Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:301-330|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:25:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 1:09:13 AM, PGA wrote:
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.

What she did was choose to do what was right for a person in need regardless of her own subjective emotions. As simple as that and it did not require prayer or a Christian world view. It required objective thought and a sense of empathy. You are wrong about this Peter. I'm sorry, but you are. We are not bound to a Christian world view. We all make our own choices and if we are thoughtful, so are our choices. Even in the absence of God.

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
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
1/4/2015 2:15:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 12:40:48 AM, MEK wrote:
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.

How do you judge that your faith is true? You trust Jesus and you continue to trust Him because He is able to save you, no matter what happens in your life.

2 Timothy 1:12
For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.


Hebrews 7:25
Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.


Romans 14:4
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.


Romans 8:39
nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


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, completely serious. The teaching of prophecy is 20 centuries removed, fulfilled. Jesus came to this 1st century people who rejected Him. He was prophesied to come throughout their OT Scriptures and He came to fulfill those Scriptures, both in judgment and to bring salvation to those waiting, then make salvation available to all peoples.

Every NT book is addressing this OT people. I like this quote:

"I believe that a recognition of "audience relevance" must be applied. By that I am simply saying: When reading the Scriptures, we simply must keep in mind that the things we are reading, whether spoken by Christ or written by His inspired writers, were not spoken and/or written to "us." Good folks, I am now persuaded that one invaluable thing we must always keep in mind is that the Scriptures, even though they were written "for" us, they were, in actuality, written "to" those in that era. And for that reason, I believe it is crucial that we study and understand them in their setting and context! For I believe to do otherwise is but to set ourselves up for a distortion in our interpretation and/or understanding of God's message!"


http://www.christeternalchristianchurch.com...

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.

Okay, let's see it.

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.

What do you think Jesus meant when He said, "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

It is a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly one, even if those in the kingdom live bodily on earth.

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"?

Some small aspects of it I have studied for a long time. Scripture is the final authority on these matters. If you think I am wrong then expose it by the 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.

No, many are "privy" to it yet not all accept it for its claim to be the Word of God. The criteria for believing God would be to put your trust in who He is and what He says. How can you have faith in someone you refuse to believe in?

I am not interested in your discussion with someone else about this subject. Just answer my questions or concede you cannot.

Then answer mine. Give me a list of your scholars and where they place the dating of the NT books. Are you able to do that or are your scholars a fictitious lot?

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:43:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 1:25:20 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:09:13 AM, PGA wrote:
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.

What she did was choose to do what was right for a person in need regardless of her own subjective emotions.

Again, we get back to how do you know it was right in an atheistic universe? You have said yourself that you have no absolute certainty. "I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth....I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality." Why is your conclusion right? (Perhaps you know only because you have been created in His image and likeness). How does a non-moral, unintentional, non-rational, change, random, unintelligent universe created and sustain rightness or anything else? How does a relative being without some other guidance? Do you just decide what objective is?

Where do you get right from with a relativistic moral system, one that is subject to change? Do you actually think that there are objective morals that come from such a system? And are those morals based on rightness or preference? Do you understand the difference?

As simple as that and it did not require prayer or a Christian world view. It required objective thought and a sense of empathy.

What do you have to base objective, unbiased, always doing what is best, thought upon Jody?

You are wrong about this Peter. I'm sorry, but you are. We are not bound to a Christian world view. We all make our own choices and if we are thoughtful, so are our choices. Even in the absence of God.

I'm not saying you can't make moral choices Jody. What I'm saying is they do not come from your worldview origin or correspond to it. You don't live life consistent with that origin neither can you explain it from that worldview origin. To explain it you have to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview all the time denying it of course. As Van Til expressed, the little kid has to be seated on the fathers lap before he can hit the father across the face. You live in His universe and are a creature of His yet you keep denying this because of where your core suppositions about life and the universe are based.

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
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:29:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 2:15:31 AM, PGA wrote:
How do you judge that your faith is true? You trust Jesus and you continue to trust Him because He is able to save you, no matter what happens in your life.

This is a valid question followed by self serving meaningless twaddle.
You judge your faith is true by your faith saying it's true.
Thus making every belief in everything true.
Hoorah.
We are saved HALLELUJAH.
Amoranemix
Posts: 562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 7:53:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
PGA 168 to Double_R
If most people agree and approve of rape or torturing babies then to that social convention it is right! Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking??? A tribe in the South Pacific agree and approve of eating those of different tribes. Therefore to this tribe it is right! No, some things are just plain wrong no matter whether 99% agree with it or not.
Your whole criticism about God-independent morality relies on exposing its problems. However, that alone is insufficient to reject it. If method A is bad, then that doesn't imply that method A should be rejected. Method A should be rejected only if a method B can be found such that method B is less bad than method A. So far you have been unable to show that God-based morality is any better. God is a nice guy because he told you so and you believe him. How sweet. Do you really think such claims can be qualified as arguments in a debate with atheists ?

- Double_R 155
Certainly the basics. This allows us come to agreement on about what we consider moral about 99% of the time, allowing us to live together in a productive society.
- PGA 168
So you say, "This is good because I say it is good and if you don't like it I will bash you over the head." Very moral of you, and the 99% in your social group who say the same thing!
The applicable moral standard (the law) mainly based on a majority is usually what is best practically achievable. It would however be best that the moral standard be created by benevolent, wise people and then the problems you mention wouldn't exist. The remaining problems would only be that people fail to adhere to that standard. You are also following that principle and promoting your god as such a benevolent, wise person. The problems are that atheist don't believe your god to be benevolent and wise and that you also haven't yet demonstrated that your god's morality is any more objective than that of other benevolent, wise people.

- Double_R
Still wondering how this proves God.
PGA 171
It does not. I'm using the logical implications of a worldview devoid of God. Like it?
Dismissing a worldview because you dislike it is wishful thinking. Reality does not conform to your (dis)likes. The main point is indeed that all your complaints on how the real world works do not prove your god exists. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a powerful, wise and benevolent god watched over us ? We can always dream.

- Double_R
"Good" is a determination we make. It is nothing more than us judging the intent or actions of a person.
- PGA 171
Based on what " preference.
Good, then the Uni-bomber likes to bomb people. Some people judge this favorably and others not. What is your preference?
On grounds like you have just stated anyone can make anything "good" as long as they and enough people "like" it. If that is the kind of world you want to live in then don't complain when another Hitler rises to power and "determines" you are of an inferior stock and need to be eradicated along with your family and all that is dear to you. Anything can be justified if enough people determine a course of action, and to you this is what makes something right/good. What a stupid way to determine morality.
I'll adapt my worldview to parody yours. I don't think an evil tyrant should be allowed to determine morality. Morality should be determined by good, wise people. So 'another Hitler' falls out of the boat.

- Amoranemix 174
Why would an all-knowing mind be good by its very nature ?
What is an absolute mind ?
- PGA
[no response]
You forgot to answer my questions.

- Amoranemix 174
[3] Why shouldn't the standard change ? A changing standard can still be objective.
[4] It can also mean whatever you want it to mean without me and an objective standard.
[5] Can you prove that ?
- PGA
[no response]
[3] You forgot to answer my question.
[5] I suspected as much.

- Amoranemix 174
You dodged the question. Since we ought according to you save humanity in that scenario, how do you propose we do that ?
- Benshapiro
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Benshapiro 177
In any context. I've already said, raping an infant is always something that ought not to be done. If raping an infant is a necessary evil for the greater good, doing the necessary evil is still evil - evil is a departure from the way things ought to be.
Maybe so, but humanity being destroyed by aliens is also a departure from the way things ought to be. Do you consider it malevolent to choose the lesser of two evils ?

Benshapiro 177 to Benshapiro
I see where I've confused you. I'm arguing that raping an infant regardless of context is always immoral so I'm supporting moral absolutism rather than objective morality with my infant rape argument.
However both moral absolutism and objective morality would require God's existence.
Can you prove that ?

- Amoranemix 198
Your moral evaluation 'Killing without necessary justification is immoral' contains a context, namely the absence of necessary justification. Anything can become morally right with justification.
- PGA 209
Who determines what is justifiable? To justify something is to say that it is good, right. How does a subjective, relative human being come up with this? Is it based on preference or is there a standard/measure of rightness that is true regardless of what one believes it to be that can be appealed to? If not then how do you think it is right/justified?
I suppose you don't doubt I can answer these questions. Others have already answered them. So what is your point ? Are you going to point out for the twentieth time that my answer makes morality subjective, that it could make Nazi morality good and that only your god can provide an objective, unchanging standard ? In that case I prefer to decline in order to avoid unnecessary repetition.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:25:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 7:53:08 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
PGA 168 to Double_R
If most people agree and approve of rape or torturing babies then to that social convention it is right! Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking??? A tribe in the South Pacific agree and approve of eating those of different tribes. Therefore to this tribe it is right! No, some things are just plain wrong no matter whether 99% agree with it or not.
Your whole criticism about God-independent morality relies on exposing its problems. However, that alone is insufficient to reject it. If method A is bad, then that doesn't imply that method A should be rejected. Method A should be rejected only if a method B can be found such that method B is less bad than method A. So far you have been unable to show that God-based morality is any better. God is a nice guy because he told you so and you believe him. How sweet. Do you really think such claims can be qualified as arguments in a debate with atheists ?

How do you determine the moral qualitative "less bad" on a shifting scale based on likes and dislikes? An absolute, objective, unchanging scale or measure or reference is necessary. Logically A = A. You can't have A = B, C, D, or whatever without A losing its identity. The law of identity (a law of logic) states that A=A. Right is right. A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat. Right is not wrong. Who defines right on your relative scale - you? Why can't I?

- Double_R 155
Certainly the basics. This allows us come to agreement on about what we consider moral about 99% of the time, allowing us to live together in a productive society.
- PGA 168
So you say, "This is good because I say it is good and if you don't like it I will bash you over the head." Very moral of you, and the 99% in your social group who say the same thing!
The applicable moral standard (the law) mainly based on a majority is usually what is best practically achievable.

Laws are made by people. People base laws on either an objective moral standard that has as it grounding a "best" (as you say above) that no better or righter comes from or subjective likes and dislikes which can never achieve a "best" because there is nothing to measure "best" by since it is relative.

So are you advocating an objective unchanging best because "best" is a fixed unchanging known or are you advocating a standard for best that changes as peoples likes change?

With a relative standard you can have two opposing definitions each claiming itself best, therefore better than the other. Which is the actual best? Who decides?

In a relative standard you have a logical contradiction in which A does not equal A in both cases. One says abortion is wrong and not the woman's right to choose, it is murder, another says it is right and the woman's right to choose. Who is right on the relative scale of things?

As I said before, if your morality is based on relative likes and dislikes then how can you say what someone else likes or dislikes is wrong? Whose conflicting belief is the right one when no ethical belief is objectively true? Your moral code can be no better than mine on the grounds of relativism since no moral absolute transcends the culture. So how can your moral "right" be any "better" than my moral "right" if we have nothing objectively or absolutely right to base it on?

Your scale or measure is different than my scale or measure in a relativistic world but you can't say it is better just because you like it. Like does not make something "right." Like makes it your preference, yet you want to deny me my preference.

It would however be best that the moral standard be created by benevolent, wise people and then the problems you mention wouldn't exist.

Benevolent and wise in whose eyes - your? Why should I accept your relative likes as "benevolent" when I don't see benevolent in the same way you do? In a relative world if your tastes do not appeal to my tastes then I'm not going to see your tastes as benevolent.

The remaining problems would only be that people fail to adhere to that standard. You are also following that principle and promoting your god as such a benevolent, wise person. The problems are that atheist don't believe your god to be benevolent and wise and that you also haven't yet demonstrated that your god's morality is any more objective than that of other benevolent, wise people.

How can an atheist understand the God who they reject and why is their limited belief the authority that "SHOULD" determine all other beliefs?

- Double_R
Still wondering how this proves God.
PGA 171
It does not. I'm using the logical implications of a worldview devoid of God. Like it?
Dismissing a worldview because you dislike it is wishful thinking. Reality does not conform to your (dis)likes. The main point is indeed that all your complaints on how the real world works do not prove your god exists. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a powerful, wise and benevolent god watched over us ? We can always dream.

- Double_R
"Good" is a determination we make. It is nothing more than us judging the intent or actions of a person.
- PGA 171
Based on what " preference.
Good, then the Uni-bomber likes to bomb people. Some people judge this favorably and others not. What is your preference?
On grounds like you have just stated anyone can make anything "good" as long as they and enough people "like" it. If that is the kind of world you want to live in then don't complain when another Hitler rises to power and "determines" you are of an inferior stock and need to be eradicated along with your family and all that is dear to you. Anything can be justified if enough people determine a course of action, and to you this is what makes something right/good. What a stupid way to determine morality.
I'll adapt my worldview to parody yours. I don't think an evil tyrant should be allowed to determine morality. Morality should be determined by good, wise people. So 'another Hitler' falls out of the boat.

Who determines evil in your relativistic world? Why SHOULD you?

Amoranemix 174
Why would an all-knowing mind be good by its very nature ?

It depends on the nature yet how can you judge goodness without a fixed, unchanging standard, An all knowing God has told us that He is good, holy, pure, honest and He has confirmed it through prophecy and His word. You either take this as your highest authority or you make yourself and other limited, relative authorities your standard.

Such a mind knows all things, is responsible for the creation of all things and we have no higher authority of appeal. Since you are limited in your knowledge how can you say otherwise with any certainty? You keep demonstrating that you have none. Everything to you is relative. It can change at any time.

What is an absolute mind ?

One that is free from imperfection, complete, perfect, without flaw.

- PGA
[no response]
You forgot to answer my questions.

I had to doctor your response because you did not click the "Reply and Quote" button but just transferred your quotes which made it difficult to see who said what. You had both you and me as the same person.

is you.
is me.
Now check out your last post and you will see that you used :: to represent both you and me.

Peter
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 12:51:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 2:43:44 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:25:20 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:09:13 AM, PGA wrote:
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.

What she did was choose to do what was right for a person in need regardless of her own subjective emotions.

Again, we get back to how do you know it was right in an atheistic universe? You have said yourself that you have no absolute certainty. "I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth....I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality." Why is your conclusion right? (Perhaps you know only because you have been created in His image and likeness). How does a non-moral, unintentional, non-rational, change, random, unintelligent universe created and sustain rightness or anything else? How does a relative being without some other guidance? Do you just decide what objective is?

Where do you get right from with a relativistic moral system, one that is subject to change? Do you actually think that there are objective morals that come from such a system? And are those morals based on rightness or preference? Do you understand the difference?

As simple as that and it did not require prayer or a Christian world view. It required objective thought and a sense of empathy.

What do you have to base objective, unbiased, always doing what is best, thought upon Jody?

You are wrong about this Peter. I'm sorry, but you are. We are not bound to a Christian world view. We all make our own choices and if we are thoughtful, so are our choices. Even in the absence of God.

I'm not saying you can't make moral choices Jody. What I'm saying is they do not come from your worldview origin or correspond to it. You don't live life consistent with that origin neither can you explain it from that worldview origin. To explain it you have to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview all the time denying it of course. As Van Til expressed, the little kid has to be seated on the fathers lap before he can hit the father across the face. You live in His universe and are a creature of His yet you keep denying this because of where your core suppositions about life and the universe are based.

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

Peter, what you are missing is that there is no atheistic universe. There is but one universe and you and I share it. We all have emotional responses and some, if not many of those must be overcome with logical thought. If you think through your emotions as they relate to any situation then you are usually presented with the right moral choice and the proper action that needs to take place. I'm not disproving God in saying this. No one can disprove the existence of God. What I am saying is that we are responsible for our actions. We have brains to make thoughtful decisions. It is our responsibility to do so. Not God's.

You are obsessed that somehow world view and a system of objective morality will prove the existence of God. It doesn't work. If you base God's existence on something so easily refuted then you are creating a serious handicap for your case that God does indeed exist. That is the bottom line.
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
1/4/2015 1:00:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 7:53:08 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
PGA 168 to Double_R
- Amoranemix 174
[3] Why shouldn't the standard change ? A changing standard can still be objective.

Objective to what? What is the fixed, unchanging measure that you use to measure objective by?

What is "right" when two opposing views each claim objectivity?

[4] It can also mean whatever you want it to mean without me and an objective standard.

You are no standard for righteousness - what is right. You are no standard for objectivity. Objective is knowing all sides and taking the right one. You are lost in a sea of relativism. Why is your choice right?

[5] Can you prove that ?

Tell me what you feel would be necessary to know something qualitative such as "rightness." How would you determine it is actually what you claim it to be?

- PGA
[no response]
[3] You forgot to answer my question.

I'm assuming this is you making the claim?

[5] I suspected as much.

Your post is a jumbled mess. I have to guess at who is who because you copied and pasted rather than used the "Reply and Quote" button and edited from there. I am finding it hard to tell which are your responses and which are mine.

And when you include me with your reply to someone else I don't know whether you want me to respond also or not.

- PGA 209
Who determines what is justifiable? To justify something is to say that it is good, right. How does a subjective, relative human being come up with this? Is it based on preference or is there a standard/measure of rightness that is true regardless of what one believes it to be that can be appealed to? If not then how do you think it is right/justified?
I suppose you don't doubt I can answer these questions.

It is a logical assumption when someone keeps ignoring your points so that you have to repeat them time and time again.

Others have already answered them. So what is your point ? Are you going to point out for the twentieth time that my answer makes morality subjective, that it could make Nazi morality good and that only your god can provide an objective, unchanging standard ? In that case I prefer to decline in order to avoid unnecessary repetition.

I want to see how you answer that your moral standard is superior to mine because it is based on an actual right rather than an arbitrary right that you or someone else makes up because you and/or they like it. If you are going to base your morality on likes and everyone else also then don't complain when they fly planes into building based on their "right".

And you can't answer these questions of mine from a relative basis and make sense of them, just like the rest can't answer them. You are morally devoid of any answer but that based on what you like and dislike, or the likes and dislikes of others, yet beneath the surface you operate on entirely different and contrary principles to what you espouse outwardly. You keep borrowing from the Christian worldview when you are offended because you know deep down that some things are just plain objectively wrong. This shows the inconsistency and irrationality of your belief system.

The funny thing is that you betray your worldview by claiming that your system of belief is better than mine yet you have no moral compass for "Better" because you have no absolute, universal, objective, unchanging standard to base better upon.
I can't emphasis this enough and will continue to do so until you provide such a standard, which from your worldview starting point you cannot do because you have no grounding to do so. Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 1:43:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 12:51:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:43:44 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:25:20 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:09:13 AM, PGA wrote:
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.

What she did was choose to do what was right for a person in need regardless of her own subjective emotions.

Again, we get back to how do you know it was right in an atheistic universe? You have said yourself that you have no absolute certainty. "I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth....I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality." Why is your conclusion right? (Perhaps you know only because you have been created in His image and likeness). How does a non-moral, unintentional, non-rational, change, random, unintelligent universe created and sustain rightness or anything else? How does a relative being without some other guidance? Do you just decide what objective is?

Where do you get right from with a relativistic moral system, one that is subject to change? Do you actually think that there are objective morals that come from such a system? And are those morals based on rightness or preference? Do you understand the difference?

As simple as that and it did not require prayer or a Christian world view. It required objective thought and a sense of empathy.

What do you have to base objective, unbiased, always doing what is best, thought upon Jody?

You are wrong about this Peter. I'm sorry, but you are. We are not bound to a Christian world view. We all make our own choices and if we are thoughtful, so are our choices. Even in the absence of God.

I'm not saying you can't make moral choices Jody. What I'm saying is they do not come from your worldview origin or correspond to it. You don't live life consistent with that origin neither can you explain it from that worldview origin. To explain it you have to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview all the time denying it of course. As Van Til expressed, the little kid has to be seated on the fathers lap before he can hit the father across the face. You live in His universe and are a creature of His yet you keep denying this because of where your core suppositions about life and the universe are based.

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

Peter, what you are missing is that there is no atheistic universe.

I'm not missing it. What I am doing is looking at it from an atheistic point of view, a universe that is actually what an atheistic worldview would believe it to be, one that is devoid of God so attempts to answer everything from such a standpoint, thus atheistic. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of an atheist. I'm looking at the implications of such a viewpoint. You view the universe from such a standpoint. It is a core belief that you built upon and funnel all secondary beliefs through, a web that chooses to view the evidence in terms of their being no God as the more likely and more rational scenario, yet it is not the case. So in order to undermining your viewpoint I look at it from such implications of there being no God and seeing just how it is capable of answering life's ultimate questions and it can't. It gets caught in its little web of deceit and inconsistency.

There is but one universe and you and I share it. We all have emotional responses and some, if not many of those must be overcome with logical thought.

Yes, and you use logic without understanding where logic originates from. You can't make sense of its origins from your atheistic viewpoint.

If you think through your emotions as they relate to any situation then you are usually presented with the right moral choice and the proper action that needs to take place. I'm not disproving God in saying this. No one can disprove the existence of God. What I am saying is that we are responsible for our actions. We have brains to make thoughtful decisions. It is our responsibility to do so. Not God's.

From an atheistic worldview our actions are dictated by our environment and the way our electro-chemicals react to such. Why is the way your react any better than the way mine react? From the beginnings of your worldview how does irrational, random, changing, chance happenstance produce and sustain any constants without purpose, intent, agency, mind in the first place? Show me how this is possible.

You are obsessed that somehow world view and a system of objective morality will prove the existence of God. It doesn't work.

It does and God is necessary. Show me otherwise. Show me that you are certain that your moral right is actually right concerning say abortion or same-sex marriage or torturing babies for pleasure or because you perceive the greatest good for the greatest number actually is good in the long run and through your limited understanding of what is necessary to achieve this. And what happens when the view changes with another administration that might not push abortion as a woman's right or even views it as murder. Will you have to again switch your viewpoint because now the "moral good" is opposite to what it used to be and you are on the moral outs with the "law?" Or will you still believe what you used to believe before the administration changed?

Do you understand that ideas are not formed in a vacuum, that we build on our basic core beliefs and if those beliefs are wrong then our whole structure is faulty? Your worldview looks at life and all its concerns from a worldview that does not support God as the cause of it. Do you think it is neutral and unbiased, without prejudice? What would be necessary for you to actually know anything concerning life's ultimate questions?

If you base God's existence on something so easily refuted then you are creating a serious handicap for your case that God does indeed exist. That is the bottom line.

I want you to show me that to arrive at morality God is not necessary. You say such and such is right but unless you can provide a concrete standard, a fixed measure, an objective reference then why should I take your word for it? It would just be based on your brain function, yet you want to deny me mine. Why is your brain "better" able to make the "right" call on the matter? What does right mean? Who are you to say? What is your ultimate reference for "right"? Is it like, desire, emotions, other people's opinions, their likes, what they say, or is it based on an unchanging value that is actually good/right?

What makes you know you are certain? You have already admitted that you are not. And while I believe your view to love others is admirable, what about those who don't, who think first and foremost of themselves and what will help them. Other people are equally convinced that they are certain yet hold opposing views to you.

Peter
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:49:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 1:43:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:51:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:43:44 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:25:20 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:09:13 AM, PGA wrote:
Peter, what you are missing is that there is no atheistic universe.

I'm not missing it. What I am doing is looking at it from an atheistic point of view, a universe that is actually what an atheistic worldview would believe it to be, one that is devoid of God so attempts to answer everything from such a standpoint, thus atheistic. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of an atheist. I'm looking at the implications of such a viewpoint. You view the universe from such a standpoint. It is a core belief that you built upon and funnel all secondary beliefs through, a web that chooses to view the evidence in terms of their being no God as the more likely and more rational scenario, yet it is not the case. So in order to undermining your viewpoint I look at it from such implications of there being no God and seeing just how it is capable of answering life's ultimate questions and it can't. It gets caught in its little web of deceit and inconsistency.

You are trying to look at it through my eyes but you have a biased attitude already. Even with your best intentions to objectively view my perceptions you maintain looking at it through your filters that you believe are just and correct.

There is but one universe and you and I share it. We all have emotional responses and some, if not many of those must be overcome with logical thought.

Yes, and you use logic without understanding where logic originates from. You can't make sense of its origins from your atheistic viewpoint.

Logic does not originate from anything other than thought. 2+2 always equals 3+1, is 8 divided by 2, and is the square root of 16. That is all. Period.

If you think through your emotions as they relate to any situation then you are usually presented with the right moral choice and the proper action that needs to take place. I'm not disproving God in saying this. No one can disprove the existence of God. What I am saying is that we are responsible for our actions. We have brains to make thoughtful decisions. It is our responsibility to do so. Not God's.

From an atheistic worldview our actions are dictated by our environment and the way our electro-chemicals react to such. Why is the way your react any better than the way mine react? From the beginnings of your worldview how does irrational, random, changing, chance happenstance produce and sustain any constants without purpose, intent, agency, mind in the first place? Show me how this is possible.

My reactions are no better than yours and no different. You are simply applying a label. You are giving credit for all morality to an external invisible force when it is in fact happening within your consciousness. Bottom line.

You are obsessed that somehow world view and a system of objective morality will prove the existence of God. It doesn't work.

It does and God is necessary. Show me otherwise. Show me that you are certain that your moral right is actually right concerning say abortion or same-sex marriage or torturing babies for pleasure or because you perceive the greatest good for the greatest number actually is good in the long run and through your limited understanding of what is necessary to achieve this. And what happens when the view changes with another administration that might not push abortion as a woman's right or even views it as murder. Will you have to again switch your viewpoint because now the "moral good" is opposite to what it used to be and you are on the moral outs with the "law?" Or will you still believe what you used to believe before the administration changed?

Determining what is morally right is only achieved through thoughtful consideration. No administration can change or dictate what is right in each individual circumstance. You assume that everyone agrees with what is socially the norm at any given time unless they are Christian. That is just not so. You say you are viewing it through different eyes to come to a conclusion that proves your assertions as truth, but your lack of understanding is testament that you are not.

Do you understand that ideas are not formed in a vacuum, that we build on our basic core beliefs and if those beliefs are wrong then our whole structure is faulty? Your worldview looks at life and all its concerns from a worldview that does not support God as the cause of it. Do you think it is neutral and unbiased, without prejudice? What would be necessary for you to actually know anything concerning life's ultimate questions?

I have one word for you. Thought.

If you base God's existence on something so easily refuted then you are creating a serious handicap for your case that God does indeed exist. That is the bottom line.

I want you to show me that to arrive at morality God is not necessary. You say such and such is right but unless you can provide a concrete standard, a fixed measure, an objective reference then why should I take your word for it? It would just be based on your brain function, yet you want to deny me mine. Why is your brain "better" able to make the "right" call on the matter? What does right mean? Who are you to say? What is your ultimate reference for "right"? Is it like, desire, emotions, other people's opinions, their likes, what they say, or is it based on an unchanging value that is actually good/right?

I have already shown you that through an atheist's eyes. From the example that even when someone deserves wrath, they are given mercy. A conclusion that was made through thought, reason and empathy overcoming personal emotions. That is an objective and just outcome even without the consideration of what God deems as right. Prove to me that came from God and then you will have an argument that has substance.

What makes you know you are certain? You already admitted that you are not. And while I believe your view to love others is admirable, what about those who don't, who think first and foremost of themselves and what will help them. Other people are equally convinced that they are certain yet hold opposing views to you.

Peter

What makes me certain? That question goes both ways, Peter. What makes you certain that morality is bestowed upon you from a Christian God? No matter how you look at it there is only one simple answer. All of your actions and reactions derive from your personal thoughts and emotions. You think and feel for yourself. That is all. It is simple and yet you cannot see it because you want to apply a complicated religious doctrine to it. That is why I am confident that you are wrong about this, Peter. Moral decisions that are good can and do happen without religion.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Amoranemix
Posts: 562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 4:58:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
@PGA
You seem to have trouble discerning the quote formatting I am using. It is as follows in case of more authors in chronological order :
- author 1
quote 1
- author 2
quote 2
response
More quotes may be possible and I may add post numbers next to the authors.

What about my challenge to you to defend the moral argument ?

- Amoranemix 198
Which of those claims can you prove ?
- PGA 209
My starting presupposition is God, a being who no greater can be thought of or known, or appealed to. What is yours? If you do not believe in God then it would have to be a natural presuppositional starting point, would it not? Either way, I appeal to my highest reference of appeal. If I appealed to another then the biblical God would no longer be that ultimate reference point. What is your highest and ultimate authority of appeal to? It is to your own limited, finite mind or that of another such being and what makes their view true?
So you can't prove any of your claims. You are merely preaching. You are simply assuming your worldview to be true without evidence and expecting sceptics to just take your word for it. You make your worldview your presupposition. In a debate (one of the rules I thought of) one should only rely on mutually agreed assumptions, like evolution by natural selection is true, humans have moral beliefs and the speed of light is 300.000km/s. One problem is that these assumptions are often unclear from the onset since they are rarely explicitly stated and people may debate under assumptions contrary to their worldview.
If we were debating the argument from morality, then obviously assuming God's existence would be question-begging. Assuming the truth of scriptures like presuppositionalists do, would also be question-begging. However, the OP is actually wondering whether objective morality can exist without God (and I already argued it can). We have implicitly been broadening the topic by asking what difference the existence of God would make. But what god are we considering ? Are you prepared to demonstrate that the god we assume exists conforms to all the claims you make about him or are you suggesting we start from the assumption that all your claims are true and see where that leads us ? You stating 'My starting presupposition is . . .' suggests the latter case.
The problem is your assumptions are unclear because those claims you make about God are his attributes. So you are defining him. However you are relying on morality to define him while according to you morality depends on God. Hence your definition looks circular because you seem to be defining God as a function of himself (to which Double_R already alluded). As people have been pointing out here if you define God's morality the same way as people do for themselves, then it would also be subjective. An argument that explicates that problem is the Euthyphro dilemma, that you are probably familiar with. It is off topic and so I don't know whether we should debate that here.
I am a sceptic, so my starting position is 'I don't know', or more specifically my starting position is my worldview, one that encompasses uncertainties. Regarding morality, since I don't believe in God I obviously must form my moral standard in a different way and that the Nazis may declare that raping Jews for fun is benevolent is no good reason to accept your morality.

- Amoranemix 198
I don't agree with that. Why would God revealing himself (i.e. claiming) to be good, holy and true make the evidence objective and why would that imply an all-knowing being did anything ?
- PGA 209
The very fact that you don't agree with the biblical revelation is because you place something, some authority above that revelation. What is this ultimate authority? What makes it [your authority] imply that He did not? Again it boils down to how you can justify what you believe and what is necessary for justification in the first place. So can you do that?
No, this has nothing to do with another authority and 'my authority' does not imply that he did not. I don't believe what you say because I am a sceptic. Sceptics don't just believe everything they are told without evidence.
Why would I need to justify my belief ? I live in a country with freedom of belief. No justification required.
You forgot to answer my question.

- Amoranemix 198
People determine what 'good' and other terms mean and they write their conventions in dictionaries. They are right because these terms are agreed upon.
- PGA 209
So if I can get enough people to agree that your race is inferior to mine [Nazi Germany] and that your extermination is necessary [Islamic terrorists] then that is right!
No. Whether a race is inferior to another is not merely subject to agreement but also to facts, namely particular attributes of that race. 'Necessity of extermination' is a bit vague to determine whether that could be right by mere convention.
I assume what you mean is that if the Nazis where in charge and decided to call killing Jews good and had a sufficiently large support for such convention that it could be called agreement, that then that would be good. Yes. What is your point ?

- Amoranemix 198
he Flying Spaghetti Monster is also necessary to justify a belief system. Otherwise all you have is your tastes opposed to mine.
- PGA 209
If all I have is my taste opposed to yours and nothing ultimately matters then what do I care what you think? I'll just do what I like as long as I can get away with it.
How has this Flying Spaghetti Monster revealed himself? Do you have any documentation to support him that is credible as to being the necessary being? I have the biblical accounts that make the best case for God's existence, and yes I'm biased and not neutral, but neither are you.
It may surprise you but I don't have conclusive evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The point is that you were suggesting to be supporting God's existence ("God is necessary to . . ."), while you didn't. You need to rely on external evidence outside of moral considerations. And even were you would have done that, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would still be necessary and if it indeed doesn't exist, all you have is your tastes (inspired by God) opposed to mine.
I am biased indeed, but less biased than you.

- Amoranemix 198
What are the good reasons to believe that human life has intrinsic worth ?
Objective morality does not require intrinsic value, but such an objective morality is not one I adhere to.
- PGA
[no response]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

- Amoranemix 198
Because doing what one likes is at best morally neutral, according to most people. Also benevolence implies favouring the interests of others, according to most people. Is your god an exception ?
Also consider that there is a difference between what one likes and and what one does and the morality one believes in. One may believe stealing is immoral and steal anyway out of selfishness.
- PGA
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

- Amoranemix 229
Is there something wrong in believing in one's finite mind ? Do you believe in your finite mind ? Do you believe in God without using your finite mind ?
- PGA
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Massive0 235
The God I suggest provides a moral code has no obligation to follow the rules he sets. It seems you are assuming that the God I speak of can only condemn something if he does not do it. Well, contrary to that, the God in question has the authority to declare a decree whilst his actions oppose it. He has his own reasons for doing this as his mind is superior to ours hence we are unable to understand those reasons.
If those reasons appear to be wicked, then they probably are.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 11:06:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 2:49:33 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:43:11 PM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:51:07 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:43:44 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:25:20 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/4/2015 1:09:13 AM, PGA wrote:
...What I am doing is looking at it from an atheistic point of view, a universe that is actually what an atheistic worldview would believe it to be, one that is devoid of God so attempts to answer everything from such a standpoint, thus atheistic....

You are trying to look at it through my eyes but you have a biased attitude already. Even with your best intentions to objectively view my perceptions you maintain looking at it through your filters that you believe are just and correct.

Yes, I do. The question is which worldview is true. Your worldview has no explanatory power once you strip away its outward facade all that is left is unmitigated despair and futility.

Yes, and you use logic without understanding where logic originates from. You can't make sense of its origins from your atheistic viewpoint.

Logic does not originate from anything other than thought. 2+2 always equals 3+1, is 8 divided by 2, and is the square root of 16. That is all. Period.

Logic does not come about by chance happenstance either. As you quite rightly say, it requires mind, intent, agency, intelligence; the very things your worldview origins lacks. You want to wave your magic wand and Presto!

From an atheistic worldview our actions are dictated by our environment and the way our electro-chemicals react to such. Why is the way your react any better than the way mine react? ....

My reactions are no better than yours and no different. You are simply applying a label. You are giving credit for all morality to an external invisible force when it is in fact happening within your consciousness. Bottom line.

Your worldview believes we are just biological bags of matter that react to our environment. Mine believes we a created in the image and likeness of our Creator and have derailed that relationship with the Fall, yet Jesus came that it might again be restored.

There is meaning behind words and the meaning of better implies a standard of judgment. All the atheist is left with is his own construct based on what he/she prefers. You like to love others but someone else likes to hate them.

You are obsessed that somehow world view and a system of objective morality will prove the existence of God. It doesn't work.

It does and God is necessary. Show me otherwise. Show me that you are certain that your moral right is actually right concerning say abortion or same-sex marriage or torturing babies for pleasure or because you perceive the greatest good for the greatest number actually is good in the long run and through your limited understanding of what is necessary to achieve this. And what happens when the view changes with another administration that might not push abortion as a woman's right or even views it as murder. Will you have to again switch your viewpoint because now the "moral good" is opposite to what it used to be and you are on the moral outs with the "law?" Or will you still believe what you used to believe before the administration changed?

Determining what is morally right is only achieved through thoughtful consideration.

Thoughtful consideration that rests on presuppositional baggage.

Again, you avoided the questions. Why is it right?

No administration can change or dictate what is right in each individual circumstance. You assume that everyone agrees with what is socially the norm at any given time unless they are Christian. That is just not so. You say you are viewing it through different eyes to come to a conclusion that proves your assertions as truth, but your lack of understanding is testament that you are not.

That is precisely my point. Under the surface these societies have subgroups and individuals with different values. Who is right? I would say the opposite, that it is your lack of understand.

Do you understand that ideas are not formed in a vacuum, that we build on our basic core beliefs and if those beliefs are wrong then our whole structure is faulty? Your worldview looks at life and all its concerns from a worldview that does not support God as the cause of it. Do you think it is neutral and unbiased, without prejudice? What would be necessary for you to actually know anything concerning life's ultimate questions?

I have one word for you. Thought.

Though requires living being, intelligence, intent, knowledge, information, something that your worldview origin is incapable of explaining. Again you wave your magic wand and Presto!

I want you to show me that to arrive at morality God is not necessary. You say such and such is right but unless you can provide a concrete standard, a fixed measure, an objective reference then why should I take your word for it? It would just be based on your brain function, yet you want to deny me mine. Why is your brain "better" able to make the "right" call on the matter? What does right mean? Who are you to say? What is your ultimate reference for "right"? Is it like, desire, emotions, other people's opinions, their likes, what they say, or is it based on an unchanging value that is actually good/right?

I have already shown you that through an atheist's eyes. From the example that even when someone deserves wrath, they are given mercy. A conclusion that was made through thought, reason and empathy overcoming personal emotions. That is an objective and just outcome even without the consideration of what God deems as right. Prove to me that came from God and then you will have an argument that has substance.

That shows an example that goes against what your core presuppositions rest on. It shows an inconsistency with the foundation of atheism. Again, how do thought and reason come about by inorganic, blind, indifferent chemical reactions with no agency or direction, no meaning, no purpose, no guided information, just raw chance?

What makes you know you are certain? You already admitted that you are not...

What makes me certain? That question goes both ways, Peter. What makes you certain that morality is bestowed upon you from a Christian God? No matter how you look at it there is only one simple answer. All of your actions and reactions derive from your personal thoughts and emotions. You think and feel for yourself. That is all. It is simple and yet you cannot see it because you want to apply a complicated religious doctrine to it. That is why I am confident that you are wrong about this, Peter. Moral decisions that are good can and do happen without religion.

I think and feel because God has created me in His image and likeness to do so, not because of some chemical accident billions of years ago that happened for no reason or purpose. My reasoning comes from the fact that God does exist and from Him I see the reasoning. Scripture speaks of His existence in absolute certainty. He is my authority, not the willful speculations of men who are skeptical on everything, who can never come to a knowledge of the truth because they have nothing concrete to base the truth upon. Facts need interpretation and I base my interpretation upon His word and I can make sense of origins and why we are here. God does not rely on mans facts or the facts of the universe, He created them and it is because of Him they get their "factness". Your mind is not more dependable than God's for your knowledge is not comprehensible, infinite and unfathomable like His is. The problem is that you deny who you really are, a creature that owes her existence to the greatest Being that has, is or will ever be.

Peter
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 9:19:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/4/2015 2:15:31 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:40:48 AM, MEK wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:45:37 PM, PGA wrote


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.

How do you judge that your faith is true? You trust Jesus and you continue to trust Him because He is able to save you, no matter what happens in your life. :

Your are being evasive and making another logical fallacy of reification. Do you not agree with this?

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, completely serious. The teaching of prophecy is 20 centuries removed, fulfilled. Jesus came to this 1st century people who rejected Him.:

You have not addressed my question, "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? "


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?:

My own research. Paul does not mention anything about Christ's journey as depicted in the four gospels and was the closest living to Christ. How can you rectify this if these gospels were written long after Paul?


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.:

Again, you have not addressed my questions and continue with the logical fallacy of "no true Scotsman or Christian".

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.

No, many are "privy" to it yet not all accept it for its claim to be the Word of God. The criteria for believing God would be to put your trust in who He is and what He says. How can you have faith in someone you refuse to believe in?

This is NOT an answer to my point about doubting Thomas? By your bibles own testimony, Thomas questioned his belief, did not have faith and yet was appeared to by Christ and made touch his open wounds. This is in complete contradiction to your argument.

Then answer mine. Give me a list of your scholars and where they place the dating of the NT books. Are you able to do that or are your scholars a fictitious lot?

Robert Funk, Hector Avalos, Roy Hoover, Robert Eisenman, Richard Carrier, Robert Grant, several references to Encyclopedia Britannia, John Crossan, John Loftus. Although this is a very incomplete list, I have given you what you have asked. Now, do me the same courtesy and answer my questions that you seem to be avoiding.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 12:34:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/5/2015 4:58:49 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
@PGA [you did it again, see below]
You seem to have trouble discerning the quote formatting I am using. It is as follows in case of more authors in chronological order :
- author 1
quote 1
- author 2
quote 2
response
More quotes may be possible and I may add post numbers next to the authors.

Again, you appear to be misunderstanding my points. First off when you fail to use "Reply and Quote" you fail to sent me a message that you have responded to my post to you. I just happened to be scrolling down and caught your response.

Then in your previous post by copying and pasting you present yourself as me because the colon used at the top of my post signifies my responses (one set of colons) yet by copying and pasting from your post, you also represent the same one colon [me], yet it is you, so everything comes together in a confused mess and I try to untangle it. I actually like that you include the post number but the rest is disordered.

What about my challenge to you to defend the moral argument ?

- Amoranemix 198 [you did it again]
Which of those claims can you prove ?
- PGA 209
My starting presupposition is God, a being who no greater can be thought of or known, or appealed to. What is yours? If you do not believe in God then it would have to be a natural presuppositional starting point, would it not? Either way, I appeal to my highest reference of appeal. If I appealed to another then the biblical God would no longer be that ultimate reference point. What is your highest and ultimate authority of appeal to? It is to your own limited, finite mind or that of another such being and what makes their view true?

Again, you ignore my questions or do not even see them in your myopic thought yet expect me to answer yours. How about I bold highlite them? Will you see them then?

So you can't prove any of your claims. You are merely preaching. You are simply assuming your worldview to be true without evidence and expecting sceptics to just take your word for it. You make your worldview your presupposition. In a debate (one of the rules I thought of) one should only rely on mutually agreed assumptions, like evolution by natural selection is true, humans have moral beliefs and the speed of light is 300.000km/s. One problem is that these assumptions are often unclear from the onset since they are rarely explicitly stated and people may debate under assumptions contrary to their worldview.

A debate is about opposite and contrasting opinions and beliefs, not mutually agreed upon assumptions.

If we were debating the argument from morality, then obviously assuming God's existence would be question-begging. Assuming the truth of scriptures like presuppositionalists do, would also be question-begging.

God's authority can be taken on its own merit since He is sovereign and you are not. How do you not beg the question yourself?

However, the OP is actually wondering whether objective morality can exist without God (and I already argued it can).

How is that again?

We have implicitly been broadening the topic by asking what difference the existence of God would make. But what god are we considering ?

There is only one, the God revealed in the Bible and made know by Christ.

Are you prepared to demonstrate that the god we assume exists conforms to all the claims you make about him or are you suggesting we start from the assumption that all your claims are true and see where that leads us ? You stating 'My starting presupposition is . . .' suggests the latter case.

You are under the double edged sword for you know He exists yet you deny His existence. If you do not take Him at His word then why would you take me at mine? His word has more authority than mine. His existence is not a possibility but an absolute certainty. What He requires of you is to put your trust in Him. He is not dependent on you but you are on Him. I put my trust in Him and He showed me the amazing truth of His word.

As I have said many times, I think prophecy is proof that He is who He says He is.

The problem is your assumptions are unclear because those claims you make about God are his attributes. So you are defining him.

He has given this revelation of His attributes Himself.

However you are relying on morality to define him while according to you morality depends on God. Hence your definition looks circular because you seem to be defining God as a function of himself (to which Double_R already alluded). As people have been pointing out here if you define God's morality the same way as people do for themselves, then it would also be subjective. An argument that explicates that problem is the Euthyphro dilemma, that you are probably familiar with. It is off topic and so I don't know whether we should debate that here.

I'm not relying on morality to define Him. I'm saying that you can't make sense of morality without Him. You want proof [an authority] of His moral authority yet to do so would show He is not the final authority. He commands you to be good because He is good. He has spoken and He is the final authority. You will stand before Him and give account of yourself either on the merit of His Son or on your own merit. You prefer your own merit.

There is not a standard of goodness that is above or higher than God and thus God wills something because of this standard but rather what God wills is what God is. He wills it because He by nature is good. His nature is who He is and it is good and He acts according to His nature.

The secular argument is circular too. It places man as the final authority because man is the measure. [The problem is which one(s)] How do they know that? Because that is all they have to fall back on in their denial of God.

I've asked a number of atheists/agnostics to explain what makes something good and they have responded that man's desire makes it good, his likes. It is good because man desires or likes it. I have asked them why his likes/desires are good and they say because that is what he likes and around and round we go.

I am a sceptic, so my starting position is 'I don't know', or more specifically my starting position is my worldview, one that encompasses uncertainties. Regarding morality, since I don't believe in God I obviously must form my moral standard in a different way and that the Nazis may declare that raping Jews for fun is benevolent is no good reason to accept your morality.

- Amoranemix 198
I don't agree with that. Why would God revealing himself (i.e. claiming) to be good, holy and true make the evidence objective and why would that imply an all-knowing being did anything ?

Again, I'm not following you here. Who is making the first statement? Is this something you want me to respond to?

- PGA 209
The very fact that you don't agree with the biblical revelation is because you place something, some authority above that revelation. What is this ultimate authority?...is necessary for justification in the first place. So can you do that?
No, this has nothing to do with another authority and 'my authority' does not imply that he did not. I don't believe what you say because I am a sceptic. Sceptics don't just believe everything they are told without evidence.

It has everything to do with another authority. The proof is His word.

Why would I need to justify my belief ? I live in a country with freedom of belief. No justification required.

Then no answer is required.

You forgot to answer my question.

Which one?

- Amoranemix 198
People determine what 'good' and other terms mean and they write their conventions in dictionaries. They are right because these terms are agreed upon.

Agreed terms does not make something right.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 11:01:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/5/2015 9:19:38 PM, MEK wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:31 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:40:48 AM, MEK wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:45:37 PM, PGA wrote

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.

How do you judge that your faith is true? You trust Jesus and you continue to trust Him because He is able to save you, no matter what happens in your life. :

Your are being evasive and making another logical fallacy of reification. Do you not agree with this?

Biblical faith is belief in Someone not physically seen yet understood. It comes from God through His Word and Spirit. All those OT historical happenings were all pointing to a greater reality that is Christ. He came into the world to save a people. Whether you believe this or not does not make any difference too my faith and trust in Him. I believe the Bible is God's Word, God speaking through the written word to those created in His likeness and image. When I first read it this is how I treated it and I still do. He did not become real because I made Him real but because He is real. In trusting in Him and studying and pondering what He said He opened my mind to the truthfulness of His word in a much fuller way.

James 1:5-7; 17-25 (NASB)
5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways...
17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. 18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. 21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. 22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

...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, completely serious. The teaching of prophecy is 20 centuries removed, fulfilled. Jesus came to this 1st century people who rejected Him.:

You have not addressed my question, "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? "

(How can the world they lived in be the same world we live in???)

Because Jesus came to fulfill all things written in the Law which also included a people who were not His people becoming His people. He did not physically come to our generation. He came to a 1st century one to judge those apostate and save those faithful. Because of the rejection of Him by apostate, Old Covenant Israel faith came to all who would believe as was His plan from all eternity. It was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Lord.

What you are doing is confusing the audience of address that Jesus came to and reading into it us today. God first had to end the old covenant, the covenant of works, before the New Covenant alone would stand. That generation was the transition between the two covenants.

Yes,...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?:

My own research. Paul does not mention anything about Christ's journey as depicted in the four gospels and was the closest living to Christ. How can you rectify this if these gospels were written long after Paul?

Does your own research in any way include the word of truth (the Bible)?

How can I rectify this? Very easily. Paul constantly takes from the gospel teachings of Jesus and expands on them. If you do not recognize this then you need to open your eyes.

How do you know it's "God's word" when all you have to rely on is a man made book?...

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.:

Again, you have not addressed my questions and continue with the logical fallacy of "no true Scotsman or Christian".

Where are you ever told in the Bible they are man made books? We constantly see the writings referred to as the Word of God.

I have addressed your question yet you will not accept what I have said. It is not a logical fallacy. It is what Scripture teaches. You keep throwing your logical fallacies around without justification. We all appeal to authority of some kind. You happen to be your own authority. I rely on a greater Being as mine. Your authority is subjective. It relies in you as correctly interpreting all things, yet you fail miserably when it comes to the Bible. Your wisdom is not wiser than God's.

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....

No, many are "privy" to it yet not all accept it for its claim to be the Word of God. The criteria for believing God would be to put your trust in who He is and what He says. How can you have faith in someone you refuse to believe in?

This is NOT an answer to my point about doubting Thomas? By your bibles own testimony, Thomas questioned his belief, did not have faith and yet was appeared to by Christ and made touch his open wounds. This is in complete contradiction to your argument.

You are privy to the word of God yet you will not treat it as such. You have let others undermine its teachings until you have become a doubter. Your faith from the beginning was not properly rooted in the Savior alone or you would not have departed.

13 Then Jesus said to them, "...14 The farmer sows the word. 15 Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16 Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18 Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19 but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop...."

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 12:25:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/5/2015 9:19:38 PM, MEK wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:31 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/4/2015 12:40:48 AM, MEK wrote:
At 1/3/2015 12:45:37 PM, PGA wrote

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.

No, many are "privy" to it yet not all accept it for its claim to be the Word of God. The criteria for believing God would be to put your trust in who He is and what He says. How can you have faith in someone you refuse to believe in?

This is NOT an answer to my point about doubting Thomas? By your bibles own testimony, Thomas questioned his belief, did not have faith and yet was appeared to by Christ and made touch his open wounds. This is in complete contradiction to your argument.

Faith comes from hearing the word yet not all believe. Believing and trusting and continuing to trust is the difference between true belief and just professed belief. It requires repentance and putting your trust in the hand of another no matter what life brings you. It depends on God's mercy which He freely gives in Christ alone.

Romans 10:17-21 (NASB)

17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;

"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world."

19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,

"I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation,
By a nation without understanding will I anger you."

20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,

"I was found by those who did not seek Me,
I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me."

21 But as for Israel He says, "All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."


Then answer mine. Give me a list of your scholars and where they place the dating of the NT books. Are you able to do that or are your scholars a fictitious lot?

Robert Funk, Hector Avalos, Roy Hoover, Robert Eisenman, Richard Carrier, Robert Grant, several references to Encyclopedia Britannia, John Crossan, John Loftus. Although this is a very incomplete list, I have given you what you have asked. Now, do me the same courtesy and answer my questions that you seem to be avoiding.

You have not given me all I asked. Where do they place the dating of the books?

Robert Funk - "founder of the controversial Jesus Seminar...with a strongly skeptical view of orthodox Christian belief, particularly concerning historical Jesus..."

Obviously no bias there. He found what he was looking for and if you know anything about the Jesus Seminar you would know that it was not good scholarship in any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Richard Carrier - "...is an atheist activist...a leading proponent of the Christ myth theory...an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism..."

No bias there. He is pushing for truth from his naturally neutral position, isn't he!

John Crossan - Another member of the Jesus Seminar - funny! No bias there.
"His research has focused on the historical Jesus, on the anthropology of the Ancient Mediterranean and New Testament worlds and on the application of postmodern hermeneutical approaches to the Bible....."

Do you know anything of postmodernism? No bias there. Again this approach is not grounded in reality. Have you ever listened to him speak?

Hector Avalos - "...Avalos is an atheist activist and advocate of secular humanist ethics..."

No bias there!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Roy Hoover - "...A Fellow of the Jesus Seminar since 1986, he wrote a number of the papers that served as the basis for the Seminar"s deliberations..."

http://www.westarinstitute.org...

Robert Eisenman - "...His views in the field of Christian origins are highly controversial, with critics accusing Eisenman of backing up his allegations with "dubious circumstantial evidence and insinuations....He is critical of the ways radiocarbon dating and paleography have been employed to date the Dead Sea Scrolls, and relies instead on his interpretation of the content of the scrolls despite this being at a clash with scientific consensus...."

Again, how amazingly biased free!

Robert Grant - Did not find his philosophical undertones.

John Loftus - "...doubts about the credibility of key Christian tenets began to creep into his thinking. By the late 1990s he experienced a full-blown crisis of faith, brought on by emotional upheavals in his personal life as well as the gathering weight of the doubts he had long entertained..."

Again, the seed fell upon rocky ground, shriveled and died.

http://www.prometheusbooks.com...

The Jesus Seminar - "...The Five Gospels lists seven bases for the modern critical scholarship of Jesus, claiming these "pillars" have developed since the end of the 18th century.....The Fellows used a voting system to evaluate the authenticity of about 500 statements and events. For certain high-profile passages the votes were embodied in beads, the color of which represented the degree of confidence that a saying or act was or was not authentic:

Red beads " indicated the voter believed Jesus did say the passage quoted, or something very much like the passage. (3 Points)
Pink beads " indicated the voter believed Jesus probably said something like the passage. (2 Points)
Grey beads " indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage, but it contains Jesus' ideas. (1 Point)
Black beads " indicated the voter believed Jesus did not say the passage"it comes from later admirers or a different tradition. (0 Points)"

Some approach and when you consider who some of these 150 "scholars" were it is a farce. I've seen who some of these scholars are and they are the most liberal scholars or members of other faiths who come to the table with extreme prejudice and bias.

http://www.patheos.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for the scholars. Now, once you give me a workable list of dates I'll start my rebuttal of that list.

Here is one list when scholars believe the NT was written, per Wikapedia:

"he following table gives the most widely accepted dates for the composition of the New Testament books, together with the earliest preserved fragment for each text."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a site that provides all kinds of dating chronologies:

http://www.preteristarchive.com...

http://www.preteristarchive.com...

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 12:46:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/3/2015 7:47:58 PM, PGA wrote:
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
People hung on the cross were the ones who,perished. That was why crucifixion was used as a death sentence fir criminals. To turn around and suggest it was something good is to worship the criminals who were put to death by this barbaric method. Jesus was tried,convicted and put to death for blasphemy. It is only the Christians who exalt a crucified criminal. Just like they are the only people to accept human sacrifice of Jesus as atonement for their sins.
There are consequences for being indoctrinated by such foolish absurdities. It leads to deviant behaviour and criminality. A study has found such a correlation. Christians make up 75% of the convicts found in prisons. Non-Christians and atheists are the lowest in comparison.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 12:56:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/6/2015 11:01:10 AM, PGA wrote:


Biblical faith is belief in Someone not physically seen yet understood. It comes from God through His Word and Spirit.:

Peter, if you want to state that the basis of your beliefs is on "faith" - I accept this but it is also a conversation stopper as it is an unfalsifiable claim with infinite regression. You have to understand that to say "belief in someone not physically seen yet understood" is completely contradictory to the basis of scientific inquiry and rules of engagement in a logical argument. All you are doing is trying to support a "feeling" you had while reading the bible. Saying things like "his word" and "spirit" is just religious rhetoric and holds no value from an objective point of view.

You then commit the logical fallacy of false attribution when you try to support your faith with claims that because the authenticity of bible is accurate, my faith is justified.

I have tried to show how the bible is not only a book of many known contradictions, but that is not a reliable source of ancient religious history. Why do you continue to riddle your posts with biblical references when most objectively viewing these posts do not accept the divine nature of them?
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:12:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/6/2015 12:25:42 PM, PGA wrote:

You have not given me all I asked. Where do they place the dating of the books?:

Between 60 and 100AD.

Thanks for the scholars. Now, once you give me a workable list of dates I'll start my rebuttal of that list.:

Ha! If you are going to discount every scholar I list just because they are not currently a Christian then you have committed the problem sampling bias. Some of these scholars BECAME atheist or anti-theists, or agnostics because of their research. Although there are a few scholars who, despite vigorous study, have committed to Christianity - it is not most and certainly not mainstream. People like Dennis Prager, although Jewish, has some very credible perspectives that I have taken quite seriously regarding the bibles validity. Until you can evaluate both sides fairly I am afraid this conversation is just going to stall.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 11:43:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/5/2015 4:58:49 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
@PGA
What about my challenge to you to defend the moral argument ?

Do I want to agree to a debate in which the majority will vote against because of their worldview bias? It makes it seem as though I do not have a sufficient argument. I'm still thinking whether it is worth it just to present my side even though I know the result beforehand.

- Amoranemix 198
I don't agree with that. Why would God revealing himself (i.e. claiming) to be good, holy and true make the evidence objective and why would that imply an all-knowing being did anything ?
- PGA 209
The very fact that you don't agree with the biblical revelation is because you place something, some authority above that revelation. What is this ultimate authority? What makes it [your authority] imply that He did not? Again it boils down to how you can justify what you believe and what is necessary for justification in the first place. So can you do that?
No, this has nothing to do with another authority and 'my authority' does not imply that he did not. I don't believe what you say because I am a sceptic. Sceptics don't just believe everything they are told without evidence.

It has everything to do with authority, with who you believe. Skeptics are skeptical because they do not accept the authority of others, in this case the Bible. They trust themselves.

Why would God revealing himself (i.e. claiming) to be good, holy and true make the evidence objective and...?

Because He is good, holy and true. The evidence from such a Being as God cannot be anything other than objectively good since He knows all things, is true, holy and being holy He is good. If He revealed Himself as bad then you could expect differently.

why would that imply an all-knowing being did anything ?

You either take Him at His word or you make some other word your authority. By taking Him at His word and believing His Son He opens the truth up to you.

Matthew 11:27
All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.


Luke 20:21
They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth.


John 8:31-32
[ The Truth Will Make You Free ] So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."


Hebrews 11:6
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.


Why would I need to justify my belief ? I live in a country with freedom of belief. No justification required.

It's a matter of truth. Do you want a false belief?

You forgot to answer my question.

Which one?

- Amoranemix 198
People determine what 'good' and other terms mean and they write their conventions in dictionaries. They are right because these terms are agreed upon.
- PGA 209
So if I can get enough people to agree that your race is inferior to mine [Nazi Germany] and that your extermination is necessary [Islamic terrorists] then that is right!
No. Whether a race is inferior to another is not merely subject to agreement but also to facts, namely particular attributes of that race. 'Necessity of extermination' is a bit vague to determine whether that could be right by mere convention.
I assume what you mean is that if the Nazis where in charge and decided to call killing Jews good and had a sufficiently large support for such convention that it could be called agreement, that then that would be good. Yes. What is your point ?

Sure, anything can be called "good" with your system of belief. That is my point. It depends on who is in power and what they like.

- Amoranemix 198
he Flying Spaghetti Monster is also necessary to justify a belief system. Otherwise all you have is your tastes opposed to mine.
- PGA 209
If all I have is my taste opposed to yours and nothing ultimately matters then what do I care what you think? I'll just do what I like as long as I can get away with it.
How has this Flying Spaghetti Monster revealed himself? Do you have any documentation to support him that is credible as to being the necessary being? I have the biblical accounts that make the best case for God's existence, and yes I'm biased and not neutral, but neither are you.
It may surprise you but I don't have conclusive evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The point is that you were suggesting to be supporting God's existence ("God is necessary to . . ."), while you didn't. You need to rely on external evidence outside of moral considerations.

God's word is sufficient. There is no higher court of appeal. That is the external evidence - His word. Prophecy confirms that He knows the end from the beginning. You would run into a host of logical problems trying to refute it.

And even were you would have done that, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would still be necessary and if it indeed doesn't exist, all you have is your tastes (inspired by God) opposed to mine.

It is not necessary at all because God is the only necessary being and this spaghetti monster has left no revelation of itself.

I am biased indeed, but less biased than you.

How did you evaluate that? (^8

- Amoranemix 198
What are the good reasons to believe that human life has intrinsic worth ?
Objective morality does not require intrinsic value, but such an objective morality is not one I adhere to.
- PGA
[no response]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

We are made in the image and likeness of God and He is mindful of us.

- Amoranemix 198
Because doing what one likes is at best morally neutral, according to most people. Also benevolence implies favouring the interests of others, according to most people. Is your god an exception ?
Also consider that there is a difference between what one likes and and what one does and the morality one believes in. One may believe stealing is immoral and steal anyway out of selfishness.
- PGA
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Yes, He is. He does not favor the interests of those who do wrong (evil) but punishes such actions by separating evil from His presence.

- Amoranemix 229
Is there something wrong in believing in one's finite mind ? Do you believe in your finite mind ? Do you believe in God without using your finite mind ?
- PGA
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.

Nothing wrong with it as long as you don't use it as your absolute ultimate authority. I believe in God because He has given me a mind in which I can believe and because He is the greatest Being and He is good.

Massive0 235
The God I suggest provides a moral code has no obligation to follow the rules he sets. It seems you are assuming that the God I speak of can only condemn something if he does not do it. Well, contrary to that, the God in question has the authority to declare a decree whilst his actions oppose it. He has his own reasons for doing this as his mind is superior to ours hence we are unable to understand those reasons.
If those reasons appear to be wicked, then they probably are.

Again, this is not anything I wrote and I don't know if you want me to comment on it or not. I would prefer that you separate my posts from others unless you want me to comment. It becomes very confusing otherwise.

Peter
Harikrish
Posts: 29,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 12:18:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It was William lane Craig who argued.

Dr. William Lane Craig's moral argument for God goes as follows:

1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.

So the only evidence Christians have of Gods existence is objective morality. And it is because the Jews violated God's objective morally that God destroyed the world. scattered the Jews,confused Noah's descendants with language and offered Jesus as human sacrifice for the sins of the world. God is therefore a single issue voter. Any wonder why the bible doesn't contain any science or math to meet even a grade 6 level curriculum.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 12:35:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/6/2015 12:46:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/3/2015 7:47:58 PM, PGA wrote:
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:
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
People hung on the cross were the ones who,perished. That was why crucifixion was used as a death sentence fir criminals. To turn around and suggest it was something good is to worship the criminals who were put to death by this barbaric method.

The good news is that He rose from death to life again and He was not a criminal, He did nothing wrong, yet He agreed to die man's death before God so that man could once again have an eternal relationship with God that the first Adam forfeited in the Garden. Jesus restores man's relationship with God through the obedience of His life lived before God and sacrifice of His life in our place. He was counted as a sinner in only one way and that was that the punishment for every sin committed by man was heaped upon Him in His death. He never committed sin yet because of His love He agreed to take the punishment for it that in Him man could once again experience that which was lost in Eden.

Jesus was tried,convicted and put to death for blasphemy. It is only the Christians who exalt a crucified criminal. Just like they are the only people to accept human sacrifice of Jesus as atonement for their sins.

The claim was blasphemy yet He was not guilty of it and this is proven by His resurrection.

There are consequences for being indoctrinated by such foolish absurdities. It leads to deviant behaviour and criminality. A study has found such a correlation. Christians make up 75% of the convicts found in prisons. Non-Christians and atheists are the lowest in comparison.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:.......

You are making a categorical error between true believers and those who profess. God changes lives. I could do the same thing with your belief system. Because the 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history and because the majority of that brutality came at the hands of atheistic [godless] regimes I could include you as guilty in such numbers because you share the same worldview [atheism] even though you may not subscribe to their methods. You still hold to the same worldview that puts man as the measure of all things yet to do so may involve a categorical error because you did not commit the murders.

http://www.scaruffi.com...

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...

The worst genocides of the 20th Century (160 million killed)
" Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000 [atheist]
" Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine"s famine) [atheist]
" Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII) [arguably atheist]
" Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
" Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
" Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
" Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 [atheist]
" Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1,600,000 (purges and concentration camps) [atheist]
" Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
" Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
" Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
" Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
" Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
" Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000 [atheist]
" Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000 [atheist]
" Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
" Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
" Mullah Omar " Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
" Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
" Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
" Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
" Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
= Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000

http://www.propertarianism.com...

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered

Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered

Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered

Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered

Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered

Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered

Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered

Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered

Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered

http://www.patheos.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.hawaii.edu...

Peter
Skepticalone
Posts: 8,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:38:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/7/2015 11:43:44 AM, PGA wrote:
At 1/5/2015 4:58:49 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
@PGA
What about my challenge to you to defend the moral argument ?

Do I want to agree to a debate in which the majority will vote against because of their worldview bias? It makes it seem as though I do not have a sufficient argument. I'm still thinking whether it is worth it just to present my side even though I know the result beforehand.

I would very much enjoy reading a debate between the two of you.

- Amoranemix 198
I don't agree with that. Why would God revealing himself (i.e. claiming) to be good, holy and true make the evidence objective and why would that imply an all-knowing being did anything ?
- PGA 209
No, this has nothing to do with another authority and 'my authority' does not imply that he did not. I don't believe what you say because I am a sceptic. Sceptics don't just believe everything they are told without evidence

It has everything to do with authority, with who you believe. Skeptics are skeptical because they do not accept the authority of others, in this case the Bible. They trust themselves.

Skeptics cannot accept extraordinary claims on faith. You are welcome to proceed by faith, but when you are having a discussion with a skeptic, using faith in your argument is nonsensical to the skeptic. Also, I have two issues with the Bible as the source of evidence for God, and by extension, morality based on him. The Bible has major flaws, and I believe it is reasonable to expect perfection from a perfect being who went to the trouble to inspire a message with the hopes of it being understood for all mankind past, present, and future. Secondly, the Bible is where the claim comes from. It should come as no surprise for the source of the claim to agree with the claim.

As far as the OP, I believe "morality" is subjective. We might have a consensus of society which some might call "objective", but it is still the sum of subjective determination. We learn from our experiences and our opinions change. Morality is redefined to include or exclude certain behaviors based on that experience.

Also, I have never understood how "objective morality" could be based on a subjective deity (Yahweh).
Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:09:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/6/2015 12:56:37 PM, MEK wrote:
At 1/6/2015 11:01:10 AM, PGA wrote:


Biblical faith is belief in Someone not physically seen yet understood. It comes from God through His Word and Spirit.:

Peter, if you want to state that the basis of your beliefs is on "faith" - I accept this but it is also a conversation stopper as it is an unfalsifiable claim with infinite regression. You have to understand that to say "belief in someone not physically seen yet understood" is completely contradictory to the basis of scientific inquiry and rules of engagement in a logical argument. All you are doing is trying to support a "feeling" you had while reading the bible. Saying things like "his word" and "spirit" is just religious rhetoric and holds no value from an objective point of view.

Nonsense, Mek. You do the same thing with your scientism. Which view of origins do you support again? And you were not there to see the universe or life begin. You hold your worldview by faith also (misdirected, I might add). You take for granted things logical which is also not physically seen, nor can it be. And how could I not be grateful for the Lord Jesus Christ? The Bible holds no value to you because of your rejection of God, yet there will come a time when you will find out differently.

You then commit the logical fallacy of false attribution when you try to support your faith with claims that because the authenticity of bible is accurate, my faith is justified.

It's not false and you have not heard my justification for prophecy in confirming the accuracy of God's word, not that God is obligated to give you, a created being, an explanation yet His word confirms history.

I have tried to show how the bible is not only a book of many known contradictions, but that is not a reliable source of ancient religious history. Why do you continue to riddle your posts with biblical references when most objectively viewing these posts do not accept the divine nature of them?

I use them to show that my thinking rests on Someone else, not myself.

It is easy to criticize the Bible as containing many known contradictions when you don't understand the cultural of the time and what the reference meant to them or fail to take into consideration a biblical explanation.

How well do these "objective" views understand the Bible and ancient religious history? From what I have seen they hinge on the views of well known atheists like John Loftus and the Four Horsemen. They are secular biased.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:34:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/6/2015 1:12:20 PM, MEK wrote:
At 1/6/2015 12:25:42 PM, PGA wrote:

You have not given me all I asked. Where do they place the dating of the books?:

Between 60 and 100AD.

Which books are placed before AD 70???

Thanks for the scholars. Now, once you give me a workable list of dates I'll start my rebuttal of that list.:

Ha! If you are going to discount every scholar I list just because they are not currently a Christian then you have committed the problem sampling bias.

I don't have to. All I have to do is show that their dates are not logical, do not support the biblical texts or history nor do they understand what the Bible teaches and the significance of its unity.

Some of these scholars BECAME atheist or anti-theists, or agnostics because of their research.

Yeah, they trusted opinions centuries removed.

Although there are a few scholars who, despite vigorous study, have committed to Christianity - it is not most and certainly not mainstream. People like Dennis Prager, although Jewish, has some very credible perspectives that I have taken quite seriously regarding the bibles validity. Until you can evaluate both sides fairly I am afraid this conversation is just going to stall.

I want you to produce the earliest dates agreed upon by these scholars to the gospels, epistles and Revelation then I will proceed to show why this is not logical nor true or I will start with the earliest dates agreed upon by others and we will go back and forth until you do this. It is simpler that you just cooperate on this point. I want to see the dates that you think your biblical experts who have studied and have credentials place these dates.

Peter
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:40:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/7/2015 10:09:30 PM, PGA wrote:
It is easy to criticize the Bible as containing many known contradictions when you don't understand the cultural of the time and what the reference meant to them or fail to take into consideration a biblical explanation.
And thereby proves the bible to be the words of men and not the word of god. After all surely an all knowing god wouldn't contradict himself regardless of cultural imperatives.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:44:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/7/2015 10:40:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:09:30 PM, PGA wrote:
It is easy to criticize the Bible as containing many known contradictions when you don't understand the cultural of the time and what the reference meant to them or fail to take into consideration a biblical explanation.
And thereby proves the bible to be the words of men and not the word of god. After all surely an all knowing god wouldn't contradict himself regardless of cultural imperatives.

Sure He could, sure He did, and sure He does. It just makes Him not worthy of worship. Thats the gag, God is clearly behaving poorly should the Bible be true, why extend Him the courtesy of worship if not out of fear?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:54:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/7/2015 10:44:38 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:40:51 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:09:30 PM, PGA wrote:
It is easy to criticize the Bible as containing many known contradictions when you don't understand the cultural of the time and what the reference meant to them or fail to take into consideration a biblical explanation.
And thereby proves the bible to be the words of men and not the word of god. After all surely an all knowing god wouldn't contradict himself regardless of cultural imperatives.

Sure He could, sure He did, and sure He does. It just makes Him not worthy of worship. Thats the gag, God is clearly behaving poorly should the Bible be true, why extend Him the courtesy of worship if not out of fear?

Hmmmm you do have a point.

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