Amoranemix

TheMelioist 16 to RoderickSpode

can to be more accurate, I get my beliefs from the  scientific evidence not the scientific consensus. In  science, we don't settle debates based on who has the longer list of scientists, but rather what the evidence says

Amoranemix 866

[a] I don't know what a system of belief is, but I shall try to answer the question : “How do preferences make something good ?” [b] The question assumes that there are preferences that do make something good. I will start from that assumption.

[c] One should ask those with those preferences that claim something is good because of them. [d] Whatever explanation they come up with, according to you, it will be because they like it. [e] Thus, if you are correct, liking something makes it good. Hence, according to you, if preferences make something good, it would be by being liked.

PGA2.0 984

[a] What do you mean by the underlined?

[ . . . ]

[c] Okay, what is your explanation for how good is determined? I believe you have already explained it but I will give you a chance to explain it again.

[d] That has been the case to date. They like it as the means of determining the good. They think it answers the question. The problem is that different people have opposite opinions on the good. Throughout the world, people have different ideas of the good for the same issue. I ask you, can they all be right? Please answer that.[415]

[ . . . ]

People have different likes. As I pointed out in another post, the  Marquis de Sade liked torturing little children. Therefore based on your definition of morality, that would be "good for him."[416] You said as much with Hitler. Thus, you have identified yourself as a moral relativist and based good for Hitler on his preferences. On the other hand, I believe that what Hitler called good or right was a fixed objective evil and wrong, coming from a necessary objective standard to determine this. [417]

3RU7AL 956

Oh boy.

Is that what you're hung up on?

The teleological fallacy?

PGA2.0 987

You are saying that is a false statement. Explain why. The reasoning behind such a statement (underlined) is self-evident. Reason requires mindful being.[418] If the universe is without a mind behind it, there is no reason for the universe. Why is that fallacious???

SkepticalOne 874

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"

PGA2.0 991

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) [ . . . ] 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).

PGA2.0 169 to 3RU7AL

The primary axioms are the Ten Commandments.

Amoranemix 866

a) What if someone dislikes some commandments ? For example, suppose I want to worship a different god. I would not consider anyone doing so immoral.

b) That set of primary axioms seems incomplete. No prohibition against torture of animals seems to follow from them. What if people go about torturing animals for fun ? According to that set of primary axioms it would be morally neutral. I on the other hand find it immoral and think it should be prohibited.

These problems do not exist with my personal moral standard. Hence, I have two good reasons to use mine in stead of God's.

That is generally true : people who are not infatuated with a particular deity, have no good reason to adopt that deity's morality.

PGA2.0

[no response]

Amoranemix 875

@PGA2.0 :

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

PGA2.0 992

In reference to what? Give examples.[420] 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.[421]

Whenever I defend my own standards, I refer to the Christian God and no other god.[422] 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.

Soluminsanis  9 to drafterman

A contingent being is one whose explanation for its existence is found in an outside or prior entity. You and I are contigent beings,   our explanation for existence is found in a prior being or state of affairs.

A necessary being however, is a being whose existence is not explained by a prior or outside reality, but one whose existence is explained in its own nature. It exists because it is existence. Not because it was actualized by a prior cause.

Soluminsanis 40 to FLRW

I think you're employing an unnecessary amount of agnosticism in regards to each premise.

If we're talking about metaphysical possibility as opposed to epistemic possibility, then all that would be required for any concept to go through is it being logical coherent. Probability doesn't necessarily play a role.

Soluminsanis 42 to 3RU7AL

So let's think about possible worlds and the idea of a maximally great chair.   

In order for an mgc to exist in all possible worlds,   several things would need to be true. 

The chair itself would have to exemplify maximal greatness. 

The chair would have to exist across all possible worlds. 

This simply isn't possible though. 

We can imagine several possible worlds where the space time continuum either doesn't exist or is dramatically different.   If there exists a possible world where no space exists,   then we cannot have a mgc in that world because there is no space for the matter of the chair to be extended into.

PGA2.0 157 to 3RU7AL

[ . . . ] Although this thread was not created to debate this but rather which worldview better explains and is justified in answering the question of morality, you have not addressed the question. Here it is again:

Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Amoranemix 866

[a] I suppose that atheism can be worldview if it is considered to be the collection of all worldviews that do not incorporate a deity. [b] However, many will have different explanations for morality. I think a better question would be whether nature can account for morality and [c] whether adding one or more deities to nature would sufficiently improve one's ability with the worldview to account for morality to warrant the cost of doing so.

[d] Nature alone can generate morality through evolution by natural selection. [e] In social animals, morality is advantageous. [f] For humans we more or less expect what we see : varying degrees and kinds of rightness and wickedness, more favouring group-thinking [g] (loyalty is good, treason bad) and of course people contradicting each other. [h] I am not clear on what extra mystery a deity would explain, nor how, especially the Christian one.

PGA2.0 977

[a] Atheists usually seek to explain everything through natural means.

[b] That is dealt with in the is/ought problem and the chance happenstance problem.

[c] Atheism is the denial of God or gods. You are speaking of deism or polytheism as a worldview.

[d] Can it, though? That is a big assumption on your part that needs proof and reason. Go ahead!

[e] Advantageous in what way? For the animal or pack that might starve, it is eat to survive, to hell with the others. The advantage of hunting with others is mitigated by the principle of the strongest individuals survive. 

[f] Kinds of righteousness? Who determines that, and why are they right? Which contrary person? Can two opposing values both be right? That defies common sense and logic. Right loses its identity. Right can mean two opposite things depending on who holds the view. 

[g] Again, loyalty and trust is a biblical principle. 

[h] It explains the best by comparison. There is a permanent, absolute, unchanging moral value for right.

Amoranemix 866

How would one measure the quality beauty ? What is the ultimate, fixed reference for beauty ?[*]

If two tribes have conflicting or opposite views on beauty, then which tribe has the true view ?

PGA2.0 978

[*] Are you speaking of a physical trait or an inner quality? I will address the inner quality.[395]

[ . . . ]

Again, it is not a moral issue, and what aspect are you speaking of?[396] For humans, physical beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder.[397] For inner qualities, sometimes evil qualities can appeal to us as beautiful, for we mar what is beautiful and good. That is when the value can turn into a moral issue, IMO.

Amoranemix 866

[49] These are indirect claims by ancient people. Relying on them to support the existence of Yahweh would constitute an appeal to authority fallacy.

[50] Those verifications only verify part of those writings. That some of it is confirmed, does prove all of it.

PGA2.0 978

It is reasonable/evidential to believe they are direct claims by eyewitnesses as to what they claimed happened concerning Jesus Christ - Yeshua the Messiah, the Anointed One. These eyewitness accounts have been seen as valid by our legal standards in the evidence they presented.[398] They also speak extensively about the OT Mosaic law and its verifiable fulfillment as existing and disappearing in AD 70, which brings in the prophetic argument as additional proof.[399]

You are guilty of an either/or fallacy/false dilemma.[400] You exclude that these claims can be true because you believe these ancient people cannot tell the truth or are not authorities in the matters they speak of and appeal to.[401] You are working on the assertion that ancient accounts of any kind that are indirect are false instead of looking at each work's merits.[402] There is good evidence that these people were eyewitnesses. You could give such a negative argument for any ancient work based on indirect evidence, but the quality of this work does not suggest it is false.[403] These disciples actually believe that this man - Jesus - existed and that they communed with Him. Their unified collected accounts include many verifiable facts from that time period - people, places, events.[404] There are also various accounts, both biblical and otherwise, that verify these authors went to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, as well as believing He was God incarnate.[405]

You are offering only the one possibility for indirect ancient claims; there is no authority to such claims, and that these people were not experts in what they spoke of.

An appeal to authority is perfectly valid. An appeal to an inappropriate authority is not. An appeal to an inappropriate authority assumes justification when there is none there, perhaps because the authority is not one in this specific area, or there is no justification the "authority" is actually one.[406]

[50] While this is true, it gives evidence that at least some aspects are trustworthy.[407] When you combined this evidence with other reasoning, God becomes the most reasonable explanation[408], such as what we are doing here in discussing the moral argument from two different philosophical positions. The Bible speaks of three lines of evidence for the existence of God, 1) the creation/universe,[409a] 2) His Word, the Bible/His Son (the living Word), and [409b] 3) His Spirit who speaks to the believers' spirit.[410] I have tried to get you to engage in the first, the created order, by speaking of morality. The validity of the Bible is a different topic and so is the experiential evidence.

PGA2.0 166 to 3RU7AL

Sure it does. Members of such beliefs speak about origins all the time.

Amoranemix 866

What kind of fallacy is that, claiming that when many people who share a (lack of) belief make claims, the (lack of) belief also makes those claims ?

Atheism at best excludes some explanations for the origin of life.

PGA2.0 984

Atheism substitutes belief in God for belief in naturalism.[411] I usually identify four to six areas of thinking that incorporate a religious worldview, and atheists believe in all those areas. Those areas of belief include answering such questions as 1) What am I, 2) Who am I, 3) Why am I here, 4) What difference does it make, 5) How do I know, 6) What happens to me when I die? So they show that they have beliefs that are contrary to the Christian beliefs and contrary to God or gods.[412] Others identify and broaden the scope of a worldview to include more topics, such as the link that provides twelve.

I seldom deal with an atheist who does not include what they believe about origins when asked.[413]

Here is a quote from the American Humanist Organization,

"We atheists and humanists are on the common ground of nature. We are naturalists in that we share the idea that only natural (as opposed to supernatural) laws and forces operatein the world."[414]

SkepticalOne 870

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?

PGA2.0 969

I don't think so. Chess is only subjective because of our limited knowledge and ability to think through the best combinations, starting from the first moves through to the last.[384] [ . . . ]

I am saying (comparing apples to oranges) that you are making the categorical error in comparing Chess to morality. Best in Chess is not the same as best regarding morality. I can verify best in chess through the senses/empirically. It could be demonstrated in some situations because the best would lead to an opponent's loss if they did not respond in kind.[385] How do you verify something abstract like the good?[386] One is a qualitative value (morality), the other a quantitative value (a Chess move).[387a] One can be demonstrated through the senses; the other cannot.[387b]

PGA2.0  101 to secularmerlin 26

There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God. Thus, I have what is necessary for I realize that in and of myself I am not necessary in determining the moral good.

Amoranemix 866

What would prevent people from picking a different fixed, final moral standard, or people picking a changing, subjective moral standard, or people picking your god's moral standard, but changing their mind or disagreeing on what it entails ?

PGA2.0 971

Can you demonstrate there is more than one absolute, objective, universal, fixed, eternal standard? If so, let's examine it to see if it has what is necessary and is logically and experiential consistent.

If it is a human standard, let's see how it passes the subjectivity test.

secularmerlin 26

Thought experiment time!

If your preferred god came to you in a dream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the "moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow this beings horrible commands?

PGA2.0  101

Why do you think God would do such a thing?

Amoranemix 866

Nice dodge.

PGA2.0 971

Sometimes I need to inquire to find out where a person is coming from. Is he referencing the biblical example of Abraham, or is he referring to another example?  If the Abrahamic example, I have a particular response. If some other example, I have another response.

Amoranemix 866

[a] Where do God's moral values come from ? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right ?

[b] From what is, how does your god get to what ought to be ?

PGA2.0 972

[a] They are His nature. He is all-knowing and always does what is good, right, and just.

[b] You misunderstand the is and ought. The natural realm is what is.[388] God is not of this physical realm. He created it. God is a transcendent Spirit, a mindful Being.[389] Morality requires a mind.[390] [ . . . ]

Amoranemix 866

You want that communication to fail to promote confusion (the Christian's friend).

PGA2.0 972

What are you talking about, and how does it relate to our discussion. I consider this yet another Ad hominem. Are you suggesting my motive is impure or that I cannot communicate what I mean instead of responding to my point about what is necessary for communication to occur?

Amoranemix 866

He [3RU7AL] probably started with his parents in a bedroom. What relevance does that have to morality ?

PGA2.0 977

I'm not asking for the immediate cause but the root cause. That is what I have asked all along. The relevance is that either morality arises from non-living matter or a necessary Being(s). [ . . . ]

Amoranemix 866

What evidence can you present that the rejection of group responsibility and inheritance responsibility, as promoted by the Old Testament, causes injustice ?

PGA2.0 977

[red herring]

Amoranemix 866

Apparrently I was mistaken in believing I was an agnostic atheist.

PGA2.0 977

Good for you! What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? They both ignore the biblical God and look for subjective reasoning for morality. What do you explain in/about life by appealing to the biblical God? Nothing intentionally, right? Instead, you deny Him His existence. You treat Him as if He does not exist. In that sense, how do you differ from a full-fledged "strong" atheist?

PGA2.0  144 to 3RU7AL

Again, atheists usually incorporate naturalism in their belief system, if they have done any serious reflection on origins.

If you do not ascribe to God or gods, what is left?[47] It would be a system of belief that looks to nature or matter for the answers in origins. Without personal being there would be no intent, no meaning, no value, no purpose.[48] If you want to space our existence that one step further back you could pose aliens, but if they too are not eternal or almighy then there must be another cause beyond them.[49] Or you could pos the ridiculous and unbelievable that everything comes from nothing.

Amoranemix 866

[47] How about nature ? [a] Most of the people I thought were atheists believe in nature.

[48] There are plenty of personal beings.

[49] Maybe so, but Christianity would still be false.

PGA2.0 976

[47] Precisely! Is that their god, their creator, what they attribute their origin too?[391] Now, the question is, how reasonable is this?[392] No intent, no purpose, no meaning, just indifferent chance happenstance.

[a] True, what else would they believe in if they deny God or gods [i.e., personal intentional being(s)]?[393]

[48] Are they necessary beings? And atheists deny the existence of God or gods as plausible or real. That would leave them with a purely naturalistic explanation, correct?[394]

[49] Why?

Theweakeredge 853

Wrong, while it is true that I wasn't there we have evidence for several mass extinction events, 5 to be precise.

PGA2.0

All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0  937 to Theweakeredge

Fairy-tale scenario: "Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, the universe exploded into being (from nothing)!"

PGA2.0  937

[a] The purpose of the Bible is not to display scientific knowledge but a knowledge of why we, as humans exist (God chose to create us for a purpose [ . . . ]

Theweakeredge 853

[ . . . ] Therefore its existence causes reasonable doubt.

PGA2.0  937

Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. [ . . . ]

ludofl3x 858

I agree, we're talking past each other , and I don't have the time to sort through your repetitive screeds. I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god..

PGA2.0 946

My "repetitive screeds" are an attempt to obtain accountability from the atheistic worldview.[370] IMO, you guys pick and choose what you will answer and refuse to look at your starting presuppositions and why they make no sense.[371] In a meaningless universe where you are a biological bag of atoms and derive your morality from genetic and environmental factors, why is it wrong to torture or kill innocent human beings?[372] How does the atheistic worldview account for objective moral values?[373] You borrow from the Christian worldview in thinking it is wrong. Thus, I continually point out how inconsistent the atheist is in their thinking.[374] Many atheists on this forum admit that morality is a relative preference. They admit that it was good to murder the undesirables of the German society for Hitler, as he understood the good.[375] So Amoranemix sees this as an actual good for Hitler.[376]

PGA2.0  937 to ludofl3x

[ . . . ]

Amoranemix can not identify something really wrong because he has no absolute, objective standard to identify the good.[377] Thus he is willing to concede that people make up good according to their preferences.[378] For him, what Hitler did was evil, but for Hitler, it was good (moral relativism). It is all based on preference. You see, he can't say that what Hitler did was wrong for Hitler.[379] He does not recognize it as wrong for Hitler. He does not recognize an absolute, objective standard, so for some, torturing little children for fun would be good, such as for theMarquis de Sade.

PGA2.0  937 to ludofl3x

ME: "In Hitler's Germany, the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33]"

AMORANEMIX: "[33] According to you perhaps and according to me, but not according to the Nazis."

Amoranemix does not see this as wrong for those who choose to see it that way.[380] He cannot recognize an absolute, universal wrong. It is absurd, and yet he is consistent with the atheist worldview.[381] Morality is whatever you make it with such a worldview because there is no absolute standard. The atheist is usually inconsistent with his/her belief when they say, "I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god."[382] So you will, but what about those other relativists who think differently?[383a] Unless you have an absolute standard, all you are doing is expressing your personal opinion. Can you say it is absolutely, universally, objectively wrong? If you can, then what is your absolute, objective, unchanging, universal standard in doing so?[383b] Let's see how consistent you are with atheism (a universe in which our lives are ultimately meaningless).

Theweakeredge 859

Chance is [b] not an agent or something that causes things, but a noun to refer to [c] an event does not have an intention or cause. It can also be an adjective to describe something that has happened in what may seem unfavorable circumstances. [a] This seems like either semantics or you being dishonest.

PGA2.0  947

[a] I'm not dishonest, just working with your definition. So, it is your semantics.

[b] You admit it has no intent or agency to do anything. So nothing happened. That is what you are saying.

[c] If there is no cause, nothing happened. You are speaking of something from nothing (no cause) since the universe began to exist, or are you thinking it is eternal? It began to exist from nothing, for there was no cause for it. Do you understand the senselessness of that? This once again shows the inconsistency of your thinking.

PGA2.0  950 to Theweakeredge

[Genesis about God saying things and them being so]

Very simple. God said, and it was so.

PGA2.0  950 to Theweakeredge

The cause of the universe cannot be itself. That would mean it would have to exist before it existed, a self-refuting argument. I.e., It would have to exist before it could create itself.

PGA2.0  955 to Theweakeredge

[d] There is reasonable evidence, some of which we discuss in the thread - morality and what that means from an atheist and Christian perspective. The atheist cannot account for morality. All they can account for is preference.

PGA2.0 930 to Amoranemix 844

[a] Again, you make an assertion. Justify it.

[b] They are not moral without a fixed reference point (I reiterate, again and again).[358] They are preferences. What makes a preference right or wrong morally?[359] preference is a subjective feeling. It may also be felt and favoured by a group (the likes and dislikes).

[c] Again, an assertion that has not been justified.[360] Quit your fluff and give some substance or at least an argument rather than a statement. Why should I believe what you say? No reason so far. Who are you to preach to me about what is necessary without justifying your stance as logical or reasonable?[361]

Amoranemix 844

Does your god really know all things, or merely all true, knowable things ?

PGA2.0 930

I don't understand the question.[361] You can't know something unless it is true. Knowledge conforms to truth. If you have a false belief, it is not knowledge. God is the truth.[362] He knows all things[363], and concerning His creature - the human -   knows all things that they think and whether those things are true or not. He knows when you think untrue things. He does not think untruths. Not only this, He is responsible for all things and because of Him, they are sustainable and hold together. Thus, there is nothing about everything He has made or about Himself that He does not know.

PGA2.0  99 to 3RU7AL

Second, we need a fixed standard, a final reference point. God meets that requirement, we do not for He is unchanging and eternal.

Amoranemix 844

For what do we need a fixed standard ?[*]

God could only meet that requirement if he exists, something so far no one has been able to prove.[**]

PGA2.0 931

[*]We need a fixed objective standard that is unchanging, or else we contravene the laws of logic and can't make sense of morality, the moral good. It can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief, which means whose belief is true to what is?

[**] There are many proofs for God's existence[363], and regarding morality, one of them is a necessary being to make sense of the moral good[364]. Another is how do you make sense of morality if it is always in flux? How can something that is shifting and has no fixed address be better than something else. How do you compare 'good' to something that shifts?   'Better' concerning what? What is the best? You don't have one. Thus, how do you compare the good? It just shifted.

PGA2.0  99 to 3RU7AL

Third, God is good, which means that to read about Him and understand Him is to see (mirrored) and understand what goodness is.[42] It just is who He is and He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness and what is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evil is doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the evil we do in our moral relativism.[43] With human beings, we witness this moral relativism all around us.[44] One society believes one thing is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough and you will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as I pointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that it does not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings are dehumanized, demonized, discriminated about, and diminished to the point of death.[45]

Amoranemix 844

[42] [a] That is so sweet. You again [b] forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend). [c] Adolf Hitler was also good according to himself. [d] And we can also read about AH's goodness.

[43] Thus far your fairy tale.

[44] Aha. That is what we see in the real world. It doesn't look compatible with the former.

[45] The real world does have its problems, indeed.

PGA2.0 933

[ . . . ]

[c] So what?[365] Why does that make him good, morally speaking?[366] Please explain why you believe he is good. Go ahead. I already challenged you to do this.[367] Many fools think what they propose is good, like Hitler, but it misses the actual mark.

[d] Yes, by other human beings who do not claim inspiration from the objective standard of truth, and most of them do not believe Hitler was good in what he did to a massive number of the German population. In fact, most of them are morally outraged by Hitler's evil.[368] They correctly understand that what he did was not good at all, and you say it was good because Hitler thought so does not make it so.[369]

[43] Another claim without justification. You think just asserting something makes it so. Provide your proof so that I can get into a critique of it if you dare.

[44] Yes, we do witness it. The former being a true and fixed objective standard.[A] Your argument does not necessarily follow.[B] It can also follow that without God moral relativism is all we would expect to witness[C], and that is what we witness when human beings diverge from the path of righteousness - God Himself and His revelation. That is the alternative you deny.[D] Denying something does not necessarily make it so. So, make more than just another assertion. Back up your claims.[E]

3RU7AL 846

The "YHWH" seems to have some strange "moral preferences".

Specifically when it comes to slaughtering the children of "non-believers" and keeping foreigners and their children and their grandchildren in "perpetual servitude".

PGA2.0 934

1) God was judging evil and bringing evil people to account. That is reiterated over and over again in the Bible.

2) If God takes an innocent life (allows evil people to take the life of an innocent child, for instance) because of the sins of others and their barbarity, that life will be restored to a better place, a place free of moral corruption and evil.

Amoranemix 844

However intelligent or wise that AI may be, it will never be able to deduce an ought from it's knowledge of the real world. Some fundamental oughts, i.e. goals have to be programmed into it.

Goals are chosen. You prefer God's goals. Nazis prefer AH's goals. I prefer Mohandas Ghandi's goals.

PGA2.0  922

Goals are chosen based on what - preference?[343] What makes conflicting preferences good?[344] Funnily enough, many of Gandhi's 'preferences' were biblical, such as turning the other cheek, love for your neighbour. But that is beside the point.

1) What makes Gandhi's preferences good if all we are is biological bags of atoms?[345]

2) Why is Gandhi the necessary standard, and what happened before and after him?[346]

Amoranemix 844

So you start from God's oughts, which he allegedly revealed. So you can't deduce what ought solely from what is either.

PGA2.0  922

You start from your position of the highest authority, or else why would you believe it?[347] That, for you, appears to be Gandhi. Is that position the necessary position, and if so, why?[348]

An ought can only come from a personal, intelligent, mindful being. You can't demonstrate it comes from something devoid of these qualities. Nature just is. As for beings, if everything is relative, subjective shifting preference, what makes that 'good?'[349] How do you get an ought from a shifting standard?[350] You don't. You get a preference enforced by might as in Hitler's Germany.

Ludofl3x 924 to PGA2.0

Your consistent ability to misunderstand basic logical concepts is pretty scary, man. Listen, if a person calls your cell phone and tells you you're a lottery prize winner if you send them a one time payment, PLEASE don't believe them. I'm really worried about your level of gullibility.

3RU7AL

What "IS" the case?

PGA2.0  95

God's revelation of Himself and what is good. God is the necessary standard for the reason that such a being has what is necessary - omniscient, eternal, unchanging.[39]

Amoranemix 844

AH's revelation and what is good is also the case.[*]

God is a standard in only in the sense that he is used (chosen) as a standard by his followers.[**]

[39] Necessary for what ? And why would omniscient, eternal and unchanging be necessary for that ?[***]

There is one more thing that think is also necessary to be or provide a good moral standard : existence. AH scores badly in that department, but his existence in the past may suffice.[****]

PGA2.0 925

[*] No, it is not. There is nothing good about Hitler murdering countless millions. He was evil, not good, and you do not know the difference, which points to your standard of judgment as being morally deficient. As I said before, you can espouse such beliefs, but you can't live by them. They do not meet the experiential test, which you ignore, nor meet the logically consistent test. If you were a Jew in Hitler's Germany, you would more than likely be dead, making Hitler's beliefs unlivable for vast numbers of people.[*] Logically, good must have a fixed best as an appeal, or it becomes meaningless.

[**] I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.[351] The biblical God meets what is necessary for morality.[352] Please show me that a subjective human being does.[353a] Go ahead. Quit your bluff and fluff and show some substance to your position. So far, it is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

[39] That was answered.[353b] You keep asking these irrelevant questions because you do not read the post. The thread's subject is morality and which position, the atheist's or the Christian's, makes sense of and is necessary for morality.

[***] Because to determine 'good,' you need a fixed best for comparison, a fixed standard, not something that is constantly changing depending on the whims and opinions of limited mindful beings.[354] Knowing all things means you can determine what is good and evil in all circumstances. By nature, God is good. By nature, we are not.[355] Starting in Eden, our relativism makes our morality a shifting standard that can mean the opposite depending on who holds the view. Our minds are limited in what they can perceive. God, as omniscient, is not. He can perceive all things.

[ . . . ]

[****] I'm not sure what you mean again. Should that be, "There is one more thing that I think...?[']

I have already stated that, over and over. Not only existence but conscious of existing. What you seem to be insinuating is that God does not exist. Prove it. You can't, being limited in knowledge.[356]

As I have argued over and over, not only in this thread but every other I have engaged in; God is reasonable to believe in, more reasonable than atheism.[357]

3RU7AL

How do you leap from what "IS" to what "OUGHT" to be?

PGA2.0  95

I base it on God's prescriptive decrees and commands - an authority and necessary being who knows everything and reveals what should be. Thou shalt not kill (murder). Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not lie. Love your neighbour as yourself, etc.

Amoranemix 844

You forgot to answer his question.

PGA2.0 925

A being is necessary for ought, and a necessary being for fixing that ought as a moral right. Or wrong. You are not that being. Why should I believe what you are selling? It does not exist.

PGA2.0  99

God (as revealed in the Bible), as the necessary Being, is required for morals. That is reasonable to believe.[40] I keep explaining why. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal. That is what is necessary.[41]

[Amoranemix and PGA2.0 about [40]]

Amoranemix 844

[41] You are joking, right ? [a] Morality is possible without any of that. They may be [b] terrible moralities (the sort of moralities we see in the real world), but [c] no god is necessary for them.

PGA2.0 930

Wrong. I am serious. I do not joke about such serious matters. What you are doing is making a fallacious appeal to emotion (pity) and appeal to ridicule. There is an underlying insinuation here. You are attempting to bypass justifying why these attributes are unnecessary. Your appeal to pity is a way of making my argument appear irrelevant to the point made (i.e., what a schmuck to believe such things - "You have got to be joking, right? If not, I feel sorry that you could believe such things. Poor you. You are so naive."). You are trying to make it seem that any point of view that opposes yours is false. You are trying to get others to trust your evaluation by making my argument seem like a joke without giving ANY justification for doing so. Your appeal to ridicule is to lampoon my view and alienate it from the audience without providing why your statement is relevant to what is necessary.

[a] Again, you make an assertion. Justify it.

[b] They are not moral without a fixed reference point (I reiterate, again and again).[358] They are preferences. What makes a preference right or wrong morally?[359] preference is a subjective feeling. It may also be felt and favoured by a group (the likes and dislikes).

[c] Again, an assertion that has not been justified.[360] Quit your fluff and give some substance or at least an argument rather than a statement. Why should I believe what you say? No reason so far. Who are you to preach to me about what is necessary without justifying your stance as logical or reasonable?[361]

You are playing the victim. Your beliefs are not only ridiculous, they are also false. That morality exists is evident for everyone to see. Hence, if your god is required for that, then it is up to you to demonstrate that i.s.o. repeating it at nauseum. If I were to claim the Flying Spaghetti Monsters is necessary for morality, it would not be your burden to disprove it, but mine to prove it. Stop avoiding to honour your burden of proof.

PGA2.0 909

[Paragraph 2]

[Paragraph 3]

What we run into is the NaturalisticFallacy, defining morality in terms of natural properties.[323] Natural properties are tangible properties. You can't grab hold of goodness. It has no tangible qualities. It is an abstract concept. A value has to have a valuer. Nature, in itself, has no valuer. That valuer has to be the ideal or else we have nothing fixed to measure values against. Without the ideal, the best, values are turned on their head and become illogical.[324]

PGA2.0  85 to 3RU7AL

But beyond that distinction, only moral beings can make ought statements, but how did we first cross the divide to get an ought from an is, that is matter, the physical universe, in the case of naturalism or atheism, where a personal being is excluding as the beginning link of the chain?[39] Somehow we got from an is to an ought through naturalistic means according to naturalism, devoid of God/gods.

Amoranemix 844

[39] Indeed we did. See [10] in post 798.

How did we get from an is to an ought according to you ?[*]

PGA2.0 909

[39] What I believe Hume was saying is that we cannot derive the moral from the amoral.

[*] Ought derives from a necessary mindful being - God.[325]

We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened.[326] Very simply, God spoke, and it was so. He said, let there be light, and there was light. He said, 'Let Us make humanity in our image and likeness,' and it happened according to His will, His agency, His intent.[327]

PGA2.0  85 to 3RU7AL

The biblical God is described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God. Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know what is good and we have the best to compare values against, provided He exists.[40] Without Him or such an omniscient, unchanging, eternal, omnipotent God what is your fixed standard? Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since you claim to be a deist, describe why your god out does my God in reasonableness.

Amoranemix 844

[40] You again forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the Christian's enemy). [a]Assuming you implicitely meant God's moral standard, then [b] so what ? [c] Adolf Hitler (AH) was neccesary for us to know what is good according to AH and [d] we have what is best according to AH to compare values against. [e] Without AH, what is your perishable standard? [f] Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since you are a theist, describe why your God outdoes AH.

PGA2.0  913

[complaints that do not appear addressed at me]

[Reminder of thread topic]

Defend your belief.[328]

[a] The Christian God is the only God I believe in, and the only one I defend. I have stated that to you and others before.

[b] So what, you say?

You forget so soon - "The biblical God is described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God. Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know what is good..."

[c] Hitler's view is subjective and relative and does not have what is necessary for us to know the good.[329] It begs why his opinion is any better than anyone else's.[330] Since you make the charge, how do you think it was good?[331] It is nothing more than preference unless he can provide a universal, unchanging reference point.[332] Did he demonstrate that regarding the Jews, Gypsies, gays, the disabled, political opposition and his handling of them?[333] Are you saying what Hitler did was good?[334] Are you saying that the dehumanizing, discriminating, and torturing done against these groups by putting them to death in mass was good? Is that your point? Can you justify it?

You seem to think that just because someone can state something as 'good' makes it so for that person.[335] [ . . . ]

[d] According to him? How is Hitler's opinion about good best? Why does he become the best standard?[336] Show me his opinion was the one we should all follow because it is necessary.[337]

[e] It is not perishable, providing this God exists, and it is reasonable to believe He exists. The biblical standard, the Ten Commandments, has what is necessary and is sensible to believe.[338] The commands that apply to human beings (e.g., murder, stealing, lying, coveting, adultery, honouring parents) are found in most cultures of this world. The ones that neglect them are unlivable, such as Nazi Germany.[339]

[f] Are you justifying Hitler's standard as good?[340] If so, show me how it is good. I gave you what was necessary for anything other than mere opinion - 1) a revealed Being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, 2) is the fixed standard that is best that no better can be used in the comparison. Hilter is a relative being whose standards changed during his limited life. He was not necessary for morality since people before and after him have different views on what is good that contradict his views.[341] That begs why he was right in his assessment. Show me he was, that what he did SHOULD be done by everyone because it is morally good to torture, kill, and dehumanize those groups that he did not like or value. Are you willing to have a formal debate on Hitler's standard as being the ultimate standard, you defending that position, or are you making a point you cannot defend adequately?[342]

PGA2.0 906

Which is the correct standard? In Country A, the person will lose their life by having one. In Country B, the person takes the life of an innocent human being with no consequences. Are you saying it is okay for them to do either or both?[292] You see, abortion has lost its moral identity.[293] It can mean two opposite things, thus how can they both be right?[294] Once the line is blurred on right and wrong, anything can pass. The question is, can you live consistently in such a world?[295]

Not only that but within a particular society, say Country A, subgroups and individuals are holding contrary views to the "law of the land." Why are they wrong if a preference is the order of the day?[296] No, you say. Then how can they be punished if they believe the opposite?[297] (Goodbye justice)

Is the majority always in the right?[298]

Is it the minority who holds power? Are they right?[299] If so, then how could anyone outside Nazi Germany condemn what the Nazis did?[300] It would be good to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political opposition in Nazi Germany. How can you say otherwise?[301] To each (preference) his/her own

PGA2.0  80

Yes, that is chattel slavery, IMO. I believe that is morally wrong and I determine this based on what I consider a necessary or self-evident truth by pointing to a necessary being revealing it.

Amoranemix 844

Most of us disapprove of chattel slavery. A popular reason is religion, another is valuing human freedom.

PGA2.0 906

Are you saying that chattel slavery is objectively wrong, or is this just your own subjective moral preference?[302] If someone likes to have chattel slaves, then to them, is it right?[303]

Is being free your moral preference?[304] What about those who think otherwise of you, that you should not be free?[305] Are they objectively wrong, or is this too just their moral preference?[306]

Your inconsistent language and moral stance imply an actual objective good to judge chattel slavery as wrong.[307] Then you say elsewhere that morality is nothing but a preference.[308] Thus, why are you getting so worked up about what other people believe???[309] Why should it concern you?[310] It is none of your business what others do to others, even yourself, as long as they think it is "right."[311] It is their PREFERENCE. Stop being a hypocrite and dictating what others should think UNLESS you can show that it is objectively, universally, morally wrong to own chattel slaves.[312] The Christian system of thought can. Yours can't.[313] You borrow from it all the while trying to undermine it.[314] The term for that is hypocritical.

Amoranemix 844 to 3RU7AL

He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.

PGA2.0 906

God is the necessary objective moral standard since He knows all things, revealing (the factual) that His nature is good. An objective fact is different from a subjective preference. A subjective preference or opinion is not morally binding on all people. An objective moral good or best has a fixed and unchanging identity.[315]

God does not issue moral preferences but moral commands. He is consistent. A moral relativist like yourself is not consistent.[316] Moral relativism is a self-refuting standard. On the one hand, you say, "everything is relative; everything is a preference."[317] On the other, in contrast, demanding that I treat your statement as an absolute, everything is indeed relative except that statement;[318] everything is preferential except that your statement is not preferential. So, as always, you are a walking contradiction.[319] You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?[320] You subjectively like what you push, but why should I?[321]

Amoranemix 798

[17] One should, must or ought according to a standard or goal. In case of moral prescriptions they refer to a moral opinion or standard.

[18] Actually there is, but it is not a philosphical bridge. That is, one does not correctly reason from only facts to an obligation. On the other hand, opinions and standards have causes in reality.

PGA2.0 909

[*] Notice you say we "indeed" did. We did cross the bridge, the divide between the physical non-personal, non-mindful to the non-physical personal and mindful, yet you provide no means of how this happened. Nice avoidance of the problem. Nice assertion with no proof (Indeed we did). Your worldview, without God, is devoid of a suitable or necessary explanation.[322]

[Paragraph 2]

[Paragraph 3]

What we run into is the NaturalisticFallacy, defining morality in terms of natural properties.[323] Natural properties are tangible properties. You can't grab hold of goodness. It has no tangible qualities. It is an abstract concept. A value has to have a valuer. Nature, in itself, has no valuer. That valuer has to be the ideal or else we have nothing fixed to measure values against. Without the ideal, the best, values are turned on their head and become illogical.[324]

Amoranemix 844

[34] So, if society A claims that strawberry icecream is the tastiest, while society B claims chocolate icecream is the tastiest, then who is right ? They can't both be right. At least one belief has to be wrong. In order to determine who is right, which icecream really is the tastiest, a personal being who has revealed himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable and eternal would be necessary to determine what is tasty because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the tasty' (since there is a best). Correct ?

Then we could ask that being and if it were to grace us with an answer we would know which icecream really is the tastiest. Otherwise the Nazis could come to power and decide that mokka icecream is the tastiest.[*]

PGA2.0 905

You confuse and conflate categories. You make a categorical error in thinking.[281] You confuse something that tastes good (ice-cream) with something that is morally evil (killing innocent human beings). You are switching what a quality is (the moral good/evil) with what a quantity is (taste of the ice-cream). One set of values are physical, tangible objects (how many, what shape, what do they feel like); the other, intangible mental objects or concepts of the mind. One set, the tangible, describes. The other set prescribes what should be.

[Wikipedia about category error]

You are using your five senses in 'tasting' the ice-cream, the sense of taste.

You can't use the five senses in determining 'good,' for it is not a physical object like ice-cream.[282] You cannot taste, hear, see, feel, or smell 'good."[283] It is an abstract, intangible, non-concrete, non-physical concept. Thus, the comparison between taste and morality does not work in the examples given.[284]

[*] [ . . . ]

Morality is of the mind, but without an objective, an absolute, universal, omniscient, unchanging reference point - God - answer me why your moral pronouncements are any BETTER than my opposing views.

Amoranemix 844

[35] You are mistaken. Language is conventional. Societies decide the meaning of words, including the words good and tasty. There is a lot of ambiguity and confusion surrounding the meanings of the word good. Some people grab the opportunity to claim that that confusion can only be removed with God.

PGA2.0 905

Different conventions have equivalencies. Those equivalencies do not mean the opposite. The words used have the same or very similar meanings. Yes, sometimes cultures have additional nuances built into the word.

While a particular culture can provide a meaning different from the overall understood meaning and have more elaborate additional interpretations, it would be impossible to communicate if the language barriers did not have equivalencies. Similarly, I know that in some parts of the world, the French word 'oui' can take slightly different pronunciations. However, the word still means the same thing (yes), and it is understood that when you are in Mauritius, the sound is not quite the same as in Paris, but the meaning is the same.

In every foreign culture, the language used for the word tasty has an equivalency. The word good in each of these foreign cultures, is a different word with similar/the same meaning.

PGA2.0  80 to 3RU7AL

Well bring up your objections so we can discuss them. I gave my opinion and I am wiling to back it up for anyone who wishes to engage. So far you have avoided yet another question I posted.

Amoranemix 844

That reminds me of someone I have debated on DDO. ;)

PGA2.0 906

Your posts got tedious because you showed a particular closed mindset, and you never corrected your run together words. I have to edit every post of yours. There must be something wrong with your copy and paste feature. I would consider a formal debate with you on some of these topics.

PGA2.0  80

I already gave what I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is not preference.[36] Morality has to be based on what is actually good, not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like or desire. A moral is something that should or should not be so.[37] Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know the difference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed, absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.[38]

Amoranemix 844

You assume that something can be actually good without being a preference. Can you prove that is even possible ?

PGA2.0 906

I have already given you a reasonable proof. You keep glossing over it. The laws of logic, the law of contradiction, identity, and middle exclusion. They are necessary, or else the value loses its meaning. It can mean anything, the opposite thing to different people.

Amoranemix 844

[37] In other words, it's a preference.

PGA2.0 906

A preference is a personal, subjective like or want.[285] Because I like something does not mean you have to like it too. Moral good is something that, whether you like it or not, that does not change its value. You should do what is good regardless of whether you want to or like doing so or not.[286]

You should like ice-cream. There is no moral compulsion or obligation to like ice-cream.

You should like killing innocent human beings. There are moral compulsion and obligation not to kill innocent human beings. 

What you do is blur the line between the two.[287]

PGA2.0 906

What does 'iso' mean?[288] A moral standard identifies the difference between right and wrong.[289] If there are two different moral standards, it begs, which is the correct one.[290] If a person lived on the border between two countries and was a citizen of both, and each had an opposing moral standard, how would they determine the right?[291]

Country A: Abortion is wrong and punishable by death.

Country B: Abortion is right. Feel free to have one.

Which is the correct standard? In Country A, the person will lose their life by having one. In Country B, the person takes the life of an innocent human being with no consequences. Are you saying it is okay for them to do either or both?[292] You see, abortion has lost its moral identity.[293] It can mean two opposite things, thus how can they both be right?[294] Once the line is blurred on right and wrong, anything can pass. The question is, can you live consistently in such a world?[295]

Not only that but within a particular society, say Country A, subgroups and individuals are holding contrary views to the "law of the land." Why are they wrong if a preference is the order of the day?[296] No, you say. Then how can they be punished if they believe the opposite?[297] (Goodbye justice)

Is the majority always in the right?[298]

Is it the minority who holds power? Are they right?[299] If so, then how could anyone outside Nazi Germany condemn what the Nazis did?[300] It would be good to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political opposition in Nazi Germany. How can you say otherwise?[301] To each (preference) his/her own

FLRW 822

As you can see from above, morality is a product of evolution.

PGA2.0 886

I did not read the article. I responded to your comments. My time is limited at the moment.

Again, a particular response is generated by the environment and human or animal conditioning. So what?[256] What is good or bad about that?[257] Cooperation is only desirable when food is in abundant supply or a mutual hunt will benefit all parties concerned.[258] When there is just enough (negative response) for one particular member to survive, then what?[259] The other thing is that human "experimenters" rig a system for a particular outcome. The animal learns quickly what is required for it to eat or survive.[260]

Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0

A problem is not all theists believe in the same god. So God changes depending on who your are talking to. Can one really know a fictional being that keeps changing ?

Do those who reject Hulk really know him ? Is he green or grey ?

Do those who reject Tarzan really know him ? When was Tarzan born ?

PGA2.0

[no response]

Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0

Why do you keep claiming the only alternative to a personal deity is blind random chance happenstance ?

PGA2.0

[no response]

Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0

Atheism is not a worldview, so why would it need to pass a test for worldviews ?

I must have asked you a dozen times whether you could prove that atheists keep borrowing from the the Christian framework. As many times you have admitted that you can't. My worldview allows me to explain why you can't prove that claim. How about yours ?

PGA2.0

[no response]

PGA2.0  80 to 3RU7AL

A preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing?[31] They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right?[32] That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.

Amoranemix 844

[31] That would depend on the preference. For example, a preference of icecream over horse manure could be a survival necessity.

PGA2.0 895

You are again equivocating, confusing two different things.

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

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

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

[more explanation]

Amoranemix 844

[32] Personally, I don't think it does. Do you think otherwise ?

PGA2.0 895

Then, you disagree that preference makes things right, at least in the area of tasting ice-cream.

Personally? Don't think? Please notice again; you are making it subjective to your opinion (a preference). Why should I value it if it is not objectively so, universally applying to all, the actual case? Are your thoughts so valuable that I SHOULD believe them?[261]

[more paraphrising Greg Koulke, criticising relativsm and accusing me of relativism]

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

From https://www.bethinking.org/truth/the-death-of-truth/2-what-is-moral-relativism in post 895

In our society, we have a name for these people; they are a homicide detective's worst nightmare. The quintessential relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience. This is what relativism produces.

PGA2.0 287

I'm not sure if that particular verse teaches the killing of children (among the little ones), but and innocent life God takes (a life that has not committed sin and is not able to reason or yet be accountable) God will restore to a better place. Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children.

Amoranemix 897

Why would God need to restore the children to a better place ? Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.

ethang5 898

This is an incorrect statement in that God will NOT do "whatever". The statement implies,

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

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

Citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard."

PGA2.0 80

In Hitler's Germany the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other 'undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33] All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time. It defies logic (the law of identity - A=A). At least one belief has to be wrong.[34] So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society that kills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who live in that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for good can mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can be the opposite of another society.[35] It begs the question of which is the actual right for logically they both can't be.

Amoranemix 844

[33] According to you perhaps and according to me, but not according to the Nazis. Your god also didn't do anything to prevent it.

PGA2.0 905

So, what you are saying with "according to you or me" is a big fat maybe. Maybe it is wrong for us, but it is not wrong for the Nazis.[262]

You: The killing of Jews by the Nazis is wrong [according to my moral standard].

Nazis: The killing of the Jews is right [according to Nazi moral standard].

Your relativism says there is no true moral identity.[263] (A=A) You say for some A=B, C, D..., but never A=A.[264] So, it is perfectly permissible for the Nazis to torture and to kill innocent human beings (the Jews) — each to their own.[265] Thus, you can never say torturing little children for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you don't like it.[266] I would be preventing you from accessing my loved ones if you could not tell the difference between a moral right and a moral preference. All you display in your conversations is a preference.

You are a moral relativist, totally uncommitted to the truth. You make up the truth. It ain't true until you say it is true. The problem is your system of thought is unlivable. It not only does not pass the logical, consistent test, but it also fails the experiential and practical test.[267] As soon as someone turns the tables on you and makes you and your family the innocent scapegoat, the ones about to be killed, then you know it is wrong.[280]

Amoranemix 798

[24] Better according to who or what ?

PGA2.0 882

You push qualitative terms around all day. So, your "good" is not the same as what I perceive as good. Who is right/correct/true to what is the real identity of the good?[238]

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

Amoranemix 798

[25] If I understand correctly, such things don't happen in your fictional worldview. Alas, in the real world they do.

PGA2.0 882

They happen because people do not look to God or an objective necessary standard as the standard.[240] And again, you paint my worldview as the fictional one (hah). Saying so does not necessarily make it so.[241]

They happen in the real world because people reject the absolute and the objective necessary standard and invent their own subjective standards more in line with what they like or are willing to accept. These systems of thought do not work, as I have shown in my abortion debates and in the examples of tyrants.[242]

Amoranemix 798

[26] Presumably there are people benefitting from that. That is good to those people. Personally, I dislike it.

PGA2.0 882

Sure, those in control of the masses, like is apparently we are about to be witnessed in the USA under Biden and the Demagogues, I mean Democrats.

Amoranemix 798

[28] You are mistaken. Have you forgotten how in 2006 Pluto ceased being a Planet because the IAU dislike Pluto being a planet ? Contrary to what you believe, subjective beings can create objective standards.

PGA2.0 882

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

Amoranemix 798

Interesting. Artificial Intelligence professionals ponder morality for their work and they don't see it as something to be discovered, but as something derived from choices, choices Robert Miles calls terminal goals. It is what I call values.

PGA2.0 882

AI is a program programmed by these professionals. They create this artificial being. Thus, it reflects on their subjective knowledge. Morality requires input by moral beings into these systems.

Amoranemix 798

[18] Actually there is, but it is not a philosphical bridge. That is, one does not correctly reason from only facts to an obligation. On the other hand, opinions and standards have causes in reality.

PGA2.0 878

Moral opinions have no basis for the good unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging best to compare "good" with.[215] What are you comparing "good" with - someone else's shifting standard?[216]

[Kim Jong-Un's, Adolf Hitler's and Jack the Ripper's alleged standards]

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

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

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

Facts have an objective identity, a fixed measure; opinions lack an objective that fixed identity since they mean different things to different people.[217]

Amoranemix 808

I wanted to read past past 125, butthen I was overwhelmed by laziness.

PGA2.0 883

Please fix your compute program glitch that keeps running words together. I have corrected the errors below (as I did in your last post), but I left the one above as an example.

Amoranemix 808

PGA deciding what others believe again. Beliefs come with degrees of certainty. That I believe the supermarket to be open today, does not imply I exclude the possibility of it being closed.

PGA2.0 883

[ . . . ]

I'm not excluding reasonable deductions like the supermarket example.[243]

If you think by rejecting God/gods, there are other explanations,[244] then present one, and we will take it apart with a closer examination. A closed system looks within itself for the explanation - the naturalistic framework.

Amoranemix 808

Giving a complete, detailed explanation for most things would be a gargantuan task. Also, assuming atheism, no one can be expected to have the required knowledge.

PGA2.0 883

I'm after a brief outline that I can work on critiquing how morality emerges from it.[245] I'm looking for a justification of atheism as reasonable. I have explained why theism is reasonable.[246]

Amoranemix 808

We more or less did the same. Your strawman of my worldview was terrible, but less bad than your worldview. So presumably SkepticalOne's worldview is also less bad.

PGA2.0 883

Describe how it is terrible. I have no idea what you are referencing. Be specific. More assertions without proof.[247] I am questioning how morality makes sense of itself by getting to its origins, the root causes. Take the causal tree back to what is necessary.

PGA2.0 883

Is your thought system, atheism, one in which naturalism and materialism are used as the explanation? [248]

Do atheists deny God either by stating there is no evidence He exists or excluding Him from any plausible explanation? [249]

How do conscious moral beings arise from non-conscious non-beings, the organic from the inorganic? [250]

How do you counter the is/ought dilemma as proposed by Hume? [251]

How is your subjective framework objective in determining the good? [252]

What is fixed about your system of morality? [253]

Does it have what is necessary for morality,[254] and how do you describe objective - true to what is the case, or some framework that people say is objective because they like it?[255]

PGA2.0

It takes faith to be an atheist[19], a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker. How is that reasonable in arriving at morality?[20] Somehow, there is a giant leap from chance happenstance to uniformity of nature and sustainability of these natural laws. We discover these laws, not invent them. And, these laws appear to be a mindful thing because we can use mathematical formulas in expressing and conceptualizing them. Why would that be possible or probable in a blind, indifferent, random chance universe? Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?[21] There is a giant leap between inorganic things and organic mindful, moral people. How does atheism transition between or scale this chasm?[22]

Amoranemix 798

[19] Is there any belief that does not require faith ?

PGA2.0 881

No. You start somewhere and build upon that starting or core belief - e.g., God/Chance. Core beliefs are the building blocks that all our other beliefs rest upon, except when we are inconsistent with that system and borrow from other core belief systems. Our worldviews are made up of beliefs, things we place our trust in, but are those beliefs warranted? Can we justify them?[218] Some dichotomize religious beliefs. They are not put on the same scale as other beliefs to naturalists who think they work purely from the empirical, scientific method, which they do not.

Amoranemix 798

[20] People don't arrive at morality that way. Individual moralities are determined mostly by genotype and fenotype.

PGA2.0 881

From an atheistic perspective, genotypes and phenotypes are blind agents, for there is no intent behind them. Intent is reasoning. Intent requires thinking being. Evolution does not. Somehow particular genetic makeup combines at the root causal level to create a specific kind. That information is then inherited or passed down and governed somewhat by the environment (mutations). On the phenotype level, somehow, the environment influences our behaviours, moulds us into group herd beings. The question is why we have these genotypes that operate by biological laws in the first place.[219] We inherit 23 three chromosomes from each parent to make up our genetic structure. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, which differ from other beings.

Christians have a reasonable explanation -

Genesis 1:20-28 (NASB)

[ . . . ] [220]

So what we would expect to find we do actually find, as Christians.[221] [ . . . ]

To the atheist in his/her speculation, these information systems happen for no reason, for there is no mind behind them.[222] He/she spends countless hours and ages explaining, in a reasoning manner, how everything comes about by Chance. They bow down and worship this concept called chance that is unable to do anything.[223] Things just happen for no reason, and then we derive sense and meaning from the things, sense and meaning we should not find from the senseless and meaningless. Go figure?[224]

So, once again, is atheism more reasonable than theism???[225]

Amoranemix 798

[21] Unlike the laws of nature, moral standards, like any standard, are not open to be (dis)proven. They are not floating out there to be discovered.

PGA2.0 881

But they are open to the same abstract, intangible, non-physical logic used in discovering nature's laws. [223] [ . . . ]

Listen to yourself - "not open to be[ing] (dis)proven." Thus, your worldview cannot say for certain that torturing little children for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you do not like it.[224] Well, what about those who do? They can be no more right than you can in your atheistic system of thought. The 'right' requires a fixed identity, or it can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief. That is logically inconsistent and the logical inconsistency of atheism. Does it make sense to say a thing is not what it is? No, it does not, yet you continually argue for such silly premises. Atheism is a rude joke.

PGA2.0 881

[22] Atheism doesn't of course. Science attempts to.

Amoranemix 798

You are right there.[*] Your system of thought, as an atheist, can't make sense of itself.

Amoranemix 798

[12] Moral according to who?[*] Does it have what is necessary to know what is moral according to itself ?[**] What a great achievement ! Adolf Hitler also had what is necessary to know what is moral according to himself, despite him lacking of a fixed reference point. Kim Jong Un as well.[***]

And while you are at it, that best that there is, is best according to who ?[****]

PGA2.0 871

[*] Already explained above. There is only one Being who fits the mould.

[**] "It?" With a being who is good and knows all things, why not?

[**] I certainly hope you are not serious with that statement, just being facetious?[196] No, Adolf Hitler nor Kim Jung-Un do not have what it takes, what is necessary. They are subjective, relative, limited human beings.[197] Why are they right?[198] First, they do not have to exist for there to be morality.[199] People were making moral judgments long before they existed. Second, morality has to be based on a 'best' for comparison[200]; otherwise, it is relative, and the moral good can be whatever anyone wants to make it.[201] Thus, it does not pass the logical consistency test or that of the laws of logic.[202]

[****] Best in light of God, the ideal, the measure, a necessary being who knows all things and is benevolent by nature.

Amoranemix 798

[13] How is that supposed to follow? Please elaborate your argument.

PGA2.0 871

What part?

PGA2.0 871

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

PGA2.0 OP

Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like? IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine?[15] Is it more reasonable? I say no. It does not have what is necessary for morality. Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?[16]

Amoranemix 798

For example, with a ruler, I, a subjective being, can objectively measure the length of a table. Can you not do that ?

[15] Define 'better'.

[16] Good according to who ?

PGA2.0 864

[15] Morally, of superior quality, more excellent than what is good.

PGA2.0 864

[16] Precisely! If morality is relative to the person or group holding the belief, what makes what you like, your personal taste, good?[203] It just is. Your liking ice-cream is not something I must like. You are not going to convince me abortion is good because you like it as a choice for women in the same way you will not convince me it is good to kill innocent human beings, of which the unborn is. If you think it is good to kill innocent human beings, would you willingly allow you and your family to be the next ones to be killed?[204] The point: you can agree to many things, but you can't live experientially with such thinking.[205] Justice must be equally applied for something to be just. Equality must be applied for all, or else there is no such thing operating.[206] Once you make a law that discriminates and dehumanized one group of humans (i.e., Hitler with the Jews; abortion with the unborn human being), there is no longer fairness there (it becomes unlivable for whoever they want to villanize).   Furthermore, such thinking does not pass the logical consistency test.[207] Good = Good. Good has a specific identity.[208] What is good cannot at the same time be bad regarding the same thing.[209] Good, then loses its identity. It can mean anything depending on who thinks it (moral relativism and postmodernism, in which all values are deconstructed and rebuilt).

SkepticalOne

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?

PGA2.0 872

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). [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 OP

Please take note of the difference between qualitative values and quantitative values. I describe what I like. That is, I do not prescribe what I like as a must that you like it too. I like ice-cream is a personal preference. I do not force you to eat it too as a moral must. If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one. The words 'should,' 'must,' or 'ought' denote a moral prescription.[17] No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too. That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy. There is no bridge between what is and what ought to be in that one is a mere description of what is liked or what is while the other is what should or must be the case.[18] Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance. How is that more reasonable? Am I missing something here?

Amoranemix 798

[17] One should, must or ought according to a standard or goal. In case of moral prescriptions they refer to a moral opinion or standard.

PGA2.0 878

Which standard or goal???[210] You forget the goal MUST reflect the good.[211] A moral opinion or standard??? Whose???[212]

Why are your goals any better than any other? Nothing, unless there is an objective, universal, fixed and unchanging reference point.[214] What is that?

Amoranemix 798

[6] That doesn't follow. Atheism is an attribute of worldviews that lack a deity.

PGA2.0 864

They understand the God they deny while claiming there is evidence for Him. They refer to the Bible, which says it is God's revelation to humanity. They also treat Him as a real being, claiming that God is unjust and immoral. How can a non-existent being be unjust and immoral?[193] They hate this God? Why are they hating a non-existent being?[194] So, their worldview is inconsistent.

Amoranemix 798

[7] What are those life's most basic questions atheism examines and reaches conclusions from?

PGA2.0 864

Atheists answer the same question religious believers do.

What exists? (Metaphysics)

Atheist: Nature, the universe. [195]

Christian: The natural and supernatural.

What am I?

Atheist: We are a biological bag of atoms, a living organism. [195]

Christian: I am a creation of God with a physical body and spirit, a living soul.

Who am I? (Identity)

Atheist: A highly evolved animal that traces a common ancestry back to a singled celled ameba. [196]

Christian: A special creation of God, made in His image and likeness, different from animals, created to their own kind.

Why am I here/why do I exist? (Ontology)

Atheist: Without God or gods, you are a cosmic accident, and there is no reason for your existence. [196]

Christian: God made me for a purpose. I am here for a reason.

How do I know? (Epistemology)

Atheist: Through empirical verification, I can know. [195]

Christian: God has revealed, and we have been created in His image and likeness. Thus we are capable of reason and discovery. When we think His thoughts after Him, we truly know something. The natural universe displays His mighty power and reveals Him further. Thus, we think His thoughts after Him. We discover laws; we see beauty and order; we find self-evident truths.

What difference does it make? (Axiology)

Atheist: Nothing, ultimately. The universe is meaningless, and we pretend there is meaning by making it up for a short period of time, then return to the meaningless void of nothingness where nothing matters.[196]

Christian: We were created for a purpose, and if we find that purpose, we find true and everlasting life with God.

What happens to me when I die? (Destiny)

Atheist: I die. I cease to exist.[195]

Christian: If I believe, I live with God as a joint heir with Christ forever where the joy I experience eclipses anything else I have ever experienced.

Amoranemix 798

[8] I think that is more what you would want it to be than what it really is.

PGA2.0 864

Why should I believe you? How reliable is your mind in determining what really is?

PGA2.0 OP

Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?[9]

Amoranemix 798

[9] Is justify the right word, or do you mean explain?

PGA2.0 864

Yes

Definition of  justify

transitive verb

1a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable trying to justify his selfish behavior I shouldn't have to justify myself to them. Justify the ways of God to man— John Milton

[other definitions]

I use it in the 1a sense here.

Amoranemix 798

If I understand correctly, you are unwilling to have your worldview examined the same way as the atheist's worldview, correct?

PGA2.0 864

Where did you gather that conclusion from? The purpose of this thread is to find which of the two worldviews better explains morality.

PGA2.0 864

I conclude both from the Christian worldview and by the lack of explanatory power of other worldviews. Once God [or gods - necessary being(s)] is denied, you would fall on the sword of naturalism and chance happenstance as the root cause of your existence. By following the causal tree to its roots, you find that an atheist cannot justify what they have built their beliefs upon. It is not reasonable, and it does not make sense.

PGA2.0 OP

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

Amoranemix 798

[10] I am sure you are superficially familiar with the story. In a nutshell : Big Bang, inhomogeneity, separation of fundamental forces, inflation, dark matter, gravity, first generation stars, possibly second generation stars, formation of the solar system, the goldilock zone, comet strikes, organic molecules, appearance of life, cambrian explosion, first social animals.

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

PGA2.0 871

[a] Just like you?

So, somehow organic molecules happen from inorganic matter and become conscious of their environment? They develop eyes, and hands and everything needed to interact with this chance universe. How does that happen, and where have you ever witnessed it happening? What you propose is great in theory, but it is not experiential. It takes great faith to believe these things.[195]

PGA2.0 871

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

Here is “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God as put forth by William Lane Craig and others:

[the argument]

Amoranemix 798

[11] Or could it be neither?

PGA2.0 871

I'm listening. What do you propose?

3RU7AL 849

I usually read the first page of the topic and then skip to the end and read them in reverse order (I use "likes" to keep my place).

If the conversation is productive (and I hope this one is a good example) then the salient points should become compressed towards the tail end of the discussion.

3RU7AL 794

We have similar experiences and therefore understand similar words similarly.

My point is that even though we have similar understandings of some words, that doesn't mean that the  MEANING  of those words is "set-in-stone" (as you seem to believe).

PGA2.0 854

Think of what you are staying, will you?

Do words in context convey a specific meaning or not?

When you look in a dictionary, the possible word usages are given, the contexts in which a word is used one way or another.

PGA2.0 854 to 3RU7AL

You say no; words don't have meaning in a context that is set in stone. They can mean whatever a person wants them to mean. These dictionary definitions mean nothing. Thus, in your opinion, in those contexts, they can mean whatever the person wants them to mean.[179] Please note, I am not saying word meanings do not change over time.[180] I am saying that what words mean in context are defined and set until  a new meaning catches on; then, the dictionaries change/add to reflect and include the new contextual meaning.

3RU7AL 796

Only a fool would claim to know things that they don't have any way of validating.

PGA2.0 854

All evidence of origins is interpreted. No one was there to witness origins. No one can repeat the process of origins. The data needs to be interpreted. The evidence does not come with the phrase, "happened 13.8 billion years ago." So, depending on where you start depends on your thinking because ideas are built upon core beliefs. That is why atheist thinking is naturalistic and materialistic. They exclude from their thinking God or gods as a workable reason for anything. They try to analyze everything via nature, which, incidentally, I contend, points to God.

PGA2.0 781

Okay. Which opposing social norms are the true right? Are you saying that they both are?

ludofl3x 797

Neither are inherently "right."[a] They're just what we've agreed upon works for the species. As we dominate all resources on the planet, it's worked out well.[b]

PGA2.0 856

[a] Then your system of thought is irrational and illogical, as I have explained before. I don't think I can reason with you.

[b] Who agreed to? Are you arguing the fallacy of Ad Populum?

PGA2.0 857 to Amoranemix

I am going to have to break your post into sections. There is too much information to cover with one post, and your words all run together and make it difficult to read. Maybe you should check your copy apt. Somehow the information becomes jumbled together when you copy and paste. Please correct that for further communication.

PGA2.0 857

Also, we have had long discussions on Debate.org (in some cases over a thousand posts) in which nothing was accomplished because you swamped me with more than I could handle in each post, a habit we are both guilty of doing. (^8

SkepticalOne 814

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.

PGA2.0 860

You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat?[181]

The fixed standard is too complicated for us to know every possible outcome. We would have to think countless moves ahead to determine the best outcome for every move.[182]

Amoranemix 798

[1] You are the one putting all youreggs in the basket of a mythical, invisible sky magician. SkepticalOne is open to anything supported by evidence.

PGA2.0 864

Thanks for your assertion and opinion.-

Are you speaking for SkepticalOne now?

Amoranemix 798

[2] Why would that [skeptics putting all eggs in basket of mythological naturalism] be? Skeptics follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.

PGA2.0 864

Because they dismiss God or gods, therefore they look for explanations in the natural realm.[182] They are left with mindless naturalism.

Skeptics follow their worldview presuppositions. No one is neutral.

PGA2.0 in OP

Atheists, as people who have thought about existence, often make the claim that Atheism is an absence of belief in God or a deity. Does that argument work?[3] I say no. I could claim theism is a lack of belief in atheism or an absence (not the presence) of the denial of God or gods.[4] In either position, both the atheist and theist hold lots of beliefs about God or the lack thereof. An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as there cause, yet something about God too in their denial of Him.[5] You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.[6] It examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.[7] It is a belief system in its own right usually with philosophical or methodological naturalism as one of its cornerstones or core tenants.[8] But is atheism as justifiable or as reasonable as a belief in the biblical God? I plan to examine this in a number of areas. This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?[9] That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate.

Amoranemix 798

[3] A claim is not an argument.

PGA2.0 864

The argument is that atheists have thought about existence and God or gods displayed when they say something about such a being.[183] The argument is that atheists make claims such as atheism is an absence of a belief in God or gods (some other deity). I have heard atheists say such things. How do they know God does not exist? They don't; they assume it.

Amoranemix 798

[4] I could say a cup of coffee is the lack of the absense of a cup of coffee, but I prefer not to complicate things.

PGA2.0 864

Okay? So what?[185]

When claiming something, it needs support, reasons. I have given lots of reasons. I say the atheist denies God/gods, but their initial presuppositions by denying God are not reasonable.[186] As simple as that. And I have gone into depth on that in several areas, including this topic.[187]

When you deny nothing, then what exactly are you denying?[188] The atheist who denies God, what exactly are they denying?[189]

Amoranemix 798

[5] That doesn't follow. He or she can be agnostic on the issue. However, most atheists believe that nature did it and indeed, no atheists knows everything about it, which, in the atheistic worldviews, is to be expected.

PGA2.0 864

What does not follow? What issue - God?[190] Even being agnostic, the unbeliever looks to a naturalistic framework for the reasons of existence, as you confirm.[191]

Yes, not knowing all things is to be expected from limited subjective beings. Thus, looking for a purely naturalistic explanation has no guarantees, but if God exists and is revealed as per the Christian framework, we can know it as a certainty.[192] So God, once again, has what is necessary for certainty.

PGA2.0 815 to SkepticalOne

The person needing the kidney is usually a stranger, not related in any way. The unborn is the woman's biological offspring. The person is not violating the kidney recipient's bodily autonomy; rather, the Judith Thomson example is the opposite. The violinist or his doctors violate the donor's bodily autonomy by touching it and hooking up tubes without consent. The donor does not touch the recipient's body directly with his/her body, so the analogy fails here. [ . . . ]

SkepticalOne 739

9). Sex is not consent to pregnancy - addressed above.

PGA2.0 815

It is for it is indirectly understood that pregnancy may result.

SkepticalOne 739

You are arguing consent and rights in general are non existent when they cannot be understood? Can someone without the ability to understand right from wrong do whatever they like?

PGA2.0 815

That someone can if they have the mental ability to do right and wrong, but they will suffer the consequences of the wrongs from those who enforce the laws.

SkepticalOne 739

11). Most abortions occur by medication long before the ability to [1] feel pain or awareness has developed and [2] at least half of all conceptions end *naturally*-You're [3] attempting to poison the well with emotionality built on dishonesty and/or ignorance.  

PGA2.0 815

[2] There is a difference between what happens naturally and what happens by intent. The one we can't prevent, the other (intent to do harm) we can.

PGA2.0 815 to SkepticalOne

The question is whether what I said is true and whether you should be morally outraged or not in determining whether I poisoned the well, instead of just the label and false charge (well prisoner) to persuade others the well has indeed been poisoned when the water is still fine to drink.

SkepticalOne 739

As said before, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy - it is consent to share one's body with another who exists at that moment.

PGA2.0 815

That consent to share bodies may result in a pregnancy. If I consent to be a lumberjack, then I consent to the risks that may involve. It is up to me to be aware of the dangers involved.

PGA2.0  815 to SkepticalOne

Every one of your 14 responses is a weak, weak argumentation.

PGA2.0 745

Some label or call that framework moral conventions or moral norms. With such conventions or norms where two countries or two individuals oppose each other, then who is right? What then is the actual case?

3RU7AL 746

THE BIBLE DOESN'T SOLVE THIS "PROBLEM".

PGA2.0 818

Yes, it does, provided the biblical God exists and is who He is described as. It solves the problem in that it is a written testimony that gives a universal, ultimate, absolute, objective, unchanging, eternal, omniscient best or final measure and reference point to compare good and bad against.

3RU7AL 747

FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.

PGA2.0 819

Again, how do you demonstrate the laws of logic empirically?[175] Until you can demonstrate the laws of logic are empirical and not abstract conceptual, your argument unravels on your claim that facts must be empirically demonstrated.

3RU7AL 747

This means they are always  VERIFIABLE.

PGA2.0 819

Only the ones we can verify. (^8

Many facts are not yet verifiable by human beings. The law of gravity was not verifiable until Newton demonstrated it. That does not mean it did not exist or was not operating. We did not know it.

3RU7AL 747

No "appeal to authority" needed.

PGA2.0 819

"Appeal to authority" is different from an actual authority. You can appeal to anyone as an authority. Just doing that does not make them one. They have to show they understand and are an expert on the subject matter in question.

3RU7AL 747

#2, even  (IFF)  we accepted the "commandments" as 100% "true"  (AND)  we tried to follow them to the letter (THEN) we still end up with a ridiculous number of loop-holes and unanswered (perhaps unanswerable) legal (and moral) questions

PGA2.0 819

What happens is we realize we cannot meet the standard because once we are guilty of breaking any commandment, we have wrongs not only our fellow human beings, beings who are also imperfect, but God who is morally good, pure, holy, and perfect.

Your fallacy of choice is : missing the point.

PGA2.0 758

Because God is love. Injustice concerns Him. [ . . . ]

3RU7AL 766

I've seen Christians do this before, but I still can't figure it out,

LOVE =/= PUNISHMENT

PGA2.0 834

A justice and righteous Judge would not be good and loving if He left a wrong unpunished.

If you loved and wanted the best for someone would you let them do something that hurt others then say, "That's okay." If you see Antifa go into your neighbourhood and burn down your neighbour's house after they have robbed it and beating them up would the loving thing be to do nothing? Or would it be loving to seek justice for a wrong?

FLRW 770

Have they considered what atheism is doing to the mind in closing itself to Inana, a Sumerian goddess of fertility and war?

PGA2.0 834

Who are they? If you mean Christians, they would agree that these false gods need to be shown for what they are.

3RU7AL 780

You can freely choose to go to any restaurant you wish.

However, if you go to one I don't like, I will beat you with a baseball bat.

PGA2.0 845

So, you feel it is morally permissible to beat someone up if they go to a restaurant you don't like. So morality to you is doing whatever you like, and if anyone interferes, you enforce your standards of like on them by using your bat. So someone who can use their fists or bats better than you is morally justified in beating your face to a pulp? Dog eat dog!

PGA2.0 845 to 3RU7AL

[ . . . ]

Now God's commandment not to eat of the tree of good and evil was morally good.[176] Since Adam was the only human being other than Jesus Christ not to be influenced by other people's choices (he was a blank slate), he chose to set the course of human history. He had the initial two inputs, God's commandment to him (before Eve was created) and Satan's counter through Eve to him - the two choices he was completely free to choose from. When Eve took of the fruit and offered it to him he made a bad choice.[177]

3RU7AL 780

Just pick the one you like best.

PGA2.0 845

I did, my gun in opposition to your baseball bat. You will do what I say, but you are "free" to choose! Weigh the consequences well!

3RU7AL 790

Oh, right, the biblical God who orders their followers to slaughter the children of non-believers.

PGA2.0 848

If God let Israel be influenced by other wicked nations that practiced child sacrifice and idolatry, Israel would not follow His good decrees and judgments. If those other nations in the Promised Land (which God owned) decided Israel was not going to stay in the land and decided to kill all the Israelites, then God's sworn plan of redemption in which the Messiah, [ . . . ]

As for the children, any innocent children would be restored to a better place by God - His presence. [178]

PGA2.0 800

Then he goes onto an evolutionary account (27:57). That explains nothing morally. As I have pointed out many times before, why does what one being does as influenced by their genetic makeup, environment, and social conditioning need to be the same another being does.[171] The DNA makeup programs one to work one way and another with a different program? Remember, a descriptive order does not prescribe what should be, only what is.

PGA2.0 800

Human success, he says, is largely due to our power of cooperation (28:00).[172] What if a Hitler authoritarian, totalitarian type figure dictates what you do, and your future depends on being obedient (slaughter 11 million undesirables as he defines undesirable).[173] You have to concede then that killing these people is morally good for the larger group.[174] And with China, the majority gets even bigger but again is controlled in the hands of a few, the elites. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 801

Milligan wants to relegate superiority to brain size and development.[175] I smell more elitism. He wants you to conform to what he believes, another shell game.[176] There is no substance in what he believes.[178] He thinks such a God as Christians worship is willing but unable to prevent evil (29:16 - 29:26).[179] But what about Millican's god - himself and humans as the measure?[180] [plaintive questions]

PGA2.0 801

Millican fails to understand that God has given humans a timeframe (their lifespan) in which they have a volition as to what they will do and decide, then judgment, so evil is answered by God.[181] Next, how do moral relativists like Millican (who pretends to be a moral realist) distinguish evil? Evil compared to what? Compared to what he likes or those in control like? Why is that right? Again, he puts the cart before the horse.

PGA2.0 801

With the evidential problem (34:09), Milligan falls into his own trap. There are so many different views on what is evil, and so many different governments vying for different ideas of what is good that the question needs to be answered by Milligan as to what is evil.[182] From his subjective mindset, why should I believe him? And yes, the solution to the problem of who is right is inferred by presupposing God, not by presupposing relative, limited human beings.[183] They don't have what is necessary for defining evil if they cannot produce an absolute, objective, unchanging reference point or measure..[184] And human history evidentially shows they can't. Thus, we can INFER they do not have what is necessary to make the correct determination.[185] God can and does.

PGA2.0 801

[ . . . ] That brings me to the final point, why do we seek meaning and purpose in a meaningless universe? No ultimate reason if you are an atheist. You live inconsistently with your belief system (no ultimate meaning). [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 801

Millican offers "two extreme solutions" to the problem of evil (38:00); God is not omnipotent, or God's goodness is a mystery. There is another solution; God allows evil, so that good will come of it. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 801

And "the way God wants us to see the world" (38:56) is not how Millican implies. We must seek the good, do what is right, honour and care for others, punish wrong, not torture people or inflict evil upon them. Then he implies Godis a liar (38:10) and that we are truthful.

PGA2.0 801

And yes, this guy has such a poor understanding of God's justice that he continually misses the point (41:14). So far, with this guy (Millican), it has been one falsehood after another.

PGA2.0 801

With Millican's point, "Conjectures and Fictions," it is not true we, as Christians, have nothing to support the biblical claims. I have gone through those reasons often enough.[186] Prophecy, in conjunction with history, offers reasonable proofs/evidence. So does the internal consistency and unity of the Bible, and making sense of existence without God.[187]

PGA2.0 801

"The Vale of Soul-Making " John Hick's argument (43:30) neglects the warnings of the Bible that there are none (accountable) who are righteous.[188] His argument does not wash about an omnipotent God, just creating a morally perfect being. Such a being would be a robot, not able to think anything but what the Creator programmed.[189]

PGA2.0 801

Then Millican goes on about the same tired worn out arguments about God creating a too heavy stone for Him to lift (44:55) to show that theism is intrinsically contradictory. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 801

Up to the 45-minute mark, IMO, the whole lecture was poorly justified.[190] Notice how Millican escapes without explaining how any of his four criteria*** are objective is beyond me. He just asserts it.[191]

3RU7AL 725

You can't just say "quantitatively or qualitatively" and pretend they're not OPPOSITE (mutually exclusive) CONCEPTS.

PGA2.0 801

You misunderstand my point. I agree they are different value standards, but both qualitative and quantitative are values. One is easier to verify by the mind in conjunction with the physical senses because the standard is empirical.

PGA2.0 812 to SkepticalOne

Again (and you did this in your debates too), you dehumanize the unborn, making it a bunch of or clump of cells rather than what it is, a complete human being, a separate entity from the woman, a unique, complete organism that directs its own grow from within. The analogy again fails since you compare apples to oranges, a kidney (an organ) with an unborn (a complete individual human being with its own kidneys and organs forming and growing).

PGA2.0 812 to SkepticalOne

There is a difference in moral obligation between a family member and a stranger.

SkepticalOne 806 about definition for moral relativism

Clear and concise would be nice.

PGA2.0 812

No universal, absolute moral values, but everything is open to interpretation and subjectivism. 'Good' means whatever a person, a group, a society decides it means.

PGA2.0

A good [chess] move is one that gives you the tempo and puts your opponent on the defensive by applying pressure and exploiting weaknesses.

SkepticalOne 806

In regards to morality, you said right could not be determined without an "objective moral standard". By that reasoning, the absence of an 'objective chess standard' would leave us unable to objectively determine 'right' chess moves.  Do you have an 'objective chess standard'?

PGA2.0 813

Again, you are equivocating and comparing apples to oranges.

PGA2.0 690

Morality is a set of social norms or conventions[a] that have to have as their basis a fixed standard to know what is the case.[b]

ludofl3x 692

[a] Agree!

[b] Requires demonstration.

PGA2.0 781

[a] Okay. Which opposing social norms are the true right? Are you saying that they both are?

[b] What is the true right when two opposing 'right's' are believed? Logically, the laws of logic (identity, contradiction, and middle exclusion) are compromised.[159] That means there is no true identity for morals, and anything goes. That means that you can't really say something is wrong, just not preferable. Do you really believe that?

[a] No. Fashion norms and conventions aren't right either. Neither are grammar norms and conventions. Nor are ISO norms and conventions.

PGA2.0 781

What is more, if someone holds to such a view (preference), I would never trust them with anything unless their views corresponded with what was really the case.

3RU7AL 695

Presumably some sort of generally domesticated lupine related mammal (but also quite possibly a bearded-dragon named "dog").

PGA2.0 783

??? Please, what do you mean? I don't understand. Your words make no sense. They don't have any meaning. It is all nonsense.

ludofl3x 797

I can absolutely say I think something is wrong.

PGA2.0 799

1) First of all, your sentence is inconsistent. Notice the words 'absolutely' and 'I think' concerning what is wrong. If it is absolutely wrong you don't THINK it is wrong; you know it is wrong. You should have said: "I can absolutely say it is wrong." Or, "Relatively speaking, I think it is wrong." Once you apply an imperative tone, you state a fact, not an opinion, so your sentence does not jive. We all know you think so absolute would not modify 'I think' but what is wrong.

PGA2.0 799 from https://apologetics315.com

7 Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist:

[list]

ludofl3x 797

When someone chooses to torture me for fun, I will defend myself, because I find that's the moral thing to do, and I feel the people acting to harm me ire in the wrong.

PGA2.0 799

Here you go again, being inconsistent. You keep sneaking in moral absolutes such as something is wrong or immoral. [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 799 to ludofl3x

Definitionof wrong [only entry 3]

2:  something wrong, immoral, or unethical  especially:  principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law

3RU7AL 713

You might find this interesting,

Apparently 59% of atheists subscribe to "moral realism".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvbcgilfTgA

PGA2.0 800

[complaints about Millican and his views]

Why do I have to go through all these hoops and speculations when there is a simpler explanation, God is a sufficient, necessary reason and being?[160] Why, because we have been indoctrinated and conditioned to believe this secular stuff from an early age. As Christians, we understand this principle of training our youth to think biblically,  or in a particular way, one I would argue as the correct way.[161]

PGA2.0 800

He speculates on the lack of evidence of moral 'goodness' for such a divine being (20:38), but how does Millican arrive at goodness without a moral objective and fixed reference point?

First, he builds moral values into the universe. Somehow something within it (humans) contains the knowledge of what SHOULD be the case. Suddenly the universe produces things conscious, living, and intelligent that produce objective moral values (since only minds are value-conscious, thinking morally or qualitatively). Suddenly that which is limited in knowledge can determine moral objectives by their own ability.

PGA2.0 800

He believes the universe could have been designed for profound suffering (20:16) rather than for profound good. But that is not what the biblical God reveals. The universe was good up until a man sinned, per such a God. Then God imposed penalties for a purpose, to show humanity its need for God in making sense of ultimately anything and so that some would reach out once again to God and find Him. (You can't make sense of things in an immoral universe, for ultimately everything in such a universe is meaningless).

PGA2.0 800

He uses the word 'objective' with a particular meaning --> "independent of our own (or others) personal desires" (21:20). I agree that is necessary but does that solve the problem, or would objectivity also have to be devoid of moral biases?[162] Are you free of moral biases? That is a significant point. You would have to be all-knowing to be free of particular biases. You would have to see the big picture, be aware of every possible scenario and whether such a scenario has underlying hurt and wrong as an outcome of such thinking.[163]

PGA2.0 800

Then he speculates on morality, implying a moral lawgiver who is a necessity because morals are mindful and personal things. You can't have them without first having a thinking, intelligent (thus, mindful and personal) being, therefore, a moral lawgiver to prescribe them.[164] But you are not that necessary being. Millican also wrongfully points out that God would build morality into the structure of the universe rather than moral beings (21:35, 3rd bullet point).[165] What does the structure of the universe mean? Humans are not the structure of the universe. How do you get an ought from an is? Morals are a moral obligation, something that should be done because it is good or should not be done because it is bad.

PGA2.0 800

Then Millican gets into the Euthyphro Dilemma (23:23), which is either morally good before He wills it or good because God demands or wills it. This fails to consider a third possibility, that God's eternal, unchanging nature is 'the good,' that what comes from God's will reflects what God is.

PGA2.0 800

1. Rationality and consistency (fairness). The point is whose?[166] Why is what you or he believes fair? Why is his or your rationality superior to mine?[167]

2. Logical and Moral language (e.g. universality [or as he puts it - "universalizability" - a Kantian idea]). Also, generally speaking, universal moral values are usually the same that are found in the six Ten Commandments that relate to human beings.

3. Maximization of wellbeing (e.g., Utilitarianism). Utilitarianism does not work.[168] Again, it begs of whose well-being is the standard and why what that person believes is actually good. Kim Jong-un's idea of well-being maximized is different from yours or mine. You could point to what actually happens and whose idea of well-being is good when there are so many conflicting views of any age. Even within each society, you have sub-cultures and individuals that object to the overall social values.

4. Preservation and harmony of society. You mean like America today!!![169] There is a political and cultural war going on in your country. There is no harmony between these groups. Do you want everyone to think the same-mindedness as you - your mindedness? Could you give me a compelling reason to do so?[170]

SkepticalOne 615

I've really lost interest in this thread and this argumentation.  It is so often 'us vs them' and you consistently attempt to put your interlocutor into an 'enemy' role and pigeonhole them per your views (and not their own). [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 708

It is the competing of two opposing worldview[*], Chuck, each one viaing for control or a say in what should be the case. The issues are contentious issues. The problem with the one (atheism) is that it can't justify itself yet it pretends as though it can (the Emporor has no clothes but thinks he is splendedly arrayed).

SkepticalOne 615

[ . . . ] Perhaps, we can eventually learn to talk to each other as friends.  ;-)  I'll be working on this on my end. I encourage you to do the same.

PGA2.0 708

I do not hold contempt for you, Chuck. I care about your moral and spiritual well being. I admit I could be more tactful but I don't want to dampen the effect of being direct. I say what I think, and I have thought about many of these issues long and hard. I think you are greatly mislead by your subjectivism. I recognize something in you that perhaps you fail to see in yourself. You can't make sense of life's most important issues. Now, whether you want to discuss it with me is your choice. I am always willing to give my two-cents worth. And I go to great pain to answer every question directed at me.[156] I do not find atheist's doing that. I understand it is probably due to time restraints.

3RU7AL

It is impossible to believe something without first being CONVINCED.

PGA2.0  720

That is the starting presupposition that Hebrews11:6 lays out. Why would you seek God unless you believed in Him? Once you believe Him, God confirms His existence further.

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.

3RU7AL

How do you convince them that you're the only one who knows the "true-truth"?

PGA2.0  738

I have learned the hard way you cannot convince anyone who does not want to be convinced.

PGA2.0  738

Truth does not change. Truth is always true, or else truth would be false, which is a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction is self-refuting. When you have two statements that are opposite and logical contradictions, it means one of the two propositions is false (the car is completely blue/the car is completely yellow). Either something is the case, or it is not. It can't be both the case and not the case simultaneously and in the same relationship.

Stephen 642

Something he'd know all about wouldn't he? He's murdered enough men women and children hasn't he.

PGA2.0  750

How can God murder? He is the creator of all life. Does He not have a right to do with it as He wishes? He made it known that there is a penalty for wrongful action, death to Him (i.e., separation from His presence). And He will never take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, in His presence.

PGA2.0  750

Now you, as a finite human being, do not always see justice in this world. You make a big fuss over God's moral decrees, all the while being guilty of falling short of His standards.[*] First, give me the standard by which you can pronounce God unjust. Do you think you know better than God? It seems that you use the standard He provided for humanity to also judge Him. Why would the Creator need to conform to a human standard? He can't covet; everything is His. He can't steal; He owns it all.[**] [ . . . ]

Theweakeredge 681

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

PGA2.0  750

I constantly have, but you do not hear my explanation. [ . . . ]

3RU7AL 653

However, that betrayal is a private matter between the two (or more) people involved.

I can see no reason for anyone else (including god($)) to have any strong opinions on the matter (much less prescribe any sort of mandatory "punishment").

PGA2.0 758

Because God is love. Injustice concerns Him. Such betrayal hurts not only the two but the extended family also.

3RU7AL 654

I don't believe it's universally immoral to say things.

PGA2.0 758

Words have the power of life and death. Some have a harmful effect on others. They can be used in destroying people through bullying them. They can tear down a positive image and replace it with a negative one. I believe in speaking my mind, but if someone is bullying, there is a point where enough is enough. Some things need to be said, but it should be gentleness and respect where possible. Directness is one of my faults.

FLRW 660

A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness—a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness. Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge.

PGA2.0 768

[ . . .  ]

Have they considered what atheism is doing to the mind in closing itself to God? [156]

Besides, the truth is very narrow-minded! It is not open to various interpretations.[157]

Again, the mind sciences have set up a dichotomy between religion and science, religion and truth, religion and awareness, religion and rightful thinking.[158] [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 669 to Marko

[1] I find your arguments unconvincing too. What the atheist is guilty of as much or more than any Christian is presupposing origins through scientism, not science.

PGA2.0  580 to 3RU7AL

Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose? IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness?[138]

3RU7AL  605

IOW's, is there a best that the human can use as its standard for goodness?

Theweakeredge  677

I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates.

PGA2.0 680 to TheWeakeredge

[ . . . ] When you consider morality, God gives reason for morality. Preference does not, for it does not answer how values originate from something devoid of them or how they could (is/ought fallacy).[139] Morality needs an ideal, a best to compare 'good,' 'right,' 'better' against.[140] If the standard is not fixed, how would you know something is better? Better than what?[141] And people work hard to change systems of morality - to what?[142] To their own changing system of thought on what should be?[142]

PGA2.0 680 to TheWeakeredge

Why should I value your opinion? It goes against what is livable and evidential/experiential by what I or anyone witnesses. For instance, I never witness beings coming from non-beings[143], morality coming from something amoral, or something coming from nothing.

Theweakeredge  in con#3

P1: Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind

P2: Values and principals are made by minds

P3: Objective Morality has Values, Principals, etc..

Con: Therefore, these systems would be made by a mind

This would lead you to conclude them not objective. It's a contradictory statement to say that objective morality is made up of concepts only existent in minds."

PGA2.0 682

I question P1 to its validity. The premise is false. Objective morality cannot be independent of mind, since morality is a mindful thing. Morality is not possible without this thing called a mind.[144] I would argue that objective morality is dependent on a necessary Mind (i.e., God), not contingent minds. If God did not exist then morality would be nothing more than preference.[145] Preference is a personal taste or opinion. Thus it describes, not prescribes - "I like ice-cream describes what you like, what tastes yummy to you, not what I SHOULD do (an obligation). You are not obligated to like ice-cream although you may like it if it tastes 'good' to you.[146]

PGA2.0 682 to Theweakeredge

Next, 'good' or 'right' has to be grounded to something for it to be meaningful, a fixed standard. If the standard is not fixed and universal then how can you determine whether it is good or right?[147] Good or right in relation to what?[148] Your personal preference? That makes nothing right.[149] It just makes it doable.

PGA2.0 682 to Theweakeredge

Finally, if there is no objective standard, then life becomes unlivable. You can offer your opinion ("I don't like that") but you can never say it is wrong ("It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun").[150] Imagine, that would be dependent on who believes it rather than on it being wrong. You can't live by your own system because as soon as someone applies their preferences on you (that harms you) you realize without objective values life becomes unlivable.

PGA2.0 682 to Theweakeredge

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

PGA2.0 607

[Additions by 3RU7AL 609 in bold]

[ . . . ] If a person uses a new word foreign for the meaning 'morality' they fail to communicate or express the standard norm or common usage, but if it catches on, they can invent a new word only if it is widely accepted or communication only between people who know what the person is referring to (or fail to recognize their miscommunication). [1] The point is that the thing describes is what it is, not something else (unless the new meaning and or usage catches on, they can start using it in a novel way if it is widely accepted). If you want to use the word "morality" when [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 690

[1] Morality is a set of social norms or conventions that have to have as their basis a fixed standard to know what is the case. Otherwise, all you have is a set of preferences or desires people in power force others to accept.

PGA2.0 690 to 3RU7AL

It seems to me that you are mistaken. Words in context have specific meaning and words refer to specific things.

PGA2.0 608 to 3RU7AL

If it is immoral it should be a concern to everyone.

3RU7AL 612

Why?

PGA2.0 697

Because what is wrong should not be done, even if it feels good. It may feel good/taste good to eat poison mushrooms, but the result is not desirable.[151] Sometimes we hurt ourselves without realizing it.[152] If I say, "Eat this fruit, it tastes good," and we both die, then the choice was not a good one from the standpoint of our survival.[153]

SkepticalOne  <quoted by PGA2.0, post # unknown>

If well-being is our standard, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. If the will of a god is defined, then we can objectively determine right and wrong against this standard. In no way am I suggesting either is an objective standard.

PGA2.0 704

Now, if you have no objective standard, you run into other problems. How can you objectively determine right without an objective moral standard?[154] Without objective morality, what makes your standard any better than any other? Nothing.[155] It beats me how you can speak of qualitative values such as right and better without having an objective ideal in mind. The objective in relation to what - you?

SkepticalOne 568

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.

SkepticalOne 568

...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.

SkepticalOne 476

[ . . . ] 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. [ . . . ]

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.

SkepticalOne

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

PGA2.0

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.

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.

PGA2.0 647

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.

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.

 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.

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?

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.

PGA2.0 539

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.

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.

3RU7AL 554

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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] [ . . . ]

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.

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] [ . . . ]

SkepticalOne 568

...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.

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.

SkepticalOne 568

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?

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?

SkepticalOne 479

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.

SkepticalOne 479

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.

SkepticalOne 479

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.

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). [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 573 to SkepticalOne

Your arguments are totally nuts. [ . . . ]

SkepticalOne 480

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.

SkepticalOne 480

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.

SkepticalOne 480

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. [ . . . ]

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.

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.

Stephen 484

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]

Stephen 484

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?

3RU7AL 455

(IFF)youdisagree with the CONSENSUS (THEN) you believe the majority isimmoral (the law is false and corrupt).

PGA2.0 529

What is theactual right? You can't produce one. All you can say is "I likethis view."[112] You are in the same boat as Nazi Germany. [ . . . ]

3RU7AL 455

(IFF) Ibelieve I am "right" (THEN) that doesn't necessarilymake you "wrong"

PGA2.0 529

Why?

PGA2.0 529 3RU7AL

What you have isa shifting standard. Good can equal whatever you want it to.[113] YOUdo not have what is necessary for morality. All you have is what ispreferable. How does that make anything right? It does not. If itdoes make something right then Nazi Germany and the killing of oversix million Jews becomes right for anyone who agrees.[114]

3RU7AL 455

It's exactly thesame as law. Different territories have different laws. It'sexactly the same for people. What's appropriate behavior in front ofyour parents is not always the same as what's considered appropriatebehavior in front of your friends. What's appropriate behavior in onefriend's house is not always what's appropriate behavior at anotherfriends house.

PGA2.0 529

So at one house,it is 'morally' permissible to rape your neighbour for fun???? Atanother, it is 'morally' permissible to kill your neighbour forfun.[114] That is the implication of this stupid moral relativismidea. You throw away justice because justice needs a fixed moralgood, something that is actually so.[115] [ . . . ]

3RU7AL 462

There is ample evidence that people were protecting themselves long before Abraham was ever born.

PGA2.0 534

Sure, but what or who influenced such thinking in the first place is the underlyingissue here.

PGA2.0 428

It is [unchanging], except for the Sabbath Day. Jesus reiterated the Ten Commandments in the NT, so do the apostles.

3RU7AL 462

You just admitted that it changed.  Not universal.  Not unchanging.

PGA2.0 534

Perhaps I should have been more clear. See the [added] wording. IOW's it is the same as spoken of in the OT. The difference is the although the NT believer recognizes the law, or Ten Commandments, are good, Jesus has met the standard of the law on our behalf.

3RU7AL 468

You start out by saying "NO", but then you go on to explain how it WAS CHANGED.

PGA2.0 539

The covenant was changed in that the OT required the believer or 'people of God' to sacrifice for their sins, for every time they broke the law (summed up in the Ten). In the NT, Jesus establishes a New Covenant in meeting the Law in Himself for the believer, or 'His people.'

So, the covenantchanged, not the Law.

PGA2.0 565 to SkepticalOne

While atheists can and sometimes do live more morally than many Christians do, from where their worldview starts (their most basic presuppositions), there is no reason they should. Thus, they are inconsistent with their beginning presuppositions (blind, indifferent chance happenstance and meaninglessness).[116] In the 20th-century atheists (consistent with the origin of chance happenstance and meaninglessness) demonstrated just how self-serving and immoral they were in the vast killings of those who did not agree withtheir philosophy.[117]

SkepticalOne 476

Morality is about the well-being of humans,

PGA2.0 565

Whose well-being?

SkepticalOne 568

This appeal to a"fixed reference point" has been shown unnecessary in a post you haven't caught up to yet. A compass doesn't use a fixed reference point, yet the world can be successfully navigated with it.

PGA2.0 569

"What is true north?
True north is the direction that points directly towards the geographic North Pole.This is a fixed point on the Earth’s globe.

True north is a fixed point on the globe. Magnetic north is quite different."

https://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/true-north-magnetic-north-compass[114]

There has to be a true north to reference the magnetic north with. You have the same problem with moral views. There is nothing more than preference unless there is something true to fix morality with. You have to have a 'best' to compare 'good' and 'better' to, or else you have better concerning nothing.[115] Thus, you can never be sure that your'better' is actually so because it is always shifting and changing.[116] [ . . . ]

SkepticalOne 568

Again, atheism is not a moral philosophy.

PGA2.0 569

Atheists, like Christians, hold to moral views that originate somewhere, the way they view the world and universe. Morality is a part of their worldview.[117] They do not see moral values coming from an ultimate being. They try to make themselves that being in question.[118] If there is no ultimate, necessary being, the point of reference is changing.[119] Atheists (like you) sometimes try to attach morality to universals and objective values, but they do not have the means to do so. Christians do.[120] You try to attach morality to 'well-being.' The problem is whose well-being? You say humanities, but who decides for humanity - you?[121]

SkepticalOne 568

...and the tired old argument of the 'vast killings due to atheism'  (in the name of atheism?!) is something that may work in dogmatic echo chambers,but not to any reasoning person. Mao (et al) didn't kill because of atheism - that would be like killing for a-unicornism.  It is a nonsense argument.

PGA2.0 569

[Complaints aboutMao's and Stalin's wicked rules]

secularmerlin 324

No. First takethe guess work out of your argument. Stop telling me what you thinkis immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you mystandard and we can both discuss it because we both agree that thereare humans and that the things we do effect their welfare.

PGA2.0 369

have told youmany times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends therighteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standardthat we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not,nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more thansubjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want tolive? Do you want to live as if there is such a fixed standard andthat right and wrong really matter, or do you want to liveinconsistently, deceiving yourself, pretending that things do matterand there is an actual right and an actual wrong to issues? If youwant to live as though things do matter a worldview devoid of an ultimate, absolute, universal, fixed standard is necessary. [ . . . ]

3RU7AL

Theonly thing that is "necessary" for moral principles to beconsidered true is CONSENSUS.

PGA2.0 449

So Hitler wasright in killing over six million Jews, correct? After all, theGermans were indoctrinated into thinking the Jew was not as human asthe majority of Germans.

3RU7AL

Wouldn't thegod($) be able to forgive such a frail worm?

PGA2.0 457

How does thatmeet the requirements of justice? Will a good judge wink at evil?Will he dismiss it as insignificant/unimportant? How would that begood? A person suffered injustice, lost their lives, and there is nopenalty???

PGA2.0 478 to SkepticalOne

[ . . . ] Also,all human life is created in the image and likeness of God, thereforeit is God's right to give and take life (human beings are only givena short time on this earth to come to or reject God), not ours. Thereare also numerous verses I could employ to show that God values theunborn human being.

PGA2.0

[ . . . ], sheshould be allowed to kill another human being because she no longerwants to take responsibility?

3RU7AL 376

It's a lot likepeople who are deported back into hostile territory after fleeing fortheir lives.

PGA2.0 490

I believe you arenot being serious about what the unborn is. Let me ask you again - Isit okay to kill innocent human beings? Can you answer that simplequestion? Stop skirting the issue.

3RU7AL 376

Is deportation"murder" when it directly leads to someone's death?

PGA2.0 490

Again, you are changing the subject. It is called deflecting.

PGA2.0 491 to 3RU7AL

So you are discriminating against some innocent human beings because of their development??? Would it be okay to discriminate against you if your IQ was not as great as another? How about discrimination against a female toddler or infant because she is not as developed physically as a grown-up woman?

3RU7AL to PGA2.0

What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is threatening you and or your family?

PGA2.0 512

OT or NT?

IMO, obey the law of the land, love your neighbour, be kind, show the same grace and mercy that you have received from God, bless those who persecute you, keep no record of wrongs, leave justice or revenge to God and the law in the land, repay evil with good, turn the other cheek where you are concerned[110], but when others are concerned, to protect them against harm.

PGA2.0 369

I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God.[*] It is wrong if there is an objective standard that we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more than subjective individual or group preference. [ . . . ]

secularmerlin 408

[*] This is an unclear standard. Please either offer a reliable metric for determining why things or offensive in this manner or I will be forced to conclude that you are using a standard which yo uh do not actually understand which is not helpful to the conversation.

PGA2.0 512

I offered the reason why. God is a necessary Being. He is omniscient, knowing all things. How is such a standard unclear?[111] How can you have something that is anything other than preference without a fixed, objective best? God fits the criterion that you do not (and cannot demonstrate that is necessary).

secularmerlin 408

If we examine the source material (the bible) the Yahweh appears to be a cruel, capricious, jealous, vengeful, genocidal, egomaniacal maniac whose ten most important rules deal mostly with his own vanity and do not address rape or owning people as property at all and elsewhere in the book deals with these issues very unsatisfactorilly.

PGA2.0 513

How is it cruelto punish wickedness? Why is it wrong for God to jealously protec twhat is right and good? Why is it wrong to take vengeance(accountability for the wrong) on injustice?[112]

Those who do not recognize the majesty and awesome glory of God put their own above Him in their boasting and puffed-up self. It is not vanity to point to Himself for guidance but wisdom.[113]

secularmerlin 409

Very revealing.It does not matter to you that innocent human beings are allowed to die for the want of a kidney. Would it matter to you if someone chose to allow your innocent ten-year-old die rather than donate a kidney?[*] If so, then you have a double-standard and you are not consistent. Consistency is a sign or indicator that something is dreadfully wrong with your logic.

PGA2.0 517

[*] You are talking in hypotheticals. I am talking in terms of what is really happening.

Another person isnot responsible for my ten-year-old. You are placing the responsibility on them. Why are you assuming they are responsible? M yten-year-old's health in such a case may very well be beyond my control to help. I would be disappointed, even heartbroken, if they died or if someone volunteered to give a kidney, then chickened out, but I have no right to force another person to give their kidney unless that person signs a contract to do so. Usually, a money exchange takes place in such contracts.

SkepticalOne 430

P.S.S. Human interpretation of the'will of God' isn't a fixed reference point either and can be used to support atrocities and oppose equality. (Holocaust, apartheid,Transatlantic slave trade)

PGA2.0 520

The Holocaust, Apartheid, transatlantic slavery are not biblical or OT slavery but a misinterpretation.

PGA2.0 567 to SkepticalOne

Hosea 10:1-4(NASB)

Retribution for Israel’s Sin

[ . . . ]

Over and over, God sends prophets and teachers to warn them to return to Him, but they will not listen. So, He gives them the consequences of their sin.

Secularmerlin

No. First take the guess work out ofyour argument. Stop telling me what you think is immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you my standard and we can bothdiscuss it because we both agree that there are humans and that thethings we do effect their welfare.

PGA2.0 369

I have told youmany times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends therighteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standardthat we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not,nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more thansubjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want tolive?

Secularmerlin

You have claimed to share the Yahwehsstandard. Great. Now please explain not just his pronouncements aboutspecific actions but how he has determined what is and is not moraland if you don't actually know then I'm afraid you don't actuallyhave a standard to present at all.

PGA2.0 352

Morality is basedon His nature.[100a] The Being that is God is pure, holy, just,compassionate, loving. These are good qualities. Since He knows allthings He knows what is harmful and hurtful to us[100b], thus Hecommands that we do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet(that hurts us, creating all kinds of discord and inner turmoilwithin our life), do not commit adultery, do honour your father andmother, and honour your Maker.

PGA2.0 352

If God allowedHis people to be destroyed by these hostile groups or be grosslyinfluenced it would nullify the prophecies about the Messiah'slineage. Thus, God had the greater good in mind, the salvation of avast number of people in the long run.

PGA2.0 371 to secularmerlin

Let me get thisstraight, in 99% of cases sex is consensual.[*] Both parties agree toit recognizing that it could produce another human being and that anew human being is the result of a woman consenting to have sex. Nowyou are telling me that if she gets pregnant she should take noresponsibility for it if she does not want to. She knows if she getspregnant another human being will be sharing her body for a period oftime - roughly nine months

secularmerlin 326

I'm not sure agree on what exactlyjustice is but let's pretend for a moment that that isn't an issueand that this sounds nice in theory.

PGA2.0 382First of all, letme give you an idea of what it is in a nutshell. Justice is equaltreatment under the law. It is not being particular depending onwhether a person is rich or influential. It applies the letter of thelaw equally regardless of persons.

Mopac 386

The Truth isGod.[101]

As atheism is adenial of Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, it is the position ofnihilism.[102]

Nihilismdemolishes morality. Anything built off nihilism is like a housebuilt on sand. Morality becomes a matter of convenience for whomeverhas the ability to excercise authority.[103]

3RU7AL

Show me you have a fixed standard that is objective or don't call what you believe moral.

PGA2.0 400

I point you to the Ten Commandments. That is the standard from which we derive many other laws for the principles focus on love for God and love for neighbour. We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours. But what does that mean outside of a fixed, final standard or measure? It would be relative and subjective. Because of that such a system of thought is incapable of providing a fixed and necessary standard.[104] Remember, I have asked SkepticalOne to provide onesince he stated he has one. I am still waiting

3RU7AL

Most mammals have the following (moral) instincts,

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF

(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

These moral instincts are universal (relative to mammals anyway) and unchanging.

These moral instincts predate the"discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.

PGA2.0 428

That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.

3RU7AL

EXACTLY LIKE YOUR PREFERENCE IN YOUR CHOICE OF GOD($).

PGA2.0 428

First, it is not based on me. I appeal to a source of revelation outside myself, a necessary personal knowing and revealing Being. What are you appealing to with your statements?

3RU7AL

(IFF) you are unable to convince someone that your moral code is universal and unchanging (THEN) your moral code is a defacto OPINION.

PGA2.0 431

Some people cannot be convinced because it runs contrary to what they want to believe.[105]

There is proof available in and for the Christian worldview that is most reasonable.[106] It comes from what is necessary for there to be morality. How is yours anything other than opinion?

3RU7AL

Just like your preference for a particular god($).

PGA2.0 431

The evidence is convincing and justifiable.[107] Christianity has what is necessary. I can make sense of morality. Show me your belief can too.

PGA2.0

How does what youlike (your subjective tastes and desires) equal what is good?

3RU7AL 339

Well,I certainly wouldn't trust you totell me my likes and dislikes.

PGA2.0 431

You are evading the question, trying to turn it back on me to escape explanation. It is a ploy I have witnessed for those who have nothing to offer use.

3RU7AL 339

(IFF) everyone agreed on the one-true-interpretation and practical application of the moral code of "YHWH" (THEN) we'd all be Orthodox Jews

PGA2.0 431

Argumentum ad populum. Truth is not true just because the majority think so.[108] What is good is so whether you believe so or not.[109]

3RU7AL

Your decalogue is indistinguishable from a (really old) personal preference or opinion.

PGA2.0 432

Your assertion, not mine. Back it up.

3RU7AL

Didn't you choose your standard?

PGA2.0 434

I believe in God who is my standard of righteousness. He first chose me to be in Christ. Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelationof Someone else who is logically necessary for morality.

PGA2.0 335

Not for those who are true believers.

3RU7AL

You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.

PGA2.0

Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part.

SkepticalOne 437

I want to compliment you, Peter. You admit fault and you've integrated some awareness of logical fallacies into your repertoire. Kudos, sir.

3RU7AL

How do you know the "revelation" is moral?

PGA2.0 448

It has what is necessary for morality. Subjective humans who have no fixed foundation do not. I keep inviting you to show me a standard (other than the biblical one, since you are not a believer) that does have what is necessary and we will focus on that standard. I have not heard a chirp.

3RU7AL

Have you managed to distill any moralAXIOMS?

PGA2.0 288

How do you mean?I believe I have.

I work from the principle of the Ten Commandments, which delves into most aspects of moralityfor it deals with what happens when someone wrongs instead of lovesothers. Abortion centers on the "thou shalt not kill/murder"principle. Abortion is a spiteful act that does not take into accountthe life of someone else but thinks of self. It is not loving.[87]All human life is created in the image and likeness of God. It isGod's right to take human life since we are His creatures.[88]

God permitsexceptions for civil societies to function. Wrongdoing - life forlife; that would be equal justice. The exception to abortion is whenthe woman will die before the unborn is developed enough to save it.Then it is permissible to take its life because the death of thewoman would be unavoidable and so would that of the unborn. At leatone is saved, so it is the greater outcome of the two - one deadinstead of two. When someone dies unintentionally, in the case ofmanslaughter, the intent is not to do harm (but sometimes it can bebecause of carelessness), but an accident results in death. That isnot the same thing as malicious or spiteful intent - murder - that the commandment deals with.[89]

3RU7AL 294

Nope. Pleaseexplain.

PGA2.0 301

Words carryspecific meaning when in context. From a context you can determinewhat is spoken of. If not, the author needs to make his meaning moreclear. If you have not grasped the author's meaning, you have notunderstood what the author said or communicated.

Secularmerlin 326 to PGA2.0

(EITHER) a person's kidney (and theiruterus) are their possessions protected by their right to personalbodily autonomy (in which case NO ONE can use them without consent)(OR) a person's body (such that its use is only a danger to theindividual but they could live through the process) is commonwealthand anyone in possession of two kidneys is just as guilty of murderby proxy as a woman who gets an abortion.

PGA2.0 330 to SkepticalOne

Now you mentiontwo types of foreign slaves, one a war captive and therefore areparation for the damages suffered[90], and the other bought toserve the Hebrew family from a foreign country, again usuallybecoming a slave in a foreign land because of poverty or debt. Evenso, the type of slavery or servitude was different between thetreatment in Israel to that experienced in other ANE nations. But toyour point, the foreigner, during a war, would be responsible for thedamages inflicted on the victor.[91] [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 330 to SkepticalOne

War reparationsor restitution was a different principle, the principle of damages owed, damages paid. In our penal system the damages would have to be repaid or else the person would face prison time.

SkepticalOne 303

I think you, and many people, overly complicate morality. We only need to agree on something by which tomeasure our actions. Your preference is god. Mine is well-being.

PGA2.0 331

Well-being in whose eyes? Your subjective eyes? No thank you.

PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOne

How does that answer my question? You continue to evade my questions.

PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOne

That is your subjective opinion. What makes that right or anything you say right since you have no objective standard of appeal. Why SHOULD (a moral imperative) I trust your subjective opinion since it appears that is all you have got? Your subjectiveness is what wars are fought over.

PGA2.0 331

Abortion bad -abortion good - abortion bad again - abortion good again.

3RU7AL 306

You validate the moral codec of "YHWH"by using YOUR moral intuition.

PGA2.0 335

I validate them by pointing to a standard beyond myself that is necessary because it is fixed and unchanging.[92] Logically, that is what is necessary because the law of identity (A=A) falls to pieces if every subjective being has a different view on what is right and good.[93] So, it is self-evident for anyone who thinks about what is necessary. A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.[94]

3RU7AL 306

And then you credit "YHWH"for gifting you the moral intuition you use to validate "the ten commandments".

PGA2.0 335

An objective standard is sel-evident for morality. Without one how do you justifyyour OPINION is BETTER than that of anyone else?[95] Are you going to force your beliefs on others? How does that make it "better."

PGA2.0 335

Furthermore,since the Bible makes the point that we, as humans, are created in the image and likeness of God, we would have a consciousness that retains some of His goodness [96] (even while denying Him), but the problem is that the moral standard is garbled by the Fall and our subjectiveness without God

because we have no clear ideal we can mirror right and wrong against, just a dim reflection.[97] So, even to an extent, Hammurabi can reflect some of the standards of God without that close personal relationship. We see that Caan knew that killing (murdering) his brother was wrong. He hid from God just as Adam did when he took the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

3RU7AL 306

Any human can detect their own moral intuition without any assistance from a book.

PGA2.0 335

I would argue they are personal preference, not moral right, unless the belief reflects God's principles.

3RU7AL 328

The same way you do. Moral instinct. Moral intuition.

PGA2.0 352

It is not moral instinct that I prove what is right and wrong. It is by the revelation of Another, even though we are created in His image and likeness, thus we too are moral beings. The thing is, without His revelation sin prevents us from doing what is right.[98] We want todo what feels pleasant to us or what we desire rather than what isgood.[99] And since the Fall, we are marred with sin. Thus, we thinkapart from God, making up our own moral values that are way too oftencontrary to His standard.

3RU7AL

The ten yamas are:

[ . . . ]

PGA2.0 352

Some of these are restated in the Ten Commandments. Others I disagree with. Finally, who is the authority who revealed them? Is such an authority almighty? If so, let's discuss that being.

PGA2.0 352 to 3RU7AL about the the 10 niyamas

Why is this guru sufficient?