Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 10:19:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 8:55:38 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 4:58:37 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

To your rant regarding Objective morality, Re-read post #2.

What of it?

And from where do you think your "Christian worldview" comes?

A revelation from God.

The Hellenistic period, which predates christianity, represents a Jewish cultural ideology ( which is a complex blend of Turkish, Persian and Egyptian ideologies) that slowly evolved to form the current christian world view.

What are you talking about - the Hellenistic period represents a Jewish cultural ideology???

The Christian worldview stems predominately from the Jewish Scriptures and their promised Messiah and His teachings. From Him comes the New Covenant.

So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

Try reading the Bible before you become such an expert on it. The Bible narrative contains ancient history.

Peter

The Bible has deceived every single person who has read and studied it. Only God understands what He has us saints and prophets write for Him.
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 10:31:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 10:18:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 9:21:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 9:16:35 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Nothing would exist without our Creator so there's no purpose to say whether morality is objective or subjective. Morality isn't the answer to life anyway. People who think they're good die as well as people who think they're better than the good people.

Okay,BOG, you need to start providing evidence for your claims. Evidence that can be verifiable, testable, formulated, etc.

You might think that you are a Saint that has all this knowledge and that we should just listen to you, but you have not provided evidence that you are a Saint.

None of God's people can prove that they exist or that God exists. Ask any physicist who understands the consciousness;

Here's one physicist who understands what the consciousness is. However, He doesn't know our Creator so He doesn't believe that the consciousness was created by Him. Tom believes we are the creators of the consciousness that evolved over a long period of time, even when he tells his audience that time, matter and space are only illusions. Even though Tom Campbell is a liar, he does understand the mind of our Creator is where we all exist as information.

https://www.youtube.com...

You have claimed that God is real.
You have claimed that Tom is a liar.
You have claimed that matter is an illusion.
You have claimed that space is an illusion.

You have no evidence for these claims.

All you have is you saying, "I have special knowledge, listen to me".

Without evidence, your "special knowledge" is indistinguishable from bull****.

What if I claimed to be a Saint, and then start preaching. Which of us is the real saint? It is impossible to tell since there is no evidence.

This is why you need to start providing evidence. If you do not, then what you say may as well be taken as rambling of incoherent sentences.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 10:44:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 10:31:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:18:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 9:21:30 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 9:16:35 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Nothing would exist without our Creator so there's no purpose to say whether morality is objective or subjective. Morality isn't the answer to life anyway. People who think they're good die as well as people who think they're better than the good people.

Okay,BOG, you need to start providing evidence for your claims. Evidence that can be verifiable, testable, formulated, etc.

You might think that you are a Saint that has all this knowledge and that we should just listen to you, but you have not provided evidence that you are a Saint.

None of God's people can prove that they exist or that God exists. Ask any physicist who understands the consciousness;

Here's one physicist who understands what the consciousness is. However, He doesn't know our Creator so He doesn't believe that the consciousness was created by Him. Tom believes we are the creators of the consciousness that evolved over a long period of time, even when he tells his audience that time, matter and space are only illusions. Even though Tom Campbell is a liar, he does understand the mind of our Creator is where we all exist as information.

https://www.youtube.com...

You have claimed that God is real.
You have claimed that Tom is a liar.
You have claimed that matter is an illusion.
You have claimed that space is an illusion.

You have no evidence for these claims.

All you have is you saying, "I have special knowledge, listen to me".

Without evidence, your "special knowledge" is indistinguishable from bull****.

What if I claimed to be a Saint, and then start preaching. Which of us is the real saint? It is impossible to tell since there is no evidence.

This is why you need to start providing evidence. If you do not, then what you say may as well be taken as rambling of incoherent sentences.

It's very simple for us saints to know who is a saint or not by the information that comes out of the body in written, spoken and bodily languages. But it's impossible for God's people to know the difference between a saint, prophet, antichrist, believer or someone who is completely ignorant and believes this world is real.
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 10:49:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 10:44:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
It's very simple for us saints to know who is a saint or not by the information that comes out of the body in written, spoken and bodily languages. But it's impossible for God's people to know the difference between a saint, prophet, antichrist, believer or someone who is completely ignorant and believes this world is real.

Okay, I am a saint and I know that you are not one. I know this because of how you write and argue your points.

There is the same amount of evidence for me being a saint as there is for you being one. Since I claim I am a Saint, I also claim you are an antichrist.

How about proving me wrong?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:10:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 7:15:51 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:


A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

You still haven't shown how "God" is a necessary precondition for objective morality, you just put the burden on the other side........well shown me how without God.

I grant that atheists, to an extent, act in accordance with true moral principles, yet they cannot provide a source for morality without God that can explain why they believe what they do other than they like or dislike something. Good to them is, "I like it" and bad is, "I don't like it." Your justification is nothing more than that and pushing you likes and dislikes on others. That is all you have. You have no other ground to base your morality on.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

How do you get anything but a relative, shifting standard outside of God? I asked you a question that you totally ignored. How does subjective, relative opinion produce objective, universal values? What would be necessary for objective, universal values outside of God? First you need a mind that is all knowing thus is good by His very nature and thus knows what is right in all circumstances to establish the standard. Values originate from mind and absolute values from an absolute Mind.

It isn't clear to me either. Imagine this world and baby rape but no God. Is it morally objectively wrong ?

Nothing is moral unless there is a standard for morality that we can compare right and wrong to, a standard that does not change. Without that measure/standard all baby rape is is a preference. As a Christian whose basic presuppositions rest on God/ are based on God's standard, I can say without doubt it is wrong or there is no such thing as wrong. It can mean whatever you want it to mean without God and an objective standard. God is the basis for all truth. It derives from His being or else it means anything and everything and nothing.

Ok lets assume it isn't, cause as some will claim no God no objective morality.

Take that exact same world but add an invisible person who is all powerful and all knowing non physical...........does baby rape now suddenly become objectively wrong with the extra addition of this person ? On the surface no.

That is your assumption. Now justify it.

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Maybe you should examine the claim about objective morality and God and put it under scrutiny rather than just assume well no God no objective morality.

I have scrutinized it for many, many years and I find other worldviews cannot account for morality as anything other than relative, subjective preference, but when the rubber meets the road they are inconsistent and borrow from what they try to deny - the Christian God.

Peter
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:16:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 10:49:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:44:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
It's very simple for us saints to know who is a saint or not by the information that comes out of the body in written, spoken and bodily languages. But it's impossible for God's people to know the difference between a saint, prophet, antichrist, believer or someone who is completely ignorant and believes this world is real.

Okay, I am a saint and I know that you are not one. I know this because of how you write and argue your points.

There is the same amount of evidence for me being a saint as there is for you being one. Since I claim I am a Saint, I also claim you are an antichrist.

How about proving me wrong?

If you're a saint, then you should know why God uses illusions called saints and prophets. Tell me why He uses saints and prophets?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:18:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:10:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 7:15:51 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:


A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

You still haven't shown how "God" is a necessary precondition for objective morality, you just put the burden on the other side........well shown me how without God.

I grant that atheists, to an extent, act in accordance with true moral principles, yet they cannot provide a source for morality without God that can explain why they believe what they do other than they like or dislike something. Good to them is, "I like it" and bad is, "I don't like it." Your justification is nothing more than that and pushing you likes and dislikes on others. That is all you have. You have no other ground to base your morality on.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

How do you get anything but a relative, shifting standard outside of God? I asked you a question that you totally ignored. How does subjective, relative opinion produce objective, universal values? What would be necessary for objective, universal values outside of God? First you need a mind that is all knowing thus is good by His very nature and thus knows what is right in all circumstances to establish the standard. Values originate from mind and absolute values from an absolute Mind.

It isn't clear to me either. Imagine this world and baby rape but no God. Is it morally objectively wrong ?

Nothing is moral unless there is a standard for morality that we can compare right and wrong to, a standard that does not change. Without that measure/standard all baby rape is is a preference. As a Christian whose basic presuppositions rest on God/ are based on God's standard, I can say without doubt it is wrong or there is no such thing as wrong. It can mean whatever you want it to mean without God and an objective standard. God is the basis for all truth. It derives from His being or else it means anything and everything and nothing.

Ok lets assume it isn't, cause as some will claim no God no objective morality.

Take that exact same world but add an invisible person who is all powerful and all knowing non physical...........does baby rape now suddenly become objectively wrong with the extra addition of this person ? On the surface no.

That is your assumption. Now justify it.

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Maybe you should examine the claim about objective morality and God and put it under scrutiny rather than just assume well no God no objective morality.

I have scrutinized it for many, many years and I find other worldviews cannot account for morality as anything other than relative, subjective preference, but when the rubber meets the road they are inconsistent and borrow from what they try to deny - the Christian God.

Peter

Is it wrong for Christians to worship false deities in false gods? Why do they disobey God's commandments?
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:20:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:16:41 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:49:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:44:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
It's very simple for us saints to know who is a saint or not by the information that comes out of the body in written, spoken and bodily languages. But it's impossible for God's people to know the difference between a saint, prophet, antichrist, believer or someone who is completely ignorant and believes this world is real.

Okay, I am a saint and I know that you are not one. I know this because of how you write and argue your points.

There is the same amount of evidence for me being a saint as there is for you being one. Since I claim I am a Saint, I also claim you are an antichrist.

How about proving me wrong?

If you're a saint, then you should know why God uses illusions called saints and prophets. Tell me why He uses saints and prophets?

Not everything is illusions, only an antichrist would think so, and I have nothing to say to an antichrist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:23:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 10:19:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 8:55:38 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 4:58:37 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

To your rant regarding Objective morality, Re-read post #2.

What of it?

And from where do you think your "Christian worldview" comes?

A revelation from God.

The Hellenistic period, which predates christianity, represents a Jewish cultural ideology ( which is a complex blend of Turkish, Persian and Egyptian ideologies) that slowly evolved to form the current christian world view.

What are you talking about - the Hellenistic period represents a Jewish cultural ideology???

The Christian worldview stems predominately from the Jewish Scriptures and their promised Messiah and His teachings. From Him comes the New Covenant.

So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

Try reading the Bible before you become such an expert on it. The Bible narrative contains ancient history.

Peter

The Bible has deceived every single person who has read and studied it. Only God understands what He has us saints and prophets write for Him.

Bog, you know that none of your arguments are convincing to me. I feel sad that you are so deceived. You need special help so that you do not harm yourself and for no reason other that you have made yourself this self proclaimed saint and prophet of God. You are not convincing anyone, nor will you. From a concerned person I would ask you to seek some professional help, please!

Peter
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:34:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:10:10 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 7:15:51 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:


A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

Or any set of rules that is codified and unchanging, due to its writters being exctinct. Morality can be extrapolated from 'The Art of War', as its writter is long since dead, its an authored work. That would make it an objective anchor in which to judge morality. What you consider to be 'the one and only' is personal preference. Subjective.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

A Bipolar extraterrestrial entity that askes for its follows to sacrafice close personal possesions, or people, while claiming Omniscience is never 'morally right'.

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator.

Lets start with the basics, then. Do you enjoy being hit in the face? Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people. So, its probably a good assumpt that hitting people in the face is wrong. Do you like having your possesions stolen? Nor do I. Nor do a lot of people, etc etc.

Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure?

Basic understanding of stimuli. We naturally try to avoid pain and suffering, it stands to reason because we avoid it, we should try not to inflict it on others.

You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good.

Its only made up if you really do enjoy being hit in the face, having your possesions taken, etc.

Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong.

Ironically, because they believed they are privy to the objective morality of the one true God. Sticky wicket.

Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Flip to FJ's universal, freeware morality, we already know the answer. No God required.

You still haven't shown how "God" is a necessary precondition for objective morality, you just put the burden on the other side........well shown me how without God.

I grant that atheists, to an extent, act in accordance with true moral principles, yet they cannot provide a source for morality without God that can explain why they believe what they do other than they like or dislike something.

Explained previously.

Good to them is, "I like it" and bad is, "I don't like it." Your justification is nothing more than that and pushing you likes and dislikes on others. That is all you have. You have no other ground to base your morality on.

Well... in this instance, pushing my 'likes' (not being punched in the face) on some one else runs parallel to their desires, too. Its mutually beneficial for my morality to be followed. Everyone wins.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

How do you get anything but a relative, shifting standard outside of God? I asked you a question that you totally ignored. How does subjective, relative opinion produce objective, universal values?

Do you reasonably ever feel people will enjoy being punched in the face without cause?

What would be necessary for objective, universal values outside of God? First you need a mind that is all knowing thus is good by His very nature and thus knows what is right in all circumstances to establish the standard. Values originate from mind and absolute values from an absolute Mind.

Or basic understanding of human stimuli, which is why I am using the blunt instrument of 'punched in the face'.

It isn't clear to me either. Imagine this world and baby rape but no God. Is it morally objectively wrong ?

Nothing is moral unless there is a standard for morality that we can compare right and wrong to, a standard that does not change. Without that measure/standard all baby rape is is a preference. As a Christian whose basic presuppositions rest on God/ are based on God's standard, I can say without doubt it is wrong or there is no such thing as wrong. It can mean whatever you want it to mean without God and an objective standard. God is the basis for all truth. It derives from His being or else it means anything and everything and nothing.

Even though His desires are subject to interpretation of how the Bible translates, making it sadly, subjective. This doesn't include His capricious whims and mandates.

Ok lets assume it isn't, cause as some will claim no God no objective morality.


Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Maybe you should examine the claim about objective morality and God and put it under scrutiny rather than just assume well no God no objective morality.

I have scrutinized it for many, many years and I find other worldviews cannot account for morality as anything other than relative, subjective preference, but when the rubber meets the road they are inconsistent and borrow from what they try to deny - the Christian God.

You mean the Christian God borrowed from them. There are plenty of societies that functioned just fine without the knowledge of interpretation of Christ, as well as societies that understood the basic concept of not punching people in the face, and extrapolated that into other subsets of morality. The God of Abraham is the late comer, here. His mythos is predated by many civilizations that rose and fell, never knew His name, or were wiped out at His behest. His priests get the benefit of standing on the shoulders of other religions and taking what works and what doesn't and attributing it to their God rather than the previous cultures'.

Peter
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:46:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:20:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:16:41 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:49:44 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:44:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
It's very simple for us saints to know who is a saint or not by the information that comes out of the body in written, spoken and bodily languages. But it's impossible for God's people to know the difference between a saint, prophet, antichrist, believer or someone who is completely ignorant and believes this world is real.

Okay, I am a saint and I know that you are not one. I know this because of how you write and argue your points.

There is the same amount of evidence for me being a saint as there is for you being one. Since I claim I am a Saint, I also claim you are an antichrist.

How about proving me wrong?

If you're a saint, then you should know why God uses illusions called saints and prophets. Tell me why He uses saints and prophets?

Not everything is illusions, only an antichrist would think so, and I have nothing to say to an antichrist.

I knew you wouldn't know why God used saints and prophets.
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:47:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:46:05 PM, bornofgod wrote:
I knew you wouldn't know why God used saints and prophets.

Your question was faulty. You said "illusions called saints and prophets". I said that it is not an illusion.

You see the issue? There is no evidence for either of us in this conversation. Both of us are just as credible.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:48:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:23:15 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:19:38 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 8:55:38 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 4:58:37 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me.

Why is your "person" opinion of any moral value? It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise, which it can't. It betrays itself in the very fact that it does get annoyed over value judgments. It (your personal opinion) betrays itself because it thinks it is better than that of other subjective personal opinions without any permanent fixed address to compare its values to, because it needs a fix best as its reference/measure/ideal/standard. If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes. You have no basis for right and wrong and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god.

Not just any five and dime god but the real, true, one and only God from which no greater being can be conceived of.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

Then your worldview bias has blinded you to what is necessary for something to be objectively "right."

So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Show me that your idea of "good" or "right" is anything more than personal likes and dislikes without an objective, universal, unchanging, benevolent, all knowing, Person/Creator. Where is your objective best derived from without an objective, unchanging measure? You and those of like mind make it up and then label it good. Then when someone disagrees and flies a plane into buildings in your country all of a sudden these actions are wrong. Why without a universal, unchanging, omniscient, benevolent best reference?

Your worldview is inconsistent and has to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview if it want to make sense of qualitative values.

Peter

To your rant regarding Objective morality, Re-read post #2.

What of it?

And from where do you think your "Christian worldview" comes?

A revelation from God.

The Hellenistic period, which predates christianity, represents a Jewish cultural ideology ( which is a complex blend of Turkish, Persian and Egyptian ideologies) that slowly evolved to form the current christian world view.

What are you talking about - the Hellenistic period represents a Jewish cultural ideology???

The Christian worldview stems predominately from the Jewish Scriptures and their promised Messiah and His teachings. From Him comes the New Covenant.

So before you get on your high-horse about your "christian" values and god - pull your head out of the bible and start reading books that are actually about ancient history.

Try reading the Bible before you become such an expert on it. The Bible narrative contains ancient history.

Peter

The Bible has deceived every single person who has read and studied it. Only God understands what He has us saints and prophets write for Him.

Bog, you know that none of your arguments are convincing to me. I feel sad that you are so deceived. You need special help so that you do not harm yourself and for no reason other that you have made yourself this self proclaimed saint and prophet of God. You are not convincing anyone, nor will you. From a concerned person I would ask you to seek some professional help, please!

Peter
I'm not in this forum to convince antichrists like you and most of the other members in here. I'm only here for God's chosen believers who listen to Him without having to argue. Most of God's believers I have met and spoken to in the past 3 1/2 years don't argue at all. They listen intently and thank me for sharing the Truth with them.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:50:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:47:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:46:05 PM, bornofgod wrote:
I knew you wouldn't know why God used saints and prophets.

Your question was faulty. You said "illusions called saints and prophets". I said that it is not an illusion.

You see the issue? There is no evidence for either of us in this conversation. Both of us are just as credible.

My question wasn't faulty at all. I can only speak the Truth. It's you who can't understand why God used saints and prophets.
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:53:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:50:12 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:47:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:46:05 PM, bornofgod wrote:
I knew you wouldn't know why God used saints and prophets.

Your question was faulty. You said "illusions called saints and prophets". I said that it is not an illusion.

You see the issue? There is no evidence for either of us in this conversation. Both of us are just as credible.

My question wasn't faulty at all. I can only speak the Truth. It's you who can't understand why God used saints and prophets.

And I can only speak the truth. That means that one (or both) of us must be lying or mistaken.

Now, who is it? There is just as much evidence to support the credibility of each of us.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:55:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:53:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:50:12 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:47:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:46:05 PM, bornofgod wrote:
I knew you wouldn't know why God used saints and prophets.

Your question was faulty. You said "illusions called saints and prophets". I said that it is not an illusion.

You see the issue? There is no evidence for either of us in this conversation. Both of us are just as credible.

My question wasn't faulty at all. I can only speak the Truth. It's you who can't understand why God used saints and prophets.

And I can only speak the truth. That means that one (or both) of us must be lying or mistaken.

Now, who is it? There is just as much evidence to support the credibility of each of us.

Why did God use saints and prophets?
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 11:58:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:55:41 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Why did God use saints and prophets?

Here is a question, if my answer is different than yours, how does that help determine who is the honest one?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:02:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 11:58:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:55:41 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Why did God use saints and prophets?

Here is a question, if my answer is different than yours, how does that help determine who is the honest one?

I'm a saint who knows why God is using me? You're an antichrist who rejects the knowledge of God about the future New Heaven and Earth after He destroys this world ( Old Heaven and Earth ) we're living in.
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:06:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:02:45 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:58:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:55:41 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Why did God use saints and prophets?

Here is a question, if my answer is different than yours, how does that help determine who is the honest one?

I'm a saint who knows why God is using me? You're an antichrist who rejects the knowledge of God about the future New Heaven and Earth after He destroys this world ( Old Heaven and Earth ) we're living in.

And I can say that I am a saint that knows the truth and you are an antichrist who rejects truth.

Now, we still have just as much evidence for each of us being correct.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:06:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm a saint who knows why God is using me.

I put a question mark behind this sentence in the last post. I don't question anything I speak for our Creator. I did that the first few months I was writing for Him and after He corrected me each time I questioned what He had me write, I trusted Him ever since.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:08:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:06:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:02:45 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:58:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 11:55:41 PM, bornofgod wrote:
Why did God use saints and prophets?

Here is a question, if my answer is different than yours, how does that help determine who is the honest one?

I'm a saint who knows why God is using me? You're an antichrist who rejects the knowledge of God about the future New Heaven and Earth after He destroys this world ( Old Heaven and Earth ) we're living in.

And I can say that I am a saint that knows the truth and you are an antichrist who rejects truth.

Now, we still have just as much evidence for each of us being correct.

You haven't answered my question yet. Why did God use saints and prophets?

I know that you're afraid to give me an answer because you don't have a clue why God used us saints and prophets.
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:08:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 12:55:56 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

It isn't clear to me either. Imagine this world and baby rape but no God. Is it morally objectively wrong ? Ok lets assume it isn't, cause as some will claim no God no objective morality.

Take that exact same world but add an invisible person who is all powerful and all knowing non physical...........does baby rape now suddenly become objectively wrong with the extra addition of this person ? On the surface no.

Ive had this debate with Envisage, the nihilist king. And from what I've gathered is so long as there is a scenario in which baby rape can be a "good" thing then it's not objective. My counter was but on this earth the scenario does not exist, so in the context of humanity baby rape might as well be objectively wrong.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:10:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:08:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
You haven't answered my question yet. Why did God use saints and prophets?

Answering it is pointless as it does nothing to give more evidence that one of us is correct.

Hypothetically, god used saints and prophets as a middle man, in a way, of his word.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:13:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:10:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:08:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
You haven't answered my question yet. Why did God use saints and prophets?

Answering it is pointless as it does nothing to give more evidence that one of us is correct.

Hypothetically, god used saints and prophets as a middle man, in a way, of his word.

Not answering my question proves you have fear. I have no problem answering questions pertaining to God's knowledge that I possess.
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance? Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:16:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:13:38 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:10:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:08:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
You haven't answered my question yet. Why did God use saints and prophets?

Answering it is pointless as it does nothing to give more evidence that one of us is correct.

Hypothetically, god used saints and prophets as a middle man, in a way, of his word.

Not answering my question proves you have fear.

1) Sometimes there are questions that are just too stupid to answer. What is the color of jealousy?
2) I did just answer

I have no problem answering questions pertaining to God's knowledge that I possess.

God should know the winning lottery number for the power ball. Give the next 7 days numbers. Post them here and now. If you are correct, then it gives reason for people to believe you. If you cannot, then you are a liar (if this world is in the mind of god, the future should be as well, and you claim to have access to this knowledge).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:18:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:16:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:38 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:10:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:08:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
You haven't answered my question yet. Why did God use saints and prophets?

Answering it is pointless as it does nothing to give more evidence that one of us is correct.

Hypothetically, god used saints and prophets as a middle man, in a way, of his word.

Not answering my question proves you have fear.

1) Sometimes there are questions that are just too stupid to answer. What is the color of jealousy?
2) I did just answer

I have no problem answering questions pertaining to God's knowledge that I possess.

God should know the winning lottery number for the power ball. Give the next 7 days numbers. Post them here and now. If you are correct, then it gives reason for people to believe you. If you cannot, then you are a liar (if this world is in the mind of god, the future should be as well, and you claim to have access to this knowledge).

You're full of fear my poor lost child. You don't dare to give me an answer to this question; Why did God use saints and prophets?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:18:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:13:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/25/2014 10:28:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Because "objective" morality would mean that you indefinitely ought or ought not to behave in certain ways. If humanity is the product of unembodied natural processes, there is no purpose for our existence. Therefore whatever we "ought" to do is undefined.

But is there anything one "ought not" do regardless of the reason or circumstance? Is there a possible scenario (even in the absurd) in which an action should or can be done w/o being considered immoral?

In regards to the "no purpose" bit, you're playing into what I call the nihilist fallacy. In a reflexive manner, if everything is meaningless then everything has meaning. For example, if you spend all day digging ditches, and some one said to you "why are you digging ditches? It's meaningless." All you need to do is respond "because it's what I give meaning to." It has personal meaning, that's all that matters.

If everything is meaningless, then nothing has meaning.
My life, ultimately, will accomplish nothing. Nothing has meaning.
My life, ultimately will thereby have meaning.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:21:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:18:34 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:16:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:38 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:10:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:08:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
You haven't answered my question yet. Why did God use saints and prophets?

Answering it is pointless as it does nothing to give more evidence that one of us is correct.

Hypothetically, god used saints and prophets as a middle man, in a way, of his word.

Not answering my question proves you have fear.

1) Sometimes there are questions that are just too stupid to answer. What is the color of jealousy?
2) I did just answer

I have no problem answering questions pertaining to God's knowledge that I possess.

God should know the winning lottery number for the power ball. Give the next 7 days numbers. Post them here and now. If you are correct, then it gives reason for people to believe you. If you cannot, then you are a liar (if this world is in the mind of god, the future should be as well, and you claim to have access to this knowledge).

You're full of fear my poor lost child. You don't dare to give me an answer to this question; Why did God use saints and prophets?

Are you blind or stupid? I answered already. Look at my previous replies.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:23:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:21:31 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:18:34 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:16:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:13:38 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:10:54 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:08:13 AM, bornofgod wrote:
You haven't answered my question yet. Why did God use saints and prophets?

Answering it is pointless as it does nothing to give more evidence that one of us is correct.

Hypothetically, god used saints and prophets as a middle man, in a way, of his word.

Not answering my question proves you have fear.

1) Sometimes there are questions that are just too stupid to answer. What is the color of jealousy?
2) I did just answer

I have no problem answering questions pertaining to God's knowledge that I possess.

God should know the winning lottery number for the power ball. Give the next 7 days numbers. Post them here and now. If you are correct, then it gives reason for people to believe you. If you cannot, then you are a liar (if this world is in the mind of god, the future should be as well, and you claim to have access to this knowledge).

You're full of fear my poor lost child. You don't dare to give me an answer to this question; Why did God use saints and prophets?

Are you blind or stupid? I answered already. Look at my previous replies.

I'm not stupid enough to accept an answer that starts out with the word "hypothetically" and doesn't contain any information about why God used saints and prophets. What is the word?

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