Objective morality argument

At 1/3/2015 11:56:15 AM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 7:51:53 PM, bulproof wrote:

At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:
As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word

And once again, the bible never makes that claim.
When will you understand that just saying something doesn't make it so?

When will you understand that the words written in the Bible do make this claim and that I am referring to these words and they do say this?

Peter

At 1/3/2015 12:14:35 PM, PGA wrote:
Sure, but I can also know when these laws oppose God's council, His revelation, and know they are wrong because of this. You have nothing concrete to ground goodness on.

At 1/3/2015 1:04:46 PM, Harikrish wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:14:35 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 7:32:57 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

At 1/2/2015 6:19:35 PM, PGA wrote:

As I have said before, you either take the Bible for what it claims to be - God's word and our highest authority - or you place some other authority above it. The latter is the case with you. You think your limited understanding is sufficient to determine all these things.

Not sure if you've been living in a cave these past few centuries, but you may need to understand that the Bible is NOT an authority of any kind in societies.

Irregardless, it is the highest authority that I can appeal to. That is where you and I differ in our worldview analysis.

You have already made up your mind. You are not open to anything I have to say. It would be like throwing pearls before the swine.

I'm not open to anyone who is so totally fallacious as to point to the claim of a man, and proclaim it as evidence that God actually spoke and it wasn't just the claim of a man. How silly!

I love the way you atheists make all these claims and construct a fallacious argument out of putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Examine your own worldview and its subjective nature. Your authority is either derived from your subjective mind or that of someone else on something that you have no certainty of yet you throw these false accusations at others as soon as your worldview is brought to light. You are a law unto yourself. I don't buy what you peddle.

You have no choice but to live by the laws of your society, which most likely are laws made by men and not your Bible.

Sure, but I can also know when these laws oppose God's council, His revelation, and know they are wrong because of this. You have nothing concrete to ground goodness on.

Peter

It is amazing the highest authority that you can reference comes from the Bible. The Bible does not even meet the minimum requirements to be taught in schools. The bible cannot be applied to science, legal system, history, mathematics , astronomy , cosmology, etc. etc. it has no use or relevance outside of an indulgent group of supernaturalist aghast their God is reduced to a wooden cross that symbolizes the futility of delusional behaviour.

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

At 1/3/2015 3:43:31 PM, Double_R wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:56:06 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:23:23 AM, Double_R wrote:
So once again, demonstrate the coherence of your question or go away.

You imply that my question is incoherent because you have no adequate answer for it

No, I have no adequate answer for it because it is incoherent. I have explained why it is incoherent several times and gave you every opportunity to prove my point wrong. You won't even bother. I'm done with this pointless discussion. Debate me on the this. At least then someone will read what I write.

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

At 1/3/2015 11:36:27 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
All human morality or resentment or apathy is easily reconciled with the next. This is essentially a sort of objective morality. What were we to all converge in our values, given adequate circumstances to do so?

Most cries of subjective morality come from people who don't understand other people. Really, irreparable madness is the real argument. Shakespeare's King Lear, Nabokov's Lolita, etc.

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have object[ive] emotions?

At 1/3/2015 11:39:54 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have object[ive] emotions?

Why not? We are told that God was righteously angry. His nature is good so He acts on that nature. Why would He not be angry with evil?

Peter

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

At 1/3/2015 11:45:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Perhaps evil is just a part of becoming many. So Cain killed Abel.

At 1/3/2015 11:40:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
bulproof, for example, is going to spend his entire life yelling at religious people for no real reason, but it's not because there's something specially adapted about his brain to this or anything like that, it's just how he's been pushed into nonsense.

At 1/3/2015 11:45:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

Do you believe a non believer can give mercy even when someone is deserving of their wrath?

At 1/3/2015 11:37:51 PM, bulproof wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

Not according to the book.

At 1/4/2015 12:01:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:45:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

Do you believe a non believer can give mercy even when someone is deserving of their wrath?

I do. My point was the objective morality would stir God's Judgement, but his Subjective Emotions delivers mercy.

At 1/4/2015 12:21:50 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:01:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:45:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

Do you believe a non believer can give mercy even when someone is deserving of their wrath?

I do. My point was the objective morality would stir God's Judgement, but his Subjective Emotions delivers mercy.

Jack, grandfather of Lynn sexually molested her when she was in the fifth grade. She kept it a secret for 6 years. But when Jack was visiting the family 6 years later Lynn's anger surfaced and she told her mother, Jacks daughter. The mother confronted Jack. He suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Complications arose and three months later he died of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by a staph infection that had settled in his lungs. For the last months of Jack's life, his daughter, the mother of the grand daughter he molested, took care of him even though he had been abandoned by the rest of his family. He deserved her wrath. It would have been just punishment to be abandoned by this daughter. Why would an atheist (a non believer) show objective judgement in a situation like this and take mercy on someone who did that to her child?

At 1/4/2015 12:02:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:37:51 PM, bulproof wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

Not according to the book.

What book is that?

God sends it to rain on the righteous and the wicked.

At 1/3/2015 12:45:37 PM, PGA wrote

You've just made a logical fallacy, but moreover, I look for truth in axioms that conform with the rules of logic, reason and scientific inquiry without any presupposition of supernatural or metaphysical claims. This is all I am asking you to do.

No, I have not. It is stated that someone who leaves the faith was never really in the faith. They professed yet did not possess true faith.

That is not true. The world under discussion is the world they lived in, not the world 20 centuries remove. You have made a categorical error in thinking that the teaching reflects our world today.:

Yes, that is correct but the attributions to him do not align with the descriptions of him from the apostles. This is my point.

Where do you get this information (misinformation) from?:

The Bible reveals that he did know Christ as one abnormally born, after the fact of Jesus' ministry, that in fact Jesus revealed Himself to Paul and gave him his mission.:

How do you know it's "God's word" when all you have to rely on is a man made book? And if God had any revelation to give to man, why would he not tell man that the planet was round instead of flat? Why wouldn't God tell him about gravity or germ cell theory?

I take His word, His authority as my highest authority and I can make sense of it. You can't. You run into all kinds of roadblocks in denying His word.:

It is illogical to believe that God is going to reveal Himself to you when you don't even believe anything He says.:

At 1/4/2015 12:27:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:21:50 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:01:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:45:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

Do you believe a non believer can give mercy even when someone is deserving of their wrath?

I do. My point was the objective morality would stir God's Judgement, but his Subjective Emotions delivers mercy.

Jack, grandfather of Lynn sexually molested her when she was in the fifth grade. She kept it a secret for 6 years. But when Jack was visiting the family 6 years later Lynn's anger surfaced and she told her mother, Jacks daughter. The mother confronted Jack. He suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Complications arose and three months later he died of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by a staph infection that had settled in his lungs. For the last months of Jack's life, his daughter, the mother of the grand daughter he molested, took care of him even though he had been abandoned by the rest of his family. He deserved her wrath. It would have been just punishment to be abandoned by this daughter. Why would an atheist (a non believer) show objective judgement in a situation like this and take mercy on someone who did that to her child?

I wouldn't presume to know why. I'm making the comment that she showed a subjective emotional response. But even then judgement would not be her place. Second there is probably a lot going on there. And potentially abuse by the father to the daughter.

What is the point you are trying to make?

At 1/4/2015 12:42:19 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:27:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:21:50 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:01:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:45:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

Genuinely true verses genuine are not the same Jody. I can genuinely believe I can fly and jump from the top of the Empire State building. Mind you, in all likelihood I'll only make this mistake once.

But with an objective moral basis there is at least the ability to properly interpret whether something is good because we have as our grounding what is best and we have that measure, that reference point to compare our belief of goodness to. In your worldview all you have is your likes and dislikes and what others legislate concerning their likes and dislikes.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.

: :

As Greg Bahnsen said: "the autonomous man must claim knowledge while failing to know what "knowledge" is, must constantly appeal to his personal authority while rejecting all appeals to authority, must generate knowledge in an ultimately unknowable universe, must seek truth while legislating what the truth has to be, cannot justify his own dependence on the principles of non-contradiction and natural uniformity, must believe in a rational yet irrational world, must relate unrelatable facts, must be ultimately skeptical and omniscient at the same time." - Presupposition Apologetics, p. 110.

I think that sums it up nicely.

We could only make the claim that it is completely true if an objective, universal, unchanging source revealed the truth to us, otherwise we are all in the same boat of relativism.

There is such a standard only because God exists as the necessary being for such standards.

Peter

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

Do you believe a non believer can give mercy even when someone is deserving of their wrath?

I do. My point was the objective morality would stir God's Judgement, but his Subjective Emotions delivers mercy.

Jack, grandfather of Lynn sexually molested her when she was in the fifth grade. She kept it a secret for 6 years. But when Jack was visiting the family 6 years later Lynn's anger surfaced and she told her mother, Jacks daughter. The mother confronted Jack. He suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Complications arose and three months later he died of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by a staph infection that had settled in his lungs. For the last months of Jack's life, his daughter, the mother of the grand daughter he molested, took care of him even though he had been abandoned by the rest of his family. He deserved her wrath. It would have been just punishment to be abandoned by this daughter. Why would an atheist (a non believer) show objective judgement in a situation like this and take mercy on someone who did that to her child?

I wouldn't presume to know why. I'm making the comment that she showed a subjective emotional response. But even then judgement would not be her place. Second there is probably a lot going on there. And potentially abuse by the father to the daughter.

What is the point you are trying to make?

No, judgement would not be her place. She chose to show mercy in place of wrath simply because it was the right thing to do. I assure she had no latent feelings resulting from sexual abuse as a child. But this is a non religious woman. An atheist by definition.

According to Peter objective morality is possible. But he believes it can only be acquired by those who are Christian and have an objective world view through God. All other world views are lacking according to him. I know that he is wrong. And all actions no matter how objective they are result of thought overcoming subjective emotional responses. And you said yourself, God applies objective thought to over rule subjective emotions and makes the righteous choice of mercy. So did this atheist.

Peter is wrong about world views. That is my point.

At 1/4/2015 12:42:19 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:27:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:21:50 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/4/2015 12:01:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:45:18 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/3/2015 1:04:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/3/2015 12:09:24 PM, PGA wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:

At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:

At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:

At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:

You are totally missing the definition of the word objective. It means without bias. You are very biased in your argument for objective morality and that makes your assertions fallacious by default. Please explain how your world view isn't subject to your beliefs in your attempt to prove that objective morality exists. You can't.

I'm saying that God would be that necessary objective being that we can know what is objective through. Without Him we are all in the same boat. There are many things in my worldview that are subjective yet I'm pushing the antithesis of your worldview and those of others to its roots and conclusion to see how you can explain anything without God or borrowing from His revelation. I don't believe you can make sense of it.

Peter

Does God have emotions?

Yes. Why wouldn't He?

Peter

Is it possible to have objective emotions?

Hence why tho deserving God's wrath we receive his mercy.

Do you believe a non believer can give mercy even when someone is deserving of their wrath?

I do. My point was the objective morality would stir God's Judgement, but his Subjective Emotions delivers mercy.

Jack, grandfather of Lynn sexually molested her when she was in the fifth grade. She kept it a secret for 6 years. But when Jack was visiting the family 6 years later Lynn's anger surfaced and she told her mother, Jacks daughter. The mother confronted Jack. He suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized. Complications arose and three months later he died of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by a staph infection that had settled in his lungs. For the last months of Jack's life, his daughter, the mother of the grand daughter he molested, took care of him even though he had been abandoned by the rest of his family. He deserved her wrath. It would have been just punishment to be abandoned by this daughter. Why would an atheist (a non believer) show objective judgement in a situation like this and take mercy on someone who did that to her child?

I wouldn't presume to know why. I'm making the comment that she showed a subjective emotional response. But even then judgement would not be her place. Second there is probably a lot going on there. And potentially abuse by the father to the daughter.

What is the point you are trying to make?

No, judgement would not be her place. She chose to show mercy in place of wrath simply because it was the right thing to do. I assure she had no latent feelings resulting from sexual abuse as a child. But this is a non religious woman. An atheist by definition.

According to Peter objective morality is possible. But he believes it can only be acquired by those who are Christian and have an objective world view through God. All other world views are lacking according to him. I know that he is wrong. And all actions no matter how objective they are result of thought overcoming subjective emotional responses. And you said yourself, God applies objective thought to over rule subjective emotions and makes the righteous choice of mercy. So did this atheist.

Peter is wrong about world views. That is my point.