Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:271-300|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 6:16:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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

You were proven wrong on this days ago.
The bible never mentions the bible being god's word. FACT
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 6:19:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
Where as you have an imaginary genocidal sociopath.
Nothing is much, much better,
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 6:37:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The position take by Christians is simple. If you cannot prove humans are capable of objective morality because morality is subjectively developed in humans. Then by default only God can represent objective morality.

The same argument, science can explain many things. But if it cannot prove God does not exist...then by default God exist.

But Christians cannot prove God exist or what objective morality is. Them trying to find God in the bible is as absurd as it can get. Even the Jews who created the entire God myth rejected Jesus.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 7:47:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

What is the highest authority you appeal to? Uniformity of nature is necessary for the scientific method. Without the biblical worldview I don't see grounds for the scientific method. And the Bible has been applied to the judicial system for centuries in many countries. It is not a scientific or mathematical book but it does record history.

As for the cross the Bible says it is foolishness to those who perish.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (NASB)
The Wisdom of God

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside."

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:53:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:59:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

The second invitation to debate in two days! I must have struck a cord. (^8

Peter
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:17:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:23:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:27:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:30:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:36:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:37:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

Contrary to popular belief, we're not just utterly random and thrusting d*cks in space.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:37:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:39:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:40:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:43:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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

But God created everything, right? Even evil.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:45:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:48:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 11:45:31 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Perhaps evil is just a part of becoming many. So Cain killed Abel.

And because Abel encroached on the perfection that was Cain alone. Genesis is a psychologically incisive story, if nothing else.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:59:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

He gave His creature, man, in Adam, the freedom to choose to know evil. In this way man was not forced to love Him. Evil is doing what is contrary to good. In Adam and Eve choosing to take the fruit they came to a realization of what evil is, just as we do. They chose to live outside of a relationship with God by doing so. We see the result of man choosing to do his own thing, everyone right in his own eyes, in opposition to God's goodness. That is the revelation of history, mans inhumanity to man in his rejection of God. We see man in all his evil shaking his fist at God because man "knows" what is right in his own mind yet he suppresses that truth in unrighteousness. Evil is the absence of light.

John 3:19-21
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

John 8:12
[ Jesus Is the Light of the World ] Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."

Peter
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:01:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:02:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:21:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:27:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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?
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:40:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

When you speak of mercy we see the ultimate act of mercy, humility, sacrifice and love in God sending His Son, and of course the Son agreeing to come to redeem fallen man, being willing to reconcile and forgive man through the Son.

Peter
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:40:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

YES you have - It is the logical fallacy of "No True Scotsman" which is basically an ad hoc attempt to retain some unreasoned assertion that I have never possessed 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.:

Are you being serious right now?? If you state (as you just did) that the teachings "20 centuries removed" does not reflect our world today then how can you justify any biblical teachings as relevant to anything we do today??? If we are discussing that a "world they lived in" is different than what we now experience what is the point of concerning yourself with the validity of the bible? This is a big question for you.

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?:

Historical research of the NT that is NOT religious biased.

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.:

No he didn't. Re-read Paul and understand that he places Christ in a celestial realm - not earthly.

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.:

Are you saying that you have a clear understanding of "God's word"?

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

This is obviously not true. What about "doubting Thomas"? Are you going to try and tell me that only "believers" are privy to God's revelation? This would contradict the NT teachings of doubters. You are continuing to dig yourself into a deeper hole.

I am not interested in your discussion with someone else about this subject. Just answer my questions or concede you cannot.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:42:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Mhykiel
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:08:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

Well I would say mercy is an emotional response. And judgement is an objective thought discernment.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:09:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

No, anyone can act justly, yet my point is that it goes contrary to what their worldview rests upon.

We are all created in His image and likeness yet so often we suppress the truth of God (Romans 1:18). What she did was not inherent to her atheist worldview's origins but to the Christian one. She live contrary and inconsistent to what is behind her adopted worldview - as simple as that.

Romans 2:14-16 (NASB)
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.


Peter

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.