Re: I found this interesting.
 

Well, I wasn't the one, who brought up cause and effect, your x-tian co-believers did, but we've already had a discussion on this before. The x-tian notion is, as far as I've gathered from earlier discussions, that everything needs a cause, god is that cause and he himself always was and therefore is the only thing that needs no cause (ofcourse I don't agree with that, but let's once again go with that). Now you brought up the notion of evil and I'll throw satan in the mix, if god is the cause and everything else needs a cause, either god created evil/satan or just like god he/it doesn't need a cause, which would make him equal to god. If evilness is just as eternal as god, why choose good above evil, it even strikes down the theory of absolute morality. Either evil is eternal or it came from God!

Re: I found this interesting.
 

OK, so omnipotence is out of the window, in the dictionary it says omnipotence means having unlimited power, but we have assessed that god cannot contradict himself, therefore there are limits to his power.


Once again there are limits to god noted, he can only do what is within his nature. So the omnipotent thing is definitely gone, but still he is a mighty powerful dude in your opinion. Why would an omniscient and omnipresent being create? Was god unhappy? Was god bored? If in the beginning there was only God and god was good, why create a possibility for evil to arise? Why, and god already knew what the outcome would be, create something where more than half of his children would burn for eternity? Is this goodness?


If he is so prevelant than we wouldn't be having this discussion, there would not be so many different religions with each again so many denominations and surely there would be no such thing as non-believers. There either is this prevelance or their isn't, the belief in prevelance does not relief you from the burden of proof, or you would have to proof the prevelance first, which given the arguements above is already disproven.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Perhaps there are only agnostics, as we have all questions we do not know how to answer and we all throw our best guess at it, based on the information (we think) we have.

Why is a believer called just that, because he beliefs in god, he does not know god, at the very least not in his entirity.

And the notion that an agnostic would have to go to church half the time is really ridiculous. What church? If I have not enough knowledge to vote for one of the 30 political parties in my country, should I vote for a different one in the 30 next upcoming elections?

Agnostics cannot be consistent with their belief, because they have no belief, because they don't think they have enough knowledge to belief. The only consistent thing for an agnostic to do is gather more knowledge, perhaps even in a church or a mosque.


Once again, you're welcome :cheers:

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Show me a dictionary definition that says unlimited power means the ability to do anything. Self-contradiction is not a power, it is a weakness.


For a reason which is perfectly sufficient for Him


Now this is where we agree. There isn't any such thing.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

(Romans 1: 18 - 22)

Re: I found this interesting.
 

True, we could never know God in His entirety, but we can know what God has revealed about Himself in His Word.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I already explained that whether or not abiogenesis is a possibility, it does not matter, hence I don't care to discuss it. Even if living matter came from non-living matter (which has never been observed. Ever), it only pushes the question back one step further.

Also, in response to RalphyS' claim that God then needs His own God, that is precisely the point. He doesn't. He is the necessary Being which has to exist. God does not have to follow our laws of science because He invented them. However, if there is no God, then the laws of science are paramount, and in that case, the causality problem completely destroys any rational view of matter, intelligence, life, motion, etc.

And Anarkist, err... Lunar Shadow, you keep talking about how we "already discussed" morality, but you never were able to answer any of the objections brought forth. You and Ralph both want there to be some type of morality somehow (Ralph posited honesty as a "good" trait), yet neither has any type of reasoning behind it.

So atheists can't explain matter, motion, intelligence, life, morality, etc. using logical principles, and yet supposedly (as we have been told countless times on this forum), Christians abandoned logic? From where I sit, believing in God is the only logical thing to do.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

That list of contradictions is completey untrue. Every one of them are taken out of context. You must read the entire sections, not just one verse or two to understand the meanings behind the statements. That being said, that page serves only those stupid enough to believe something they read on the internet just because someone else says it's true. Why not use real logic instead of trying to trick people? Isn't that what you athiests say?

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Same thing as I stated before, X-tians claim causality for everything accept god, god needs no cause, because he is the cause (ofcourse the causality issue would also need a cause for god, but let's abandon this for the moment). As I've stated before if everything needs a cause, except god and god is all-good, which x-tians claim he is, where did evil/satan come from? As the rest is per definition caused by god, either god created them/it or god is not the prime cause for everything and evil/satan is an therefore an equal to god/goodness, which ofcourse also undermines the theory of absolute morality stemming from god.


Untrue, I did have a reasoning behind "honesty" being a good trait, you just choose not to accept it, but it is not up to you to decide whether my reasoning is sound or not. Morality is not a thing that X-tians invented, people were moral, long before Christianity was invented and will be long after it is gone. Sure, there is no such thing as absolute morality, but objective morality reached out of consensus is all we humans need. If morality is derived only from god, why aren't religious people much more moral than non-believers. The jails are filled with people who believe in an absolute moral authority, just one proof that this authority is useless.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Sorry, not my argument, but I could not resist. Morality reached by consensus is the very definition of SUBJECTIVE morality, not OBJECTIVE morality.

If morality is chosen it is not an objective morality, it is simply a moral preference. If morality is subject to preference, why couldn't Hitler, for instance, choose his morality?

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Each and everyone of us, even Hitler, has its own subjective morality, all these subjective moralities thrown together in a society become an objective morality, which are made into laws and regulations. Such an observable objective morality is for example the consensus on a speed limit, subjective morality does cause us to cross the speed limit. Ofcourse all of our subjective moralities change and therefore also alter the objective morality of a society, as for example the abandoning of slavery shows.

Sure, there are people who only consider their own subjective morality, we generally consider them criminals. :D

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Unlimited means just that "no limits", you yourself stated that god as opposed to us cannot contradict himself and that god cannot do as opposed to us cannot do anything against his nature. The word 'cannot' in itself implies there are limits and besides that we do seem to have these powers that god doesn't have.


In other words you do not have an explanation that is sufficient to anyone besides him.



Well we atheists are always accused for our so-called arrogance, but I think this tops it all. Basically you state, there is no such thing as a non-believer, there are only those who choose to ignore the obvious presence of the Lord and you claim this based on a book that's supposedly written by this Lord. You have neither proven the existence of any god, nor proven that he wrote this book, nor why this book should be any better than any other 'holy' book out there of all the other faiths, who are ofcourse also misguided as your preferred holy book claims. How circular can your logic become and how arrogant can you be, to claim that you know how other people think.

Furthermore you keep thanking me for my arguements, but you choose to ignore some parts, whether they don't fit in your picture or you simply cannot answer them I don't know, but please answer my posts in their entirity if you do. At least we can book some progress than.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

We haven't yet proven that there is a god, if we do so, than we can make the next stop, to which god(s) exist. So the connection between a god and his word, has yet to be made.

If we look at the bible, it is full of irreconcilable contradictions, factual errors and demonstrable fictions.

Most people who have really read it will recognize this.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Post #47.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Please expand, why what is untrue and what is taken out of context, would my answer be, but I haven't looked at the list (yet) of which Lunar Shadow spoke, I could name some obvious irreconcilable contradictions.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Just click on the link provided http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Nobody has proven there is NO God:)

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Just one example of a more glaring, contradictory , factual claim about Jesus, which I submit cannot be reconciled.

The genealogies for Jesus given in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew gives the following:
(Mtt. 1:1-16)
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


Now let's look at Luke.

(Lk. 3:23-38)
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

First of all let's bear in mind that these are really geneologies for Joseph, not Jesus. If you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as both Matthew and Luke assert, then it must be admitted that Jesus himself has no connection to either geneology. That makes them rather a moot point since the whole point of these things is to show Jesus' descendancy from David. It's a contradiction in itself to say that Jesus was born of a virgin and then try to prove a Davidic lineage through Joseph.

Looking at the genealogies themselves we see that Matthew starts with Abraham and counts down to Joseph, while Luke starts with Joseph and counts clear back to Adam (also note that Luke calls Adam "the son of God.")

Matthew claims descendancy from David through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. They are completely different after that and claim different fathers for Joseph.

Typically, this disparity has been addressed by apologists by claiming that one of the genealogies goes through Mary. There is zero support for this in the texts, though, and a matrilineal connection to David would not have been sufficient to legitimize a claim to Davidic inheritance under Jewish law anyway. The genealogies clash and that's that.

There is also a huge disparity between Matthew and Luke as to the date of birth. Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. This is an irreconcilable gap, although many apologists have tried to contrive an earlier census there is no evidentiary support for such an event and some significant evidence against it.

Matthew's and Luke's Nativities are quite different and each mentions things not mentioned by the others. Not every difference is a necessary contradiction but some of the differences are and it might be useful to examine them side by side.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

We've already established that it is impossible to proof that something does not exist, therefore the burden of proof lies with those who assert the positive claim.

It's just like the law, you do not have to proof that you're not guilty, the prosecutor has to proof your guilt.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

ok Chris how about this one This verse is found in Matthew Luke and in Mark I use Mark because it was the first book written and it is probable that the otheres used Mark as a template to write the other 3 books of the gospels



9:1 And he said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."


No it appears that Jesus was eithr lying or wrong. This being the case is he really the son of god? because if he lied that goes agianst "the known nature of god" but if he was wrong than he was a false prophet and should have been stonned to death per the law. either way this does not look good.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

failed Prophecies and Promises from the bible


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Two problems hence two answers: First, you missed the entire point of my argument. God is the uncaused cause. The principle of causality is a scientific principle which applies *in* this universe because God made this universe this way. He could have made it so that causes were not required, but He did. However, if there is no God, causality MUST be obeyed, hence our universe would be a contradiction.

As for "good/evil", first off, by admitting their existance, you admit the need for a higher Being, which I will get into, but also, God created us with free will. The will to accept Him or reject Him. He did not create evil, but those who reject Him commit evil. Evil is better described as the absence of God. He does not create it, we perform evil acts whenever we leave God, so to speak.




First off, if it is logically errant, anyone can point that out, which is what I was doing. Secondly, you made no such argument. Your argument for honesty assumed morality. The very thing you were attempting to show cannot also be your premise. It was. Your argument was "honesty is good because we can make decisions based on good information". Anyone can see the tautology there.



If it was something Christians invented, you would have won the argument. The very fact that you and Lunar keep bringing this up leads me to believe you simply don't understand the important underlying point here.


Well I don't believe Christianity will ever be "gone", but regarding your point, what on Earth do you mean by moral? Again, you use the term, but you haven't even said what it is. To be moral means doing what is right. Doing what is right presupposes that there IS something right. That presupposes someone made it so. That requires a higher Being.


You know, a few times I see people refuting this argument in books and I wonder why they bother, because after all, no one could be silly enough to posit such a thing, right? apparently not. The argument from consensus is so obviously wrong on so many levels, I will barely deign to answer it. But let me ask you this: If 51% of the people in the world decide it is "right" to sadistically torture the other 49%, does that make it right? Don't be absurd.

And if you admit there is "no such thing as absolute morality" then you admit there is no morality. "Subjective" morality isn't morality at all.

Finally, as to what humans "need", why did the godless and secularist and atheistic approach of Russia fail so utterly during the 20th century if we don't need morality?



First off, they often are. Secondly, this is a bad argument anyway. Just because there is a moral law doesn't mean we are perfect and never screw up. Additionally, we can claim someone else screwed up, while you have no foot to stand upon. When Hitler comes around, we can complain. All you can say is "well, id rather him not do i suppose but that is only my subjective opinion and there isn't anything wrong with him"


That isn't a proof at all. The continued lack of logic astounds me. First off, *most* people believe there is some type of absolute morality, so of course there would be people in jail. Second off, what is that supposed to show? This is just sensationalist claptrap with no substance at all.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Indeed the principle of causality is a scientific principle and an observable one for that matter, but you are applying boundaries to it, by stating *in* this universe. We are not aware of anything outside this universe, so you cannot place something randomly, in this case god, outside of it and declare that therefore needing no cause. Therefore you would have to prove that god or indeed anything lives outside this universe, if that is proven, you have to prove that the principle of causality only applies to this universe, until you prove these 2 things I see no reason not to apply the principle of causality on everything including god.


So this throws the theory of god being omnipresent out the window?
I do not admit the absolutes of good and evil to exist, they are subjectives in my opinion, who can become objectives by consensus, but for every religion they are absolutes, so therefore I asked the question. Back to the issue, if I take the bible literally satan was already evil before any of god's creatures rejected god by eating the apple lured by the same satan, so where did satan come from? And this is not only a problem for literal readers of the bible, because if this did not happen, there would be no original sin and there would have been no need for Jesus to die for our sins.


Ok, I might agree with you here, but in case morality is not absolute it makes perfect sense. We as humans have learned throughout time that honesty is preferable (generally) to lies and therefore we call it good or better than lying.
I might agree that absolute morality would require an absolute authority, but than again you would have to prove that there is an absolute morality.


Again the difference lies in morality being an absolute or an objective consensus. This is why "doing the right thing" does not mean the same to a religious person and a non-believer, abortion is absolutely wrong in the religious mind, yet by consensus we as humans have declared it right (in certain circumstances) and made it legal.

It's just like my non-belief in God, I do not know absolutely that god doesn't exist, because I am not omniscient. Still I declare there is no such thing as god, actually I should add to that, as far as I know, but we as humans imply this in our speach. Otherwise I could never declare that there are no elfs, dragons, santa claus or the easterbunny. The same thing applies to right and wrong as objectives as well as subjectives. I can declare something right for me or right for the society I live in, but this is not an absolute.


Well yes, it would be right to those 51%, they have decided it right, haven't they. Ofcourse it wouldn't happen, because a) who would decide who would be in the 51% and would you therefore take the risk of being in the 49% and b) the 49% could become a majority and overthrow the 51%, but it's silly to have to argue this.

In the third reich they decided it was right to persecute Jews, it used to be right to own slaves (which wasn't even wrong in your holy book), we can see the change in morality throughout ages, which gives more likelihood to morality being subjective and objective consensus. Silly me ;)


"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other word would smell as sweet." Morality just like god are inventions of men, Gandhi is generally considered a moral standard in our history, yet put up against your absolutely morality you would have to consider him evil, because he rejected your god.


Because it became a dictatorial regime and dictators generally don't rule by adhering to an objective morality reached by consensus. If you really think that there is an absolute morality, you should oppose democracy and be in favor of theocracy. We should not make laws by consensus or majority vote, but the only laws applicable should the laws of god.


There were people, who found Hitler's regime (subjectively) wrong from the beginning, but the world still had to learn the objective wrong of his deeds, this is why he could remain in power so long. Indeed we have never seen somebody who is absolutely evil, Hitler was loved by Eva Braun and he was nice to his dogs, just to mention a thing, if he was a man absent of god as you describe it, why wasn't he evil all of the time?


Indeed *most* people believe in (a) god(s) and therefore believe in an absolute morality, but for both there is no proof, so believing it, doesn't make it so. But the fact that those who do believe in these 2 things aren't more moral (in the subjective consensus we agree upon) than those who do not indicates that both things do not exist or have no meaning if they do or that these people at the very least are hypocrites.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I don't see why you are having trouble undrestanding this. The law of causality is a *scientific principle*. Now, in our universe, it cannot be broken. Well uh-oh, THAT is a problem. It is broken by the fact that we exist and move.

There is no way around that without admitting the existance of an uncaused Cause. The necessary Being, who does not have to be caused, because He does not have to follow the principles of the Universe He created. My position is logicall consistent. Yours is fallacious.




First off, you do nothing but throw out prejudicial arguments that are entirely useless. We aren't talking about Christianity yet, or satan, or any of that. But to answer your question, obviously Satan chose to leave God. It is very simple.




By whose standards? Why do so many people strive to be honest when it hinders them, does nothing good for them, often harsm them, etc.?

And beyond that, what is "preferable"?


At the moment, I'm trying to show that without an absolute authority, there is no morality, period.




Actually, the majority is agaisnt it, but that is besides the point. The point is, your side has not declared it "right", because your side has no concept of "right" and "wrong", since those concepts require a standard greater than ourselves, and that standard is something you refuse to admit. On the other hand, we *can* declare it wrong because we DO have a standard.


It is not just "not an absolute". It isn't anything at all. It isn't "right", period. It's NOTHING.


Okay, so you have just admitted that morality does not exist. That's wonderful. Since 95% of the world at least, disagrees with you, they must now declare there is a higher Authority


There is no change in morality. The only change is in the arguments for the application of the principles we all agree to. Who ever says it is better to be cowardly than to be brave, better to be honest than dishonest, better to be gluttonous than moderate? Sure, a few random individuals throughout history, perhaps, but that is to be expected even if there is a natural law written in us.




There is certainly a middle ground between good and evil, but you are right, I don't think Ghandi was the greatest dude of all time.




First off, who says I would not favor a country that went by the laws of God? But secondly, God gave us free will, and because of this, it is also permissible to have a government which follows the same principles. Speaking of which, we do indeed have many laws based on morality.





According to you, there was no objectvie wrong. You are once again contradicting yourself.


You ask silly questions. Even the most misguided of all humans has never been "all evil, all the time", as silly as that sounds. Once again you beg the question though: who says being nice to his dogs wasn't evil?




I'd say there is a proof for God. There must either be a God or not be a God. Anythign else would be a contradiction. Hence, if you can prove that the non-existance of God is impossible, you can show His existance. Our universe could not be here without a God. Seems like proof to me. Granted, this does not necessariyl prove morality, but most people take morality for granted, not God.


I find both your premise (that believers aren't more moral than non-believers) and your conclusion to be faulty. Atheists are far more likely to be immoral because they don't believe in morality, so whats it to them? If I was an atheist, I sure as heck wouldn't be living the way I am now. Second, the idea that atheists might be just as moral as believers only hurts your cause. It is evidence for the existance of a moral law engrained in our being, that even those who claim not to believe in any type of morality, would still be moral beings.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

Well you are right to a degree, *in* our universe the principle of causality cannot be broken, but this does not apply to the universe itself as a whole.
The universe itself therefore would not need a cause and be uncaused. There is no need for the original uncaused cause to be a being.

A commonly stated workaround for the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The Big Bang is said to be the start of both space and time, so the question "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. This has been put forward by Stephen Hawking, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole (however, this comment was made in reference to cosmology and not theology).

If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes--multiple gods, say--or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?," you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question--"Why is there something rather than nothing?"--remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?


This does not answer the question, where did Satan come from?


Without an absolute authority, there is no absolute morality. There is relative morality, which has evolved throughout the existence of human kind. If there was an absolute morality would it not be required to adher too it for all of god's beings. So would an animal murdering for food, not be an absolute wrong. Humans do have a sense of morality, which is both through the evolution of our species as through learned behaviour.


The majority isn't against it, but let's not get into that. Please elaborate on something if for example abortion, torture and slavery are wrong, are they wrong because god prohibits it or does god prohibit them because they are wrong?


I have admitted that absolute morality does not exist. 95% of the world haven't even asked themselves questions like this, they simply follow the religion of their parents blindly.


A change in human morality throughout history is an observable fact, the leading societies of each time-era show so, from the gladiators in Rome on. That this not coincide with your theory of absolute morality doesn't change this.


A middle ground? Now you are contradicting yourself, either it is according to the absolute standard or it is not, so it is evil or it is not evil. There can be no middle ground, otherwise evil would be relative.


I never stated that you didn't want a theocracy, in fact I'll ask it now, would you favor a theocracy above the democracy you live in now? Ofcourse the problem would be in which sort of theocracy the people would want to live in? Are you a fan of president Bush? Isn't he evil for claiming that islam is a respectable religion? Giving respect to followers of false gods, what Allah obviously is to you, are evil, aren't they? Absolute morals aren't only unproven, they are almost impossible to live with.


I disagree, the consensus of subjective wrongs (mostly made into law) constitute an objective wrong, therefore it was possible to put some of Hitler's cronies on trial and to sentence them.


Ofcourse these are silly questions for me, but I'm trying to find out how you use your absolute standards, what you're thoughts are on these things, since I cannot fathom how to put all these things in line in my mind, absolute standards, evil being the absence of god etcetera. These things just don't rhyme together for me, so I am inquiring? Does this bother you?

So if evil is the absence of god and hitler wasn't evil all the time, why was god present at the most inconvenient times, meaning when Hitler was with his dogs, his girlfriend or other examples and not at the times when he decided to kill 6 million jews. In my subjective morality god really showed poor judgement to be present with Hitler at the wrong times. Is is really so silly to ask such questions?


I already answered this above, but once again, is something wrong because god forbids it or does god forbid it because it's wrong?


Once again you substitute absolute morality for morality, atheists do believe in morality, they just don't think that things are absolutely wrong. Believers have just as little reason to adher to speed limits as non-believers do, it is, as far as I know, not mentioned in the word of god. In your reasoning any believer who adher to laws that aren't of god are proof that there is morality without god.

The basic claim remains to proof an absolute morality and I can see no proof in your statements.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

I am really shocked. The depths of absurdity which one has to go to maintain one's atheism are unbelievable. If this were an argument you were not invested in, you would never accept such a ludicrous argument.

But beyond that, you simply keep losing the point. God is the uncause Cause, whose very nature is to exist, hence He does. Our nature is not necessarily to exist. We can die, change, etc. Something caused us. You so far have come up with nothing which did.




Satan was a fallen angel but he was still created by God, before he fell.




You are making my case. We have a sense of morality. This sense of morality could not come from "evolution" because often, morality requires the worst possible things for survival. Also, the idea that we simpyl learned it only pushes the question back. Where did the first people "learn" it?




They are wrong because they are against God's nature. Godd and evil are synonymous with "Godly" and "ungodly"




Not so. Most people, when asked, would believe there is soem type of morality. YOU even think this. You think we have a moral sense. You then contradict yourself by saying there is no absolute morality but i digress.




I see no change in morality. There are always wild, minor exceptions, but where was dishonor ever thought good? When was cowardice ever praised?




Sure there can. The vast majority of acts we commit in life are neutral. The vast majority of us both do good things and bad things. one wrong act does not make on evil anymore than one good act makes one a saint.




Actually, the only societies in hirtory that survived for long periods of time were moralistic. The ones that dont are secular.

And theocracy is an ambiguous term. any people mean different things when they say it.



No, they don't. No amount of subjectivity ever amounts to objectivity. That is ridiculous. It is like claiming that a thing that is standing in space, with no movement, would suddenly move without any forces acting on it. OH WAIT, you do believe that this anti-science event could happen, no wonder you are having trouble.




These posts are getting long. I can't even remeber what this was in response to.



God is always everywhere. If Hitler truly repented of all his sins before he died, God would accept him into Heaven. Now since it is believe Hitler commited suicide, this is impossible, but yes, God will always be merciful. No human is completely evil because that would mean they were beyond grace, which they are not.




That is because they are the same thing. Subjective morality isn't morality. It is nothingness.



Morality without authority is useless. Your idea of morality is akin to laws in the U.S. not being enforced. If no one was ever prosecuted for crime, are laws would not really BE laws.


First off, that isn't true, second, I don't quite get your point here...


Absolutely not. I follow the laws of the U.S. because breaking them would entail bad things. Why would anyone follow a moral "law" that doesn't have any force behind it? They wouldn't. They don't.


For oen thing, I'm not trying to. I'm trying to show that there is NO morality without God. But also, I seem to have foudn it in YOUR statements. If even an ardent non-believer thinks there is morality in life, there must be inherent morality in life. It had to come from somewhere, i.e. God.

Anyway, i have enjoyed this discussion, I think for the most part we have remained civil, and I wouldn't mind continuing it, but I simply cannot go on responding to and writing posts of this length. We either need to narrow the focus or I will have to stop. I apologize, but I simply do not have the time.

Re: I found this interesting.
 

On the contrary I find your claims absurd, but as we are rapping up this debate I won't get into it anymore.


Well, just a short reaction than. Exactly, what you state!!! Indeed I/we (non-believers) do not claim to know the entire truth about the start / the cause of this universe, so far there are only theories as to what might have happened, based on the knowledge at hand. You (believers) on the other hand have come up with something, meaning you made up/invented a reason for it all, and named it God and furthermore you've excluded this invention from all the reasoning you apply to everything else, because it's 'his nature', this is not a solution, it's a delusion, wishful thinking at best.

Is Satan all evil now? Can god (something all good) therefore create something that turns all evil? How is the creator than not responsible for the evil of his creation? Can Satan reform? Has he? How would we ever know?


How do we learn the most basic things and skills? Observation, trial and error etcetera. As men developped from the early stages of animalism, he observed how family members reacted to death, these negative emotions they would want to avoid ergo killing became 'wrong', first only for members of your own group, later came a realisation, that everyone has family, so killing became a general 'no-no'. The same thing with stealing, someone took his brother's spear to hunt before he woke up, when he came back the brother was mad, because he couldn't go hunting, because his spear was gone ergo taking something that isn't yours is 'wrong'. And they learned that to forbid these 'wrongs' and endorce the 'rights' (actions that caused positive reactions) was good for the community they lived in and thus a sense of morality grew, which involved throughout time as humans became more intelligent and more 'civilized' and as societies became more complicated. I can't imagine it to be very hard to understand this process.

[quote=uncertaindrumer]
They are wrong because they are against God's nature. Godd and evil are synonymous with "Godly" and "ungodly".
I refer to Satan, probably the most ungodly being, yet created, by your own admission by god, something turned him away from god, something that also must have come from god, as everything comes from god or not? Isn't Satan all evil? How can 'all evilness' come from/turn away from 'all goodness'?


Honor and pride aren't that far apart, and pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. And I'm sure many a war-widow would have loved for her husband to be maybe less courageous if that would have brought hime home to provide for her and the family. Why is deciding wrong from right often so difficult and can the decision vary upon the different circumstances? Is lying absolutely wrong or can little, white lies to protect those who you love be sometimes right? There are no absolutes in situations like these, would be my answer. Everybody has to make his own decision, based on his own morals.



So if I murder someone that doesn't make me evil? Absolute morality sure doesn't sound like it's all that it's made out to be :D



What would you consider long periods of time? The roman empire ruled for centuries and there morals, gladiator fights, orgies, false gods etcetera, etcetera was nothing like your absolute standards. Btw the opposite of moral is not secular. And ofcourse you prove my point here, societies do need moral standards for them to work out in the long run, that's why we humans developped a sense of morality.


Well your second statement has nothing to do with your first. I do not believe the latter could happen in space as we know it now. To the first statement, if you and I would be stranded on an uninhibited island and we both agreed we would need eatchother to survive and therefore it would be wrong for one of us to kill the other, wouldn't the objective morality on that island be 'that killing is wrong'? Objective morality is nothing more than consensus of 'subjective moralities', mostly even only in majority and not unanimous.


So god was present at Auschwitz and what happened there wasn't against his nature? Why did he directly interfere with Sodom and Gomorra, Babylon, the flood, but has he taken a backseat and only looks on since he died? Is he really dead?


Or so you would want us to believe? Not only do I think you didn't prove (the necessity for an) absolute morality, but what I've read in this debate so far, it is not always absolute, since many things are according to you neither bad nor good and the bad things can all be absolved with one act of repentence.



Exactly, as there is no absolute authority, therefore there is also no absolute morality. Our relative morality is on big issues decided by the laws, on the smaller issues by the approval or disapproval of the people around us.


It didn't come somewhere out of the blue, it is learned behaviour. Some people in the world lived/live with partial nakedness and see no problem in that, as they mixed with other nations who did object, some of them began to dress (more). And I'm not sure wether this morality is inherent, maybe some collective recollection of morals has evolved in mankind, but maybe you could teach a newborn 'evil things' in separation of our society and portray them as 'good', I don't know.



I agree that this discussion has run its course for the most part and it is growing out of hand and I also feel that we are retracing our steps and hitting out heads against walls we cannot tear down. And indeed it is obvious that with mutual respect we will have to agree to disagree as noone can convince or persuade the other of the error in his ways, as I wouldn't have imagined possible from the start, but as you say it was enjoyable to try and see the other's perspective on these things, but it is indeed to time-consuming.