't need all this special literature in order to be moral.
PGA2.0 619
Although we are created in His image and likeness and are, therefore, moral creatures, the Fall has opened up relativism since we no longer seek after God and find out the good through Him but make it up ourselves way too often. Our reflection of Him is dulled. Thus, God has left us with a moral compass, a written record. It points to true north.[129] He ensured we understood how He created and why things are the way they are by having His servants, Moses, the prophets, His Son's disciples, record His dealings with humanity.[130] [ . . . ]
[129] Did God dot hat through young earth creation ? When did God create Adam and Eve? How did God give the first humans a moral compass ?
[130] You are mistaken, for God did not do that. If that was his intention, then he messes up.

PGA2.0 631 to SkepticalOne
You never answered my questions. It starts with you answering me before I can answer you. You dodged the answer with another question, which istypical of a non-answer.
A problem Christian and especially presuppositionalist questions have is ambiguity. It is unclear what they are asking for and skeptics are usually too lazy to give an elaborate, irrelevant response. Hence returning the same question about something else is way of asking for clarification for what is being asked. Moreover, it can also be used to illustrate that not knowing 'how' does not imply 'impossible'.

PGA2.0 631 to SkepticalOne
I used the analogy with 3RU7AL of Christ as true north and the Bible (God's word) and how we interpret it as magnetic north. Jesus, a personal being, is our reference point for morality - true north.[131] Morality comes from conscious beings. We, as relative, subjective beings, need to fix onto an unchanging reference point.[132] [ . . . ]
[131] In geography, contrary to in morality, everyone chooses the same geographic north. It is geographic north because there is consensus and yet somehow that is not an appeal to popularity fallacy.
North is a direction. Directions are true nor false. If true refers to what there is consensus on, then there is no true north in morality.
[132] So you claim, but can you prove it ?

Topic's author
#1004
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
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. 


[a] It is questionable that the first three have a "standard of good" which includes killing others. For instance, Jack the Ripper skulked around and [b] 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) [c] Adolf Hitler's views were informed by Christianity - [d] his hatred of Jews was, at the very least, inspired by their role in the crucifixion of Jesus. Finally,  [e] 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 [f] less than 2 millennia of changing standards Christianity suffers. 
[a] My point is to illustrate that without an objective, universal standard subjective beliefs become what is thought of as morally good to a person's thinking. I have not looked at Jack the Ripper (the person alleged to have savagely murdered at least five people) to ascertain his motives, and the case is sketchy, but the five Whitechapel victims were prostitutes. For some reason, someone had a sick aversion to mutilate prostitutes regardless of what society thought. 

[b] That is one outlook and just as highly speculative. He may have thought that society thought it wrong, yet he justified killing them nonetheless. Thus, his idea of the good was in killing them, perhaps with the idea of helping to rid society of a few of what was considered a bad profession. It is obvious he took pleasure in doing this because of the amount of detailed mutilation. 

[c] His views were never informed by Christianity but by his aberration of Christianity mixed with social Darwinism. The Darwinian struggle for existence where the strong survive influenced Hitler in his Ayran cleansing of the impure stock (Mein Kampf - "My Struggle") by portraying the Jews and others as inferior to God's and his ideal. Hitler totally butchered the biblical narrative to justify his means, just as was done with Apartheid in South Africa. I believe he used Christianity as lip service in achieving his purposes, the final solution.  

[d] Jesus was a Jew.

[e] It just goes to show how a human being with human frailties can impose his subjective standard on others without being able to justify it. He forced others to conform to his views. Again, what he believes does not have the requirements for a necessary objective, universal moral standard. 

[f] Jesus was of Jewish lineage. He only elaborated on an already existing standard that was revealed biblically as imposed by the Judeo-Christian God.

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. 
The point is that only one qualifies as having what is necessary for morality - Jesus Christ. The others do not have what is necessary for morality.

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. 
No, the law of identity would not apply to them all, for they all have differing views of the good. Good has different identities to each one of these people. Jesus, the living Word, is revealed as the logos. His logic is perfectly justifiable as meeting the law of identity standard - a fixed, unchanging, eternal, omniscient measure or standard of reference. 

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.
Nope. While the compass magnetic north points in the north's general direction, true north is a defined geographic location on earth.  True north or the North Pole has an exact grid location. 

"The North Pole, also known as the Geographic North Pole or Terrestrial North Pole, is (subject to the caveats explained below) defined as the point in the Northern Hemisphere where the Earth's axis of rotation meets its surface. It is called True North Pole to distinguish from the Magnetic North Pole."

The shifting north pole is the magnetic north pole. The true north pole is a specific geographic location.  

"The northernmost point on the Earth's surface is the geographic North Pole, also known as True North. It is located at 90° North latitude but it has no specific line of longitude since all lines of longitude converge at the pole. The Earth's axis runs through the North and South poles and it is the line around which the Earth rotates.

The geographic North Pole is located approximately 450 miles (725 km) north of Greenland, in the middle of the Arctic Ocean: the sea there has a depth of 13,410 feet (4087 meters)."

So, even if the axis changes (wobbles), the true north location will always be specific (a precise grid location that can be located). To bolster this argument, the true south, which is on a continent, also has an exact location.

"the South Pole lies on a continental land mass known as Antarctica. Because the ice on top of Antarctica moves only a few meters a year, the United States Antarctica program has installed a marker here to delineate the true South Pole."

"The North Pole is the northernmost point on Earth. It is the precise point of the intersection of the Earth's axis and the Earth's surface."

Topic's author
#1005
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.  

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.

Where did I respond to this, Skone?

I usually systematically go down the list in order, but I scan ahead and find a post that interests a response once in a while. If that happened, I apologize.
Topic's author
#1006
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
@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 identity of THINGS that do not appear to have an identity? How can a 'thing' not have an identity?

I am not following what you are getting at. It is very vaguely stated. The Christian reference point for comparing good is God. Are you saying that the good or right does not have an identity, that, say for a specific example such as abortion, the right cannot be ascertained? 

All moral values deal with meaning. 

The point is that it isn't a stretch that humans would object to getting killed and understand that taking measures against individuals who cannot be trusted not to kill is preferred to no such measure. What else is necessary in order for us to agree that killing people is wrong than the mutual agreement that we would not like to kill each other, be killed by each other or see each other killed?
Tell that to Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping.
Nice dodge.
Sure, humans object to being killed, but they also kill people for a host of reasons. Pointing to Jong Un or Xi Jiping also illustrates a point. What you think applies to all is a subjective 'moral' (if you can call it moral at all) preference. 

If China can become the dominant political, economic and military strength globally, what is and is not acceptable will be determined by the select elite few as they govern the many. Xi Jinping is already doing that on a smaller scale, the 1.4 billion under his control. His preference and preference of a few could impact the whole world community soon if people like the US Democrats act too late. That is why the current election results will play a significant role in the world as to whether China can carry out its policies. With Xi Jinping (already stated his global initiative of being the leading military and economic power by 2035), what happened in Hong Kong is possible on a global scale. In such an authoritarian world, any dissidents may well be put to death for these elites' political 'good.' That is the danger of allowing US Democrats to govern. They will lie down and appease China. I am not dodging.  

[ . . . ] The onus therefore of proving any god(s) or any such code on the one claiming they exist. Humans agreeing to live in (relative) harmony with one another is not evidence for any such.
We can, but others can't. That is the problem. Some do not recognize some of these aforementioned things as wrong.[73] But since you do, are you  proposing an objective moral standard? If so, what is the best you derive that from since I have shown you that people do not have the same 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 on which deity to worship.
Human-made deities, yes. Religion, yes. The problem persists because people do not recognize the necessary standard and authority.  

Logically speaking, the most reasonable answer to this problem is there is only one true deity. Every deity humanity makes glaring contradictions to the next. Denying any deity at all lands you with a host of other problems. 

PGA2.0 231 to secularmarlin
Then, how does such a standard originate from chance happenstance? There are many hurdles to straddle.
How does such a standard originate from God?
Very simple - His sovereign will command His creatures to live righteously or be answerable to Him. He sets out the standard, The Ten Commandments, which reflects His nature of good, is a school teacher or guardian to lead us to Christ. We witness all around us how impossible it is to live by relative subjectivism. We see the results of humanity living apart from God's good purposes.  

God, by your own definition, is infinite.  That makes god as an explanation infinitely complex.  Occam's razor favors multiple explanations given that they are infinitely less complex.
You are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.

Assuming God the explanation and God the person are the same, how can the former be less complicated than the latter?
It is straightforward. God says, "You shall not murder; you shall not lie" before Him.  The penalty is alienation from Him. You shall not murder is a command, not an explanation. The command reflects His will and nature. His nature is more complex. The explanation is for our benefit. The explanation is that such things are wrong - period. 


You have addressed that in post 278 to SkepticalOne :
"That is not my argument. 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.
The Big Bang is a cause. What is the explanation for it? Do tell.

You have explanations for everything before it. What is the explanation for it? The simplest explanation is God spoke, and it was so because He chose to create it. 

Do you have any explanation for the Big Bang?

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
If there is no intention there is no meaning to the universe or behind it. Thus, there is nothing good or bad about anything ultimately. Thus, as an atheist you would be lying to yourself by acting as if there is. Sure you 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? [a] What is the difference between meaning nothing and ultimately meaning nothing?
The final or fundamental; the last or furthest progression in a series. 

adjective
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimate style in hats.
maximum; decisive; conclusive: the ultimate authority; the ultimate weapon.
highest; not subsidiary: ultimate goal in life.
basic; fundamental; representing a limit beyond which further progress, as in investigation or analysis, is impossible: the ultimate particle; ultimate principles.
noun
the final point; final result.
a fundamental fact or principle.

[a] You could argue that there is no difference but experientially you believe there is. In the one case you, at this point in time, can say this is meaningful because you are selecting an arbitrary meaning, something that has no fixed measure. In the final analysis, that meaning is pointless because it is fleeting, and you return to the meaningless, return to the greater picture of what is - meaninglessness. The meaning you arbitrarily make up is null and void once you cease to exist and in the universe itself since such a worldview believes the universe is without meaning because it is not mindful. Not only this, you have no fixed address for meaning so you cannot identify meaning, just preference. 

 
PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
Why do atheists seek meaning? Why do they understand information and order and detail and complexity that would have to come from chaos, in their worldview? Why would that happen? No reason, right? Reason requires mindfulness. Why is there uniformity of nature, these natural laws that keep sustaining the universe and things in the universe? Why are we able to do science in a universe that is operational by chance happenstance (no intent)?
[a] What relevance does any of that have? [b] What would an atheist doing the effort of answering, without any compensation for the work, contribute to add useful, relevant knowledge to this discussion?
[a] The relevance is that atheists live inconsistently with their starting presuppositions. They are not logically consistent with where they begin. From a supposed meaningless universe, they seek reason and meaning. You are constantly asking for reason and meaning from me, the Christian. I can make sense of it, you can't. 

Christians are logically consistent with where they start, their core presuppositions and what they would expect to find with such a starting point.  Atheists are not. 

[b] You tell me? 

Why would there be God?
The reason for contingent beings and things that start to exist. The necessity of making sense of anything. 

God provides logical reasons for making sense of existence, the universe, morality.  

Do you think there is something to be made sense of, and why can you make sense of things in the universe if there is ultimately (tracing things back to the last or final point) no sense (nonsense) to be made of the universe, existence, morality? You continually find meaning in this universe. Why would you expect to find meaning and reasons for things in a meaningless, unintentional universe? You would not, yet you do. 
#1007
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, no time for in depth rebuttals, especially given you repeating yourself, not to mention there is a good overall rebuttal: GOD OF THE GAPS FALLACY

Just because you do not know a naturalistic cause of x, that does not mean that y caused x, you still have to prove that A) y exists, and B) that y caused x. 
Topic's author
#1008
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
Why do we discover (no intent) the laws of nature? These questions are usually left blank by atheists. Do you care to answer them, or should we expect the usual silence?[74]
How does an atheist worldview make sense of any of this? Why is it so inconsistent with its starting points?[75] Why? Because it is an unreasonable system of thought. Its foundation is rotten.
[74] Your question is a contradictio in terminis. Why questions imply intent. There can be no intent in the absense of intent.
Try asking intelligent, clear questions for a change.
Your spelling and run together words make things unclear. Try clearing up your own grammar before you accuse others. I have done so in the past, yet EVERY single post by you is corrupted in grammar and spelling. Is there something wrong with your computer or your copy and paste feature??????????????????

You have intent. You constantly answer why questions, yet you are devoid of the why when it comes to beginnings. You can't even provide meaning since meaning is an intentional attribute and from where you begin (in the beginning) there is none. What is more, you find intent and meaning in so many things but cannot offer it here because your worldview is insufficient in answering why questions regarding origins. That is yet another point I am making regarding your worldview. This attempt is your escape hatch.  

[75] Your fallacy of choice is the loaded question. You have so far [a] been unable to demonstrate that an atheist worldview is inconsistent with its starting points and you never will be able to demonstrate that.
How is it a fallacy of choice? How is it loaded when the Christian worldview has an answer, but an atheist worldview cannot give an answer, or a Christian worldview inquires of other worldviews for their answers?

I demonstrate an atheist worldview inconsistent by pointing out that its starting points or beginning presuppositions do not answer life's ultimate questions or by challenging atheists to make sense of existence, the universe, morality, and life. They live in a borrowed universe, one in which they think their limited subjective opinions of things are relevant to existence all the while borrowing from the Christian worldview in reasoning and making sense of things. Your relativism is not sufficient for, as you demonstrate, you are incapable of providing any concrete proof of your belief as valid. Atheists are incapable of the 'why' in making sense of existence. Your worldview constantly demonstrates its lack of answers. It can't explain how reason, meaning, existence comes from something devoid of it (or perhaps comes from nothing, as if that is even possible). It does not have what is necessary to do so. I am constantly revealing such feeblemindedness in the atheistic worldview in these areas of contention. 

[a] Not true. I have demonstrated to date your worldview inconsistent. You, nor any other atheist, have provided cogent answers to the questions of existence, the universe, morality on this thread. What is more, from such a starting point (blind, indifferent random chance happenstance), is it any wonder? 
#1009
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
like one person saying “Bob is my son” and another saying “Bob is not my son” and they can't both be right and we need an ultimate, absolute, fixed standard for my-sonness and Christianity has what is necessary.

Sonness is a relationship between two people. In order to establish whether that relationship exists, one needs two pieces of information : the candidate parent and the candidate offspring.

Beauty is a qualification of appearance according to a beauty standard. In orde rto establish the quality one needs two things : the appearance and the standard.

Goodness/Benevolenceis a qualification of behaviour according to a moral standard. Inorder to establish the quality one needs two things : the behaviour and the standard.

9 Times out of 10 you omit the latter, making it impossible to establish the qualification and hence the meaning of the claim or question.

To 9 out of 10 of your moral questions have the relatively good short answer is : “It depends on the implicitly referenced moral standard.” and that leads nowhere.
Well stated.
Topic's author
#1010
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
Partly due to laziness and partlty due to seeing a lecture on God and morality, I only managed to reach post 800. But I did reach the first of my posts, i.e. 798.
Well done. I admire your tenacity. I am on your post 888. Your posts take the longest time to answer since everything is included. (^8 
Topic's author
#1011
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
@Amoranemix
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.
[a] So what? I am sure 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.
[a] So, the biblical God provides what is necessary to know the good. Hitler does not. The Nazis appealed to a false authority or, better said, as an inappropriate appeal to authority. From an atheist perspective, can you point to an appeal to authority that is suited? I don't believe you can since you do not have what is necessary. Hitler wasn't an expert in moral law. He invented his own subjective preferences based on the hatred of the Jews prevalent in Europe before he even came on the scene. To use Hitler as your reference would be to use someone who is not even an authority on moral law, let alone an expert. So, I still invite you to show me one person, just one, who you think is that expert and authority on the topic of morality - just one. And, human authority does not justify the truth in the matter of morality, IMO. Demonstrate otherwise.  Can you? 

You cannot demonstrate God is just, moral, best or whatever you want him to be without choosing a reference standard. [a] And you won't do that in the same paragraph, because that would it make it obvious your claims are empty and [b] because you are not as stupid as you pretend, you know that.
[a] Put yourself to the same standards and tests what you require of me with yourself.

I can demonstrate God is necessary and show how His moral laws protect the innocent. I can point to His nature, the one described in the Bible, as meeting the necessary requirement - omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal. I can give evidence of the reasonableness of belief in Him, not only in making sense of existence, the universe, morality, but also because of the biblical evidence and how it corresponds with history. How about you address this paragraph and provide how you arrive at moral justice and the good or best?

[b] And by the way, thanks for yet another slur! Resorting to ad hom's shows an argument is feeble. You infer, I am pretending to be stupid. So far, you have shown your bias, but you have not provided a suitable explanation from your morality from your worldview perspective that sufficiently explains the good. Go ahead. I am still waiting to see if you have what is necessary.  

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4
In an atheistic worldview, the atheist still has to account for evil.[76] How do you do 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?
I have been arguing all along that I can provide the necessary standard. I have also argued that I do not believe an atheist can. I have continually asked you to show differently. Go ahead!

How do you do that as an atheist?[77]
[77] Atheists don't do that. I do. People noticed the following:
“that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
the force in nature that governs and [c] gives rise to wickedness and sin.”
[a] and they decided to call that evil.
[b] Relevance?
Anyone else who is reading this (3BRU7AL), please note how once again, as per usual, Amoranemix has avoided the question and passed the buck back to me. This is a standard tactic of an atheist. How has he answered or account for the problem of evil? The quotations in your paragraph, are they your words or are you quoting me?  How does "atheists don't do that, I do" answer the problem of evil? You assert your moral standard is capable of judging evil and good. You decide to call something evil. Is that it? How does your personal opinion make something evil? Is it based on the "force of nature?" How is that evil? Things just happen. And how do you get intent from an amoral, mindless happenstance? It makes no sense. Nature does not choose. You are personifying Nature and giving it human qualities. Nature does not govern. Things just happen if there is no intent (i.e., mind) behind Nature.

[a] Some call it evil; others call it good. Once again, there are opposing standards of belief. Which is right? Again, in your worldview, it boils down to opinion.  

[b] You seem to think that your subjective opinion determines what is evil. Why are you the standard that I should follow? What makes your subjective thoughts the definition and norm for evil or good? 

[c] I almost missed this one. Minds, human beings, are what give rise to evil and sin. Inanimate inorganic objects/things cannot, as you imply (forces of nature governing). We know this experientially. To say the force of Nature governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin has not been proven, but asserted by you. An assertion requires proof/evidence to be justified. Go ahead.  

First, what is the standard by which you, as an atheist, judge evil?[78]
[78] His own standard.
An appeal to your own authority!!! Nice! Please explain how you are the expert on morality. Why SHOULD I believe you? Why are you the authority on evil and wickedness? I have already argued you are the wrong one. Can two opposing standards regarding the same thing both be right? So, what makes your opinion better than mine, if that is all morality is based upon? 

Can you answer that? I would like to tear it apart in its unreasonableness.[80]
[80] I am sure you would like that. ;)
(^8
#1012
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
An appeal to your own authority!!! Nice! Please explain how you are the expert on morality. Why SHOULD I believe you? Why are you the authority on evil and wickedness? I have already argued you are the wrong one. Can two opposing standards regarding the same thing both be right? So, what makes your opinion better than mine, if that is all morality is based upon? 
I am the world's foremost authority on MY morality (what actions are moral for me to take).

You are the world's foremost authority on YOUR morality (what actions are moral for you to take).
#1013
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
This is a standard tactic of an atheist. How has he answered or account for the problem of evil?
What is your one-true-pure-"objective"-unchanging-universal (OTPOUU) definition of "evil"?

In practical terms, how can I identify the OTPOUU "evil"?
#1014
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I have been arguing all along that I can provide the necessary standard.
The "ten commandments" + "love thy neighbor" leaves quite a few loop-holes.
#1015
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How about you address this paragraph and provide how you arrive at moral justice and the good or best?
How can you say you know what a "dog" is unless you have some master template of "the most dog-like dog that ever dogged"?

What is the essential, quantifiable, universal and "objective" unchanging quality that is the core of ultimate "dog"?

Don't you just normally say, "it looks like, or has some (but not necessarily all) qualities in common with other dogs"?

Isn't this (untenable) relativism??
#1016
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
So, I still invite you to show me one person, just one, who you think is that expert and authority on the topic of morality - just one. And, human authority does not justify the truth in the matter of morality, IMO.
So you want an example of a moral person, who is not human?

Did I read that right?
Topic's author
#1017
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
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?
Since you are your own moral compass and final authority, I doubt it. What would you accept since you are the moral standard that morality revolves around, according to you? I can't argue against such a standard. You are always right!!! Or do you build your moral standards on the backs of others??? There is no reasoning that you will accept my reasoning since you have admitted you are the standard.  

I can give you historical accounts about the Canaanites and their child sacrifices. It is reasonable to believe they are accurate. If you think not, then present your proofs against such works. The question is, do you, as your own moral compass and final authority of which no greater can be appealed to, think child sacrifice is evil and if not, would you consider sacrificing your own? 

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.
[a] Even after your embellishments, [b] I still dislike the biblical god's morality and justice, [c] as I suspect do most people who are not infatuated with him. [d] Assuming God's existence (something yet to be proven), [e] why should those people adopt God's morality and justice [f] i.s.o just relying on their own?
All these great, subjective attributes you praise God with, [g] presumably reflect your and God's personal opinions, but [h] why should people who find the guy a power-hungry, immature jerk, worship [the] him?
[a] It is reasonable to believe based on the biblical accounts. If you think otherwise, then present your arguments instead of just asserting once again. Why should I value your assertions?  That is all you present. I gave you a reasoned argument. Show otherwise from a biblical perspective since we are speaking about the Bible. 

[b] Ah! Your dislike! Coming from no greater authority than you who crafts morality in your own likeness and preference, there is no point in further discussion since you think what you believe is the moral right without justification. You just state it, and that makes it moral to you. 

[c] Rather than infatuated with you, such as I witness with 3BRU7AL. 

[d] I can and have given you reasoned evidence for His existence. Can you give a more reasonable argument against His existence? That is the point of this thread. I can also show you how prophecy is a reasonable proof and from the information available from history a better explanation and reasoning than I believe you or others can present. If you think otherwise, then put your money where your mouth is and show otherwise instead of making assertions. You can open another thread on the topic of prophecy if you like? 

[e] If the biblical God's morality is evil in your opinion - you shall not murder, lie/bear false witness, steal, covet what is not yours, commit adultery, you shall honour your parents, then what is yours? What do you propose? You shall murder, lie/bear false witness, steal, covet things belonging to others, commit adultery, dishonour your parents. Is that your moral standard that you want others to adopt???

Then the question becomes why should I believe you, a relative, limited, subjective being who thinks their moral standard, the one they make up, is the actual good, the actual right.  

[f] Show me your own has what is necessary for morality and is not just a subjective opinion that has nothing to fix morality on that is not shifting and changing. Show me you have a real unchanging best to compare better with. With quantitative values, I can show you the actual standard of best measures and what we compare better with when there is a dispute. How does your qualitative standard have such a comparison? You say you are the standard that better is measured against. Why should I believe that you, a relative, subjective, limited in your thinking being, can provide such a necessary standard, especially when you can't even justify why abortion is right when I believe it is wrong.  You are masquerading as a standard that should be trusted, aren't you? If not, why do you believe what you do? You do not fool me, although you may fool others.  

[g] They are not my own. They are a revelation of another. The biblical God is spoken of as revealing to us (God said...The Lord spoke...). You start somewhere; so do I. I start with God (and not just any god, the biblical God); you start with chance happenstance. Which is more reasonable? You and atheists construct a whole worldview based on chance happenstance, looking strictly within the confines of a natural explanation. You look in the box for the explanation of the box. 

[h] First, you grossly misrepresent the biblical God or what is revealed about such a God. Your own prejudice gets in the way of thinking this through, IMO. The biblical God reveals He rewards the innocent but justly judges the wicked. That is what you read in the pages of the OT. I could cite you many examples but do not wish to document them now. You see that God identifies the wickedness and then brings judgment on it. Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children - those pure of wrong actions. You see how God brings to life in a better place those who are innocent. You witness humanity's inhumanity, and you continually blame a God who you deny. Go figure??? It makes no sense.
Topic's author
#1018
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
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 anything but arbitrary and changing?[81] How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other 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 both being right? How can it?
[81] [a] Most people get it from their [i] genes, [ii] education, [iii] life experience and [iv] the environment. [b] How do Christians get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and fixed?
[a] [i]How do genes transfer morality from one to another? [ii] Education varies around the world and in different cultures as to what is right morally. For Germany, the standard became killing Jews and other undesirable - i.e., those who did not fit Hiler's idea of the Ayran race. Yes, he was definitely a racist. Educational systems are built by those who design and teach them - subjective human beings. For instance, there is an indoctrination in US colleges and universities that oppose conservative values and shout down any opposition to their mantras. In one study, nine out of ten professors were leftist in their thinking. [iii] Life experience is again a subjective experience. [iv] How does the environment make something moral? Are you speaking of peer pressure or the actual physical environment? 

[b] The Christian standard, for starters, is a reasonable standard and a necessary standard. It has what is necessary for morality, a necessary being of whom you are not. Second, Christians come to faith in the biblical God who can make sense of morality. Third, the Bible has reasonable evidence for its claims that are based on a higher being and what He says as being based on history. Fourth, experientially we interact with the biblical God. We pray to Him and see answers to our prayers. We see situations arise in our life that show us God's providence and His protective hand upon us. Fifth, we get answers to life's ultimate questions that other worldviews are incapable of supplying. There are many more reasons, but how are those, for starters? 

How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other posts)?[82]
[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.
I am asking from your worldview standpoint, not mine. Mine is clear. 

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.
Nice dodge!

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.
Your opinion does not equal reality regarding 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.
 Rubbish. Ambiguity is the friend of the atheist. I have answered almost every question asked to the best of my ability. 

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.
Okay, you are dishing out fallacies with ad hom's now! Yours is the subjectivist fallacy. Moral good is true for all people, not just your subjective mind, nor does your subjective mind make it good.
#1019
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.

Where did I respond to this, Skone?

I usually systematically go down the list in order, but I scan ahead and find a post that interests a response once in a while. If that happened, I apologize.
Where? ...I knew I should have provided links to the redundant response...oh wait, I DID! 

Maybe you should read and absorb a post before you respond (and only respond once!)?

#1020
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 144
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
@3RU7AL
This time my laziness would let me read up to post 850.

Reality has limitations and drawbacks. Skeptics build a worldview that intented a useful model for reality. The skeptic's worldview is incomplete due to the sketptics lack of omnicience. The skeptic's worldview also incorpotates the known limitations and drawbacks of reality.

Then comes along PGA2.0. Like skeptics, he derives his worldview from reality, but with the boundary condition that it must have room for God. Hence, an understanding of morality and some other things must be excluded from his worldview. Next he adds God to it to complete his worldview. He also creates a perverted version of skeptics' worldviews.

Then he claims that God is not exclusive to his worldview, but also part of reality. The evidence provided is :
– The Bible says so.
– The perverted version of skeptics' worldviews has many problems.
– God can serve as answer to many mysteries.
– God makes of his worldview a nirvana.


Again, atheism isnot a moral philosophy.
PGA2.0 632
Atheists usea philosophy that discounts God or gods in accounting for morality.[133] Thus, they start with what is, notfrom what ought to be.[134] What ought to be is derived fromconscious being(s), not matter devoid of being(s), and how doconscious beings come about? Excluding God or gods leaves matter.Second, morality has to have a fixed reference point that isobjective or else you have no true value for 'good' and 'right.'[135]Without a fixed reference, it can be any direction, to use the truenorth analogy.
[133] Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalizaton : that some atheists use a philosophy to account for morality, does not imply all atheists do that.
[134] That is a non-sequitur fallacy. Just like you, they can start from an ought.
[135] Bingo. You understood that part. Now you still need to understand that if there is a fixed reference point, there still is no true value for 'good'and 'right'. I doubt you will ever understand that, for you lack what is necessary.

...and the tiredold argument of the 'vast killings due to atheism' (in the name ofatheism?!) is something that may work in dogmatic echo chambers, butnot to any reasoning person. Mao (et al) didn't kill because ofatheism - that would be like killing for a-unicornism.  It is anonsense argument.
PGA2.0 632
Not as tiring asthe Salem witch trials and the crusades which work in your dogmaticecho chambers.
What is done inthe name of Christianity does not necessarily represent the teachingthat is our reference point, but with atheism, it is consistent withits starting point and its subjectivity.
You are mistaken, for atheism doesn't have a starting point, whatever the 'it' is that is supposed to be consistent with it.

[ . . . ] Morality is about the well-being of humans, [ . . . ]
[more from PGA2.0 and SkepticalOne]
PGA2.0 632
Humans think of well-being differently. Which one(s)? Kim Jong-Un thinks ofwell-being from his point of view. [ . . . ]
If Christians disagree on God's moral standard then that is, according to you, not a problem, because there is a true moral standard and everyone who disagrees with it is wrong.
However, if people disagree on the nature of well-being (your Kim Jon-Un examplebeing a poor one), then that is an unsurmountable problem for some reason.

Your argumentation seems to be the following :
PGA2.0 : “Look at all the problems we see in reality. That is the fault of all the people who disagree with me. If everyone would do and believe as I ay, we wouldn't have those problems.”
PGA2.0 :“Well-being ? People can't even agree on what well-being is. Because of that we have all those people choosing their own well-being and people like Kim Jong Un making bad choices.”

Throughout this thread you have complained about the problems of disagreement in reality, suggesting that be sufficient reason to abandon it for your worldview.
You should try hiding your bigotry better.

PGA2.0 632 to SkepticalOne
Again, you areevasive on purpose because you can't point to a universal definitionof well-being unless you first start with what is necessary - God.
The beauty of well-being is that a precise definition is not required. All required is it's existence. Your god must also exist, but he is well-defined enough that his existence is doubtful.

The approach of utilitarianist is to choose in reality that what is the most suitable as a foundation for morality, which has one problem :
1) Not everyone agrees on what is most suitable.
The approach of Christians is to choose their wet dream as the foundation for morality, which has two problems :
1) Not everyone has the same wet dream.
2) Their wet dream may not exist.

Given that we area social species, our survival is typically linked to others...
PGA2.0 632
So what? We see others manipulating us to get their way. We manipulate others to get our way. If it comes to them or us, it is usually us. Selfishness wins out unless you adopt a biblical philosophy or serving others and thinking of their well-being before your own and sacrificing for their good.
1) Are you promoting well-being of others now ? I have read somewhere we should reject it because everyone considers it from a different perspective.
2) You assume selfishness is bad, which you cannot demonstrate.
3) You are mistaken, for there are several moral philosophies that, if followed by everyone, would prevent selfishness from winning out.

FLRW 571
Can see how mass murderers get their morality from God.
PGA2.0 632
Mass murderers show a lack of morality. God has just reason to take life. He takes the life of the wicked in judgment. If He takes an innocent life, He will restore it to a better place - in His presence. Since God is the Creator, He has the right to take life.
That is your claim and thus your burden to prove. Go ahead. You have waited long enough to prove one of your claims.

FLRW 571
However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite …. (Deut. 20:16-18)
PGA2.0 632
Why did God issue this commandment? It was because these people were 1)evil/wicked,[136] 2) they would destroy Israel or cause her to be unfaithful to what is good (which they did), 3) destroy God's plans for the good of humanity by destroying the Messianic lineage and making His word null and void. Thus, God would be at the mercy of His creatures rather than the other way around.[137] Those who are not wise or omniscient would thus dictate to the One who is.
[136] Can you prove these people were evil/wicked ?
[137] How is that supposed to follow ?
You are justifying God with his own personal morality, based on a biased account of the victors. To me, and to most of those not infatuated with God, that behaviour is immoral. Someone like that does not deserve worship, but permanent death.

3RU7AL 552
You have an OPINION that "the bible" is "objective".
PGA2.0 589
I have what is necessary for objectivity. [ . . . ]
3RU7AL 591
You are a human who suffers from sample bias.
PGA2.0 640
There is no neutrality. You are not neutral either. You suffer from the sample bias from a different standpoint.
3RU7Al is not pretending to be unbiased. You are.

3RU7AL 591
Therefore you are not "objective".
PGA2.0 640
What you are saying is that I can't be objective when it comes to morality but that is not a sound conclusion. If I appeal to an objective truth Ican. If I correctly interpret such a truth I can. If I have what is necessary for objectivity I can.
You have so far been unable to demonstrate that your moral standard is an abjective truth.

3RU7AL 591
I am not"objective" and I've never claimed to be "objective".
PGA2.0 640
Then you areunable to say for certain that anything is wrong, including a persontorturing innocent children for fun.
You are mistaken. Just like you, he can say it, but unlike you, he does not pretend to have ultimate, universal, absolute authority.

Do you think it is right to murder, to take an innocent life out of malice intentionally?
3RU7AL 592
Of course not.
But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come tot hat conclusion.
PGA2.0 641
But you do. You appeal to your authority as if that is enough or it is of great meaning and value, without more justification.
No, he does not. Appealing to authority is one claims something true because some authority (rarely oneself) claims it. However, he sees moral claims as opinions or subjective truths.

3RU7AL 645 to Marko
It is FUNDAMENTALto let people SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
When someone starts trying to tell me "what I really think" I try to remind them that they CAN'T speak for me (this should be obvious).
Defining your opponent's position is the very definition of a STRAWMAN.
PGA2.0 knows his worldview is inferior the one of most skeptics. So he prefers to pervert their worldviews.

PGA2.0 647
Actually, I'masking atheists to explain morality and give justification for it. I claim the Christian system has what is necessary for morality and that you do not. Show me otherwise.
Morality requires no more justification than friendship, coziness or balance. It is something observed and labeled.

PGA2.0 647 to 3RU7AL
I am pointing out that your system of thought cannot make sense of itself when you start to examine it, removing the nuts and bolts to see what makes it tick. The Christian system can justify itself. It has what isnecessary for truth regarding origins, morality, existence, truth, knowledge, etc.
No, it does not.

 3RU7AL 600
How do you personally determine and how do you personally verify "thatwhich is the actual case"?
PGA2.0 647
First, I look at what is necessary for objectively knowing what is morally right. Then I see how well the Christian system of thought answers this question, comparing it to others. I consider the system of checks and balances the Bible gives and I believe it is logical and adequate.
Again : the reference standard is missing.
Assuming you are correct, to warrant the conclusion that Chritianity is probabably true, you make the tacit assumption that that what is necessary for objectively knowing what is morally right, actually exists. How do you justify that assumption ?