Objective morality argument

- Amoranemix 505
Do you ever think about why might be that you are unable to support your claims ?
- PGA
[no response]
- Amoranemix 842
I think I am beginning to discern a pattern.
- PGA 846
I can support it with what I believe to be sound logic.[152] I invite you to rationally disprove that prophecy is what it claims to be.[153] Your problem is that you do not know enough about the Bible to do that and if you did you would not believe what you do. Your worldview will not allow you to debate prophecy because if you are wrong then you have nowhere to hide. You would have to admit it and change your worldview, change everything that you have built upon and invested your life upon, or continue to live in your little lie to yourself, and thus live inconsistently. I don't think you want to go there.

[152] That must be why you almost never do so when asked to support your claims. And then you wonder why sceptics don't take you seriously.
[153] Thanks, but I am not interested. Feel free to disprove it yourself where that is on topic. I also invite you to honour your burdens of proof.
About your other claims : please demonstrate the ones that are true and relevant. That shouldn't be much work.

- Amoranemix 625
I suspect your worldview is similar to mine, but you make exceptions. You accept God as an exception to conservativeness and whatever you believe comes from God supersedes any reason and evidence. You know what comes from God thanks to biblical prophecies.
You have liberally vented your personal opinion that the basis of atheists is a bad one and relentlessly argue that it is, even though it is a red herring. However, even if conceding that, you have so far been unable to show yours is better. Why is that ?
- PGA
[no response]
- Amoranemix 845
There is definitely a pattern emerging.
- PGA 846
No, my worldview is not similar. We believe the total oppose.[154] We see the world through two totally different lenses. I do not suspend reason and logic because I believe in God who wants His creatures to worship Him in spirit AND in truth.[155] I have to rightly discern His Word, His thoughts to me or else I have not understood Him. To do this I must think rationally, think logcally. I use reason to the best of my abilities in putting forth my rationale and arguments for God. I have also put forth that atheism is an illogical and an unfounded belief in that it knows no certainty and makes irrational and unfounded judgments on all things unless it borrows from the Judeo-Christian standard that can. You have not gotten to the heart of the issue yet because you have been examining my worldview without asking the necessary questions of your own.[156]

[154] Really ?
I believe the earth is round. What about you ?
I believe the past hypothesis (which states the universe has a low entropy past). What about you ?
I believe the universe to have three large space dimensions and one time dimension. What about you ?
I believe in the laws of logic as taught in highschool. What about you ?
I believe humans are the most intelligent animals. What about you ?
I am curious to know what are these total opposites you believe in.
[155] Except when you are debating sceptics, apparently.
[156] You have been evading my questions about morality in your worldview like there is no tomorrow (for obvious reasons).

- Amoranemix 625
[29] You dispute that the Bible makes many claims !? God needed a book of 5 million characters to make a single claim ? What a guy! I'll start worshipping him immediately.
- PGA 846
He has shown His existence and made Himself known to the world by choosing a people to do this by. History attests to this. It also shows mankind's dilemma - evil and explaining it outside of God. It shows mankind's problem of living up to God's standard of perfection and His provision, His solution, a solution that satisfies His justice and His anger against wrong and sin against Him.[29]

Why is what you believe "good" and how do you know with certainty? Why should your subjectivity decide what good and evil are? What gives your standard the necessary tools to do this?[157]

[29] You missed the point I made. Read it again. At least you weren't so dishonest to deny that you committed a false dilemma fallacy.
[157] I suggest you be more clear on what exactly it is you want to know with your why and how questions, that you only ask relevant questions, do not rely on controversial assumptions and read my answers when I give them. I don't like fishing for the same red herrings over and over again.
And stick to a topic please. This was about authorities and how many claims the Bible makes, not about any of the things you are asking. You are systematically changing the subjects to red herrings to distract from the fact that you don't have a case.

- Amoranemix 625
[30] What is self-important knowledge ?
- PGA 846
It is your own particular knowledge that you place above that of God's revelation of Himself and what is good. You see yourself as an authority above God, thus your knowledge is self-important. It is so important to you that it becomes your standard, even though it has no objective, universal, unchanging best as its reference. It just is because you LIKE it.[158] You prefer it to what is actually good.[159] Thus, you see the misery and hardship in the world when men live apart from God and His goodness.[160] That is the witness of history. God has alowed men to see where their own self-important standards lead to - all kinds of evil and calling things that are evil good and things that are good evil.

That I see myself as an authority 'above' God does not imply my knowledge is self-important.
Self-important knowledge is pejorative. I prefer the term god-ignoring knowledge that better describes what you mean with it. Obviously for me to place it above God's revelation would require God to exist, which you can't prove.
[158] My god-ignoring knowledge becomes my standard because I like it ? What does that even mean ? Maybe you should limit yourself to describing your worldview in stead of making stuff up about mine.
[159] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[160] Yeah, it is the same misery I see when men live apart from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Amon, Buddha and their goodness.

- Amoranemix 625
[31] I already argued that even with good prophecies you still don't have a good case. Challenge such argument if you disagree.
- PGA
[no response]
- Amoranemix
You forgot to answer my questions.
- PGA 846
Then go to Scripture and debate its truthfulness. Start with Matthew 24 which radiates out into every part of the Bible. Let's see how consistent your argument is for inconsistency is a sign that your reasoning is faulty and wrong.

Again, why should a rational person (who does not adhere to your worldview) do what you propose ?
I just told you that prophecy is irrelevant, which you did not dispute. So you tell me to go discuss prophecy. Then you add how inconsistency is sign of faulty reasoning. Priceless! Do you understand now why rational people don't take you seriously ?

- jodybirdy 524
And... the scenario of a god "objectively" deciding what is morally right and wrong has happened? Prove it.
- dsjpk5 530
Objective morality exists. It can't exist without a legitimate authority determining the standards.[72] Therefore the process happened.
- Amoranemix 842
[72] Can you prove that ?
- PGA 846
Again, by the impossibility of the contrary, ultimately making sense of anything without being grounded in truth and certainty and by prophecy itself.[161] I can show you that you cannot reasonably explain why something is right or wrong without rightness or wrongness being grounded in an ultimate, unchanging best. What is your "best?" I can show you the inconsistency of your thought patterns by prophecy and show you that it is not my reasoning that is faulty, but yours.[162] The God you don't know, because of your willful unbelief and rebellion, will justify Himself by His word and when I correctly understand and use it that becomes apparent.

[161] Yet presuppositionalists never present a sound impossibility of the contrary argument that supports that claim. We both know why, but who us is honest enough to say it out loud ?
[162] That must be why you haven't yet done so. People do climb mountains because they can climb them. Presuppositionalists don't support their claims because they can support them. And then they claim that atheists can't make sense of the world. It is presupposionalists we can't make sense of.
Let me ask frank question : do you honestly believe that rational people should adhere to your worldview ? If so, can you provide good reasons why without relying on bald assertions and questions ? (Please no more bad reasons. You have spammed those enough already. I know that to idiots with a desire to believe in God the problems with reality is the excuse they need to do so, but I want to know why rational people should adhere to your worldview.)

- Amoranemix 845
[67] I don't think I committed any fallacy here. I did not commit an appeal to authority fallacy and am not familiar with the authority fallacy. What is it ?
- PGA 847
Would a worldview devoid of an ultimate, universal, unchanging best, that is not built upon from its starting premise, such as with mine from an ultimate mind, but through chance happenstance, have any intentionality to and how would this come about? Show me that it can.

Relevance ?
Dude, I prefer to keep structure in discussions. This subdiscussion was about one of your claims that you were (as usual) unable to prove. In stead of ending it there I moved on to your dishonesty about making such claims and your failure to admit being unable to support them.
You failed to address that. In stead you attempted to support your claim with an appeal to authority fallacy, which I called you on and which you did not dispute. You in stead accused me of making an authority fallacy, which you refused to explain.
None of the previous, as far as I know, has anything to do with how the universe came about. You also committed an onus probandi fallacy.

- PGA 846
You either begin with such a being as God, the greatest possible or conceivable mind, or you begin with something that has no mind, no intent, no agency within itself to guide or sustain anything let alone produce conscious mind and purpose. Explain how such things can result from your worldview framework.

You committed false dilemma fallacy. So far you have been unable to demonstrate those are the only two possibilities.
For the explanation you requested, I suggest you read pertinent science books. It is not my job to give you a science lecture.

- PGA 847
Then explain how you have the authority to say that this is how things happened and to know so with certainty.

Explain it yourself. It is not my job to do it for you.

- PGA 847
Explain how your worldview starting point can offer any certainty (without first borrowing from mine, the Judeo-Christian one, that can).

So far you have been unable to demonstrate that your worldview can offer certainty. In my worldview there is no good reason to believe it to be impossible.
Do you realize that asking 'How ... ?' about the previous does not provide such good reason ? Do you realize these how questions are irrelevant unless you can demonstrate some relevant conclusion from likely answers to those questions ?

- Amoranemix 845
You seem to be waving another red herring. You committed a fallacy here, while I probably didn't. That my worldview is fallacious you have already argued too many times. That your worldview is not fallacious seems to be much more difficult to argue (for obvious reasons).
- PGA 847
Again, it is difficult, but not impossible. You do not want to engage in it.[163] I am left with trying to get you to make sense of what you believe in and why you can. You have no certainty,[164] you can't produce any ultimate, universal, absolute standard, you have no ultimate grounding for truth (except by being inconsistent with your own worldview), no answer for why we are here that you can make sense of because your worldview starts from a position of utter senselessness.

[163] Except that I do. Prophecy != your worldview.
[164] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

- Amoranemix 845
[68] Maybe so, but I did not make that claim in this thread and therefore carry no burden of proof.
- PGA 847
You make all kinds of claims and use all kinds of inferences. The very fact that we are having this discussion suggests that you believe your worldview is more logical and more reasonable than mine,[165] or the question comes up as to why you would believe it or stick to it other than you will not submit to truth and logic. How does logic come from an indifferent, illogical, mindless universe? How does truth? How does being?[166]

[165] Yes, and ? You seem to be unaware that in debates it is permitted to hold beliefs, to make claims and to make inferences. You are so proud knowing made up answers to your ultimate questions, but you are ignorant of what matters. Try basing your beliefs on reality iso an invisible sky magician.
[166] Logic doesn't 'come from' a universe. I didn't understand the part where you explained the relevance of your questions.

- Amoranemix 845
Notice how you keep asking vague or fallacious questions, but never correct or specify when invited to do so. You seem to realize it won't help you support your case. Christians aren't as stupid as they appear. They have merely learned to subdue their intelligence to prevent it from surfacing when that could ruin their beliefs.
- PGA 847
Again, the questions I ask are life's ultimate questions. In a universe devoid of meaning, devoid of ultimate mind, why are you searching for truth, for meaning, for a purpose, for answers? How will you ever find any answers to anything that matters without this necessary Being revealing Himself to mankind? You will never be sure because your worldview lacks what is necessary for certainty, for making sense of existence. Now if you want to believe it then that is your choice but don't tell me mine is wrong or unreasonable. It is not.

I have I told you I dislike fishing for red herrings ? I think I have.
About your how questions : I think in order to get anywhere you would need to prove that the result of the how is impossible without God, which could be called an impossibility of the contrary argument. The problems is : you can't do that. I can make sense of why you can't because I base my worldview on reality.
Feel free to prove your relevant bald assertions.

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?

Because morality would hender all laws of the fairytale theory of Darwinism.

At 10/3/2016 1:44:14 AM, brontoraptor 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?

Because morality would hender all laws of the fairytale theory of Darwinism.

I can't wait to hear how a theory about how the various species got here is related to the question of morality. This should be good.

At 10/3/2016 1:50:55 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

At 10/3/2016 1:44:14 AM, brontoraptor 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?

Because morality would hender all laws of the fairytale theory of Darwinism.

I can't wait to hear how a theory about how the various species got here is related to the question of morality. This should be good.

Morality would hender you from surviving. Tell a lion in the wilderness to check its conscience before it makes the kill.

At 10/3/2016 1:54:28 AM, brontoraptor wrote:

At 10/3/2016 1:50:55 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

At 10/3/2016 1:44:14 AM, brontoraptor 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?

Because morality would hender all laws of the fairytale theory of Darwinism.

I can't wait to hear how a theory about how the various species got here is related to the question of morality. This should be good.

Morality would hender you from surviving. Tell a lion in the wilderness to check its conscience before it makes the kill.

So it's immoral for a lion to kill a human? That's an interesting concept.

By 'interesting' I think you mean it's wrong! It is quite probable that no other species has the concept of, say, trigonometry. It may well be that only humans are bothered by the issue of right and wrong. Unfortunately, we are humans!

Evolution theory explains how co-operative and altruistic behaviour often arises (something many people with a poor understanding of evolution fail to grasp - evolution does not inevitably lead to egocentric selfishness). In other species co-operative behaviour can be genetically hard-wired, but in man (with our over-developed brains)our behaviour is not controlled by instincts and hormones but by 'conscious thought'. I take that to mean we can learn little about morality from other species - morality is a purely human issue.

At 10/3/2016 6:30:38 AM, keithprosser wrote:
By 'interesting' I think you mean it's wrong! It is quite probable that no other species has the concept of, say, trigonometry. It may well be that only humans are bothered by the issue of right and wrong. Unfortunately, we are humans!

Evolution theory explains how co-operative and altruistic behaviour often arises (something many people with a poor understanding of evolution fail to grasp - evolution does not inevitably lead to egocentric selfishness). In other species co-operative behaviour can be genetically hard-wired, but in man (with our over-developed brains)our behaviour is not controlled by instincts and hormones but by 'conscious thought'. I take that to mean we can learn little about morality from other species - morality is a purely human issue.

That was pretty much what I was getting at, at least as far as other animals are concerned. In so far as humans go, it could be argued far too many of their actions are driven by instincts and hormones as well, with precious little conscious thought.

- PGA 528
You seem to think that as a Christian I cannot judge, that I'm just a mindless zombie.[70] Rubbish. I already explained the verse and you keep chalking me down as not responding because you can't reason it out.[71]
- Amoranemix 845
[70] Not really, but I do believe you are selectively credulous. You on the other hand seem to think that as an atheist I cannot judge.
- PGA 847
You can judge and do judge all the time. My objection is that you do not judge rightly, that you do not have the means to judge rightly unless you first presuppose this God and work from His authority rather than your own or the authority of your "experts" who are in as much of a fog as you are to what really happened.[167] When you do presuppose God and work from His authority He leads you into truth.[167'] You then have a grounding in which to make sense of everything from.[167'] You do not from your worldview stance.

[167] You are again being ambiguous : Right can refer to a moral standard or the truth standard. I understand confusion is your friend, but I prefer clarity. If referring to a moral standard you would be referring to God's morality, which you omit mentioning to avoid clarity (the sceptic's friend).
[167'] So you baldly assert and it is pointless to ask you whether you can prove that, right ? We both know you can't and deep down even you know why you can't prove it. All you have to do is turn on your brain and be honest.
[167'] Again, can you prove that ? You keep criticizing people for the splinter in their eye while being oblivious to the plank in you own. (In case this is off topic here you may do so in another thread or in a formal debate.)

- Amoranemix 845
[71] You are mistaken, for I do not keep chalking you for not responding (except when you 'forget' to respond of course).
- PGA 847
As I said, I do not want to take the time to backtrack to some previous thread because I only have so much time on which to work from. I request that you include the full scope of your argument with your current post, in as much as you can do so, or are willing to. If you want to copy and paste then please do so, for you know what grievances you have and exactly where they come from.

What you request requires work and space. I don't see why I would do the work for you. After all, I am not requesting the same from you and you systematically fail to do your duty. Also, in cases that it would be easier for me than you to do so, request that I provide a greater backlog of quotes in stead of 'forgetting' to respond.

- PGA 537
God is the Creator. He can do with His creation whatever He wishes, yet He will not take innocent life without restoring it.[ . . . ]
- Amoranemix 845
According to the Bible God killed many people, although many indirectly. Which of those were innocent and did he thus restore ? I mean, isn't everyone guilty in his eyes (except Jesus) so that in fact he didn't restore anyone ?
- PGA 847
Those who did not willfully sin against Him, those who through faith had placed their trust in Him and His provision. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these - referring to little children. His death accomplished all He intended it to do, to save such as these and also to save those who have sinned yet can't through their own merit be reconciled to a pure and holy God. He provided the means to do so, the means that would satisfy God's justice, His goodness, His punishment of evil, for those who would believe. And His Word has explained this to mankind. To those who believe He gave the right to reconciliation through His Son. To those who will not believe they will be judged on their own merit, on their own acts.

So God finds those who are trying to please him innocent and everyone else guilty. It is a might makes right morality. I can understand the appeal of it (especially to God), but fortunately (for the weak) not everyone adheres to it. An important reason is of course that one needs the power to impose such morality, which most people lack.
Next, what evidence can you present that God restored those who did not willfully sin against him ?

- PGA 541 to Hitchian
God promised the Israelites that if they remained faithful to the "if/then" covenant He made with them then He would protect them and prove that He was with them. That covenant is likened in the Bible to a marriage or agreement between two people or in the case of Israel, two parties. Israel was constantly unfaithful. The history of the Jewish people is one of rebellion and constant breaking of the covenant God made with them until God finally brings the full sanctions of Deuteronomy 28 into effect with the destruction and passing away of that heaven and earth of temple worship.
- Amoranemix 842
The Bible promotes the concept of collective guilt. Today we know better (at least most of us do), but those bronze age goat herds thought of that as supreme wisdom from a supreme being.
- PGA 848
It does in Adam. We have all inherited the nature of Adam to sin, and God has judged sin in Adam.[169] You need a new nature to be put right with God, a nature that comes through faith and trust in Jesus Christ and in His righteousness, His life lived on your behalf. But for those who have not committed sin in themselves, would it be just for God to punish them with everlasting separation from Him?[170] Can you say that you have never broken His laws, His decrees, His statutes?[171] I believe that Jesus made provision in His sacrifice and atoning work before God for little ones, those innocent of committing sin in and of themselves before God. I justify these thoughts of mine by Jesus' words.

[169] That is inheritance guilt, which the Bible also promotes and civilized societies have grown out of.
An example of collective guilt is Samuel 2 24, where David counted the Israelites as requested (apparently God couldn't do that himself) and then God killed 70000 Israelites for David's obedience. And then Christians wonder why sceptics don't share their preference for God's morality. Amazing, isn't it ?
[170] You forgot to mention that the justice standard you are referring to is God's personal justice to promote confusion (the sceptic's enemy). From what I understand though God is against punishing the innocent and the innocent are those who are trying to please him. I doubt that according to God's personal justice it would be just to punish those who are trying to please him. Relevance ?
[171] I suspect not truthfully. Can God say he has never broken my laws, my decrees, my statutes ?

- PGA 848
Corporately all have sinned and are guilty before God in Adam. God has a right to punish sinful men.[171] Men who have willfully sinned because of their sinful nature, that nature they received from that first man, Adam, will be judged according to their sinfulness. Those who have received the new nature, the one God gives through Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, are corporately forgiven and live according to that new nature, no longer hostile and hateful towards God, but living under the provision He has given.

[171] My point exactly : People are guilty according God's personal standard of justice. There are also standards according to which people have the right to punish disobedient gods, but people are weak and God is powerful, so he is the one who gets to dish out the punishments. "If you don't obey me, You'll burn in Hell." is the power play he lives by. Might makes right. I understand His Magnificence likes that morality.

- Amoranemix 842
Today we know better (at least most of us do), but those bronze age goat herds thought of that as supreme wisdom from a supreme being.
- PGA 848
No, you think you do and your mind deceives you into thinking such thoughts, but you are wrong.[172] You do not know better because you have no standard of best in which to apply "better" too.[173] It is as shifting and changing as your unstable nature is, never knowing certainty, never knowing whether what you believe is true to what is because you construct their own reality, your own subjective morality based on nothing but your likes and desires to do what you please or what feels good or what others tell you to do by the use of force or friendly persuasion ("If you don't believe me, I'll break your leg" is the power play you and they live by. It is a power struggle to get your own way. If you can't live by yours then you are forced to live by theirs).[174]

[172] Really ? Do you actually agree with collective guilt ? If a member of a group (Jews, gays, villagers, a family, the police, ...) commits a crime, is then the whole group guilty according to the true standard of justice ? If so, can you demonstrate that ?
[173] Actually, I have, but it is an implicit standard (it is not formalized).
[174] You couldn't resist criticizing my worldview again. Criticizing my worldview is possible, while demonstrating yours is less bad, is impossible. So it is logical for you to limit yourself to the former even though it is a red herring.

- PGA 558 to bulproof
I have submitted my evidence as biblical prophecy and the inability to make sense of morality without a fixed objective, universal standard.
- Amoranemix 842
You were unable to make sense of morality with your fixed, objective, universal standard.
- PGA 848
How so?

I think I was referring to the fact you were unable to demonstrate the problems you identified that exist in reality are absent in your worldview. You sometimes accompanied your criticisms of reality with the comments that I can't make sense of or morality, although you never made clear on what you meant with 'make sense of' (probably to maintain confusion, the sceptic's enemy), but it suggests that the problems with reality imply I can't make sense of morality. You certainly haven't demonstrated you could make sense of morality. Your god-based worldview also has problems, ergo...

- PGA 623
Yeah! What a fool he was:
Psalm 14:1
[ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
- Amoranemix 842
Yeah! What a fool David was.
- PGA 848
You speak from worldview bias, from anger, from rebellion.[175] It is utterly foolish to say there is no God when you are so limited in your knowledge of anything. It is utterly foolish to say that what you believe is good when you have no ultimate, objective, universal standard that is best. Unless you can produce one and what is necessary for one you speak not from wisdom but from folly. It is utterly foolish to reject God when nothing else can make sense of existence.

[175] Like you, I speak from worldview bias, but not from anger and rebellion. I am biased in favour of reality.
I didn't understand the part where you explained when you plan on demonstrating the rest of your claims.

- Amoranemix 849
I present here as an intermezzo a comment on how some of our arguments proceed with reaching any conclusion other than that you systematically fail to support your claims.

There are parts of reality you do not understand. You describe these failures in your understanding as problems (in addition to parts of reality that really are problematic). From these problems you draw conclusions about how these problems manifest themselves. For example : " You think just because you can state something it makes it so". Since these claims are unsupported they are bald assertions and I usually ask you to prove them when I disbelieve them.

Your response ? You ask questions (often intermingled with more bald assertions). That is assuming you respond at all.
- PGA 851
The point of my questioning was to show you how futile your answers were based on your starting presupposition, the grounds on which your whole system of belief is founded. You declined to answer them.

1) Then the point of your questioning was off topic. This thread isn't about how futile mine or atheist's answers are based on their starting position. This thread is about :
a) Can objective morality exist without God ? Yes, it can.
b) Is the Christian worldview better than the atheist worldview ? No, it isn't.
The rest is distraction.
2) You have so far failed to demonstrate that point.
3) I did not decline answering your questions.

- Amoranemix 849
In the beginning I was naive and I thought that, although I didn't understand how those questions are relevant, I would answer and wait for you to use those answers to support your claims.
Your response ?
<nothing>
- PGA 851
They are relevant in establishing what is behind your thinking (worldview) and what your thinking is based upon.[176]
Why would I respond to you when you never responded to me on such crucial issues that everything else rests upon them?[176']

[176] 1) The problem is that <nothing> does not establish what is behind my thinking, on the contrary. Not does it establish how your questions are relevant. On the contrary.
2) What is behind my thinking is off topic. See above what is on topic.
[176'] In that hypothetical situation and were you to have a case, to demonstrate that your position is more rational than mine. Relevance ?

- Amoranemix 849
If your remark was not on topic, why did you make it ? Why do you keep waving red herrings ?
- PGA
[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

- Amoranemix 849
[70a1] My standard is, just like yours, subjective, but also objective. So I could present objective rules as part of my standard to someone who insists that standards must be objective to be good.
What is the difference between something true and something objectively true ?
What exactly is it about my reason that you doubt ? I don't feel like answering all of your irrelevant questions while you refuse to answer my relevant ones.
[70a2] Once again, that is your belief, not mine.
[70a3] It is true. If you are sceptical about that, please provide reason for your scepticism.
[70a4] I already refuted that.
- PGA
[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

- Amoranemix 849
After some times I started realizing that your questions were mere distractions, serving to draw attention away from the fact that you can't support your claims (for obvious reasons). So I have grown reticent answering your questions. Questions do not prove claims. Claims are proven with evidence. Arguments can serve as evidence.
- PGA 851
I can demonstrate it very easily by the biblical evidence that God is who He says He is.[177] You are coming from the false conclusion that I can't.[178] Why would I waste my time in doing so if the person is not interested in going there.[179] You already start from the position that it cannot be His word[180], so how could I show you something that you are unwilling to see and will go out of your way to demonstrate just what it is you believe without considering the logic, the utter reason and validy of my position.[181] It will shatter the irrationality of your belief structure so in essence you will guard that belief structure by not examining the evidence I lay down and discussing the reason and logic behind it.[182] I could most definitely show that your unbelief has no warrent to it. Where you start is where you end up. Your starting presupposition, or more precisely, one of those starting presuppositions that you build everything else upon, is that the Bible cannot be the revelation of God Almighty to His creature - man. So how are you going to believe otherwise? You will rationalize away every argument I present to you, even though they are logically sound.

[177] 1) Maybe you can, but you haven't done so yet.
2) Who cares ? This is yet another one of your attempts to distract from the fact that you don't have a case. Whether God is who he says he is is (at least by itself) irrelevant. Whether you can support the claims you make when challenged, is. The answer to that question is NO for most of your claims.
[178] No, I am not.
[179] I don't know. Please enlighten me.
[180] No, I don't.
[181] I don't know. Relevance ?
Look at that ! So far everything you said in that paragraph is either seemingly irrelevant or false. You are making false assumptions about what assumptions I make about you and then complain about it. You imagine what a world without God must be like, assume that is what atheists must believe and then complain about it. However, atheists believe in reality, not your perversion of it.
[182] My belief structure is off topic; yours isn't. Also, you have merely presented your personal opinion against my belief structure, not evidence. The latter is of course harder to come by.
About the rest of the paragraph : please prove the on topic claims that are true. That shouldn't be much work.

- Amoranemix 849
[70b1] Again, can you prove that claim ?
Assuming the claim I just asked you to prove is true, please prove your previous claims.
[70b2] Why do you keep asking loaded questions ?
[70b3] What a coincidence. You talk as if your subjective opinion is the one that I SHOULD believe on the basis that it is your subjective opinion. Maybe we should start a club.
- PGA
[no response]

You forgot to answer my questions.

- Amoranemix 849
If you think that somehow your presuppositions are better than mine, then we can discuss that in a different thread. If you think you can prove your claims with prophecy, we can discuss that in a different thread. (A prophecy thread you had started I didn't participate in because it was progressing too fast.)
- PGA 851
I will make a prophecy thread especially for you. I want you to establish that it is unreasonable and illogical to believe these prophecies are true. Are you willing to go there?[183] If not then don't make the claim that I have nothing more than 'bald assertions'. Drop that claim from your reportoire if you are not willing to follow up.[184] I will show that your belief has no validity to it based on God's word and what history has confirmed to date. Now, if I go to such trouble will you respond?[185] If not it would be a waste of my time; if not then I am justified in what I have said to date.[185']

[183] No.
[184] You made plenty of bald assertions, so the burden of proof is on you, not on me. Honour your burden or admit you can't. That is what an honest person would do.
[185] If it is on topic, you are not postulating God's word and the thread is not moving too fast, yes. I prefer a formal debate though, but I understand your apprehension for those.
[185'] That is a non-sequitur.

A way to reduce the popularity of the prophecy thread is by restricting it to proving some of the claims you have made about God other than that he has the power of clairvoyancy.

- PGA 780
Again, if it is only your subjective standard evaluating. Who gives a hoot? I don't.[71a] What makes it any better than mine or that of Kim Jong-un's?[71b] Don't try to impose your subjective standard on me. I see it for what it is - a lie. It can't know what it claims to know.
[71c] Because it is a standard that has its base planted in mid-air. Try picturing a standard that has no base to rest itself on and you arrive at yours. I dislike it because it claims truth yet doesn't know what truth is.
- Amoranemix 850
[71a] Yes, you do, a lot apparently. You can't stop yourself asking me about it, even though that is off topic. It could be an OCD.
- PGA 852
Again, you ignored what I said in your attempt to misconstrue it.[186] I said "IF it is only your subjective standard evaluating." It is not. You keep sneaking in the Christian ethical standard that says that some things are definitely wrong and can be nothing but wrong. I am pointing out the inconsistencies of your belief system, that it can't account for these things if it only operates from its own system and remains consistent within itself. You do not remain consistent with your origins. You keep importing ideas and beliefs that are foreign to your starting points, the core beliefs you hold.

[186] You are mistaken, for I addressed what you said. That my answers to your questions come from my subjective standard only is something you assume. Perhaps you expressed your question poorly. Did you intend to ask me why I want to force my well-being based morality on you ?
Perhaps you wanted to ask why anyone should adhere to well-being based morality ? Again, that is off topic. If you had demonstrated that people should adhere to your god-based morality, then you could have an argument that yours is better if I didn't do the same for mine. The problem is you haven't demonstrated yet that anyone should give a hoot about your morality. All your complaints about what the world is like ignoring God have corresponding complaints about a world ignoring well-being.

- PGA 852
Maybe you just don't understand these core beliefs that you rest everything upon.
They are your starting points in the way you look at the world and everything in it, your presuppositional building blocks.

I have a partial understanding of them. You on the other act as you believe you understand yours. Perhaps you do, given how reticent you are to discuss them.

- PGA 852
You either start with a framework that includes God as the cause of existence or you start with something that excludes God (this necessary being).[187] You can't have it both ways yet you want to act inconsistently with where you start. So either the universe was created and owes its existence to a personal, thinking, intelligent, logical, moral living Being or it does not. Which is it? Ask yourself that question.[188]

[187] You committed a false dilemma fallacy, for my postulates (which is what I assume you mean with framework) leaves God's existence open.
[188] After having argued with me for so long, you still need to ask me that ? Haven't you figured out yet that I don't believe that an intelligent, logical, moral living being created the universe ?

- PGA 852
What you work upon as your starting or core/foundational belief is that this universe does not owe its existence to a personal necessary Being (to your knowledge). Is that true or not?[189] If it is true then the universe must have its existence based on non-personal, unthinking, illogical/non-logical, mindless, random happenstance. Is that true or not?[190]

[189] That is false.
[190] That is also false. The universe may have been created by something else than your god.
Why are we again talking about my worldview ?

- PGA 852
[Critique of perversion of my worldview and reality]

I didn't understand the part where you explained why I should replace my allegedly horrible worldview for your abysmal one.
I found it amusing when you were complaining about problems we see in the real world and followed up with 'This is what we see in a world without God.' Priceless !

- Amoranemix 850
[71b] Already addressed.
You see why I am reluctant to answer your questions ? All you did with my answer was draw the same irrelevant conclusion from it : my morality is bad. Don't try to impose your subjective moral standard on me. I see it for what it is : a big, fat lie. It can't know what it claims to know.
- PGA 852
When you quote me use "quotations" for it becomes misleading as to who said what and as to whether you are just mimicing my points or trying to make a point of your own.

I wasn't quoting you, but mimicking your point. I indicate quotes as such. I think that your position may be more susceptible to your criticism than my position.
Nice dodge, by the way.

- Amoranemix 850
[71c] Amazing. I asked you not to tell me why you dislike it and and tell me in stead why it matters you dislike it. Your response ? An explanation as to why you dislike it. Scmike2 would say : Priceless!
- PGA 852
I told you and you ignored my explanation: "a standard that has no base to rest itself on and you arrive at yours."

I don't get it. If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :
P1. PGA dislikes the way Amoranemix arrives at truth in regards to goodness.
P2. PGA pointed out alleged problems with Amoranemix' standard.
P3. PGA told why he dislikes Amoranemix' standard.
C. Therefore, PGA told Amoranemix why it matters that he dislikes Amoranemix' way of arriving a truth in regards to goodness.

Is that indeed your argument ?

Rather than the argument above as you implied, you seem to be relying on the following argument :
P1. Amoranemix's morality is not perfect.
P2. Moralities that are not perfect should be dismissed.
C. Therefore Amoranemix's morality should be dismissed.

Is that indeed your argument ?

- PGA 852
You just draw upon what you like and call it good.[191] It does not have the necessary foundation for goodness unless it borrows from an ultimate best. Where does your subjective opinions do this? They don't. What they do is draw upon what you like or prefer or decide to push for in your powerplay to control what others believe, or they derive from what someone else forces upon you. If you don't have an absolute, universal "best" to reference then don't try to pass your opinions off as any "better" than anyone else. The foundation you start from (planted in mid-air) has no ability to determine best other than to push your likes and dislikes and call them "good." That makes you no better than Hitler or Mao. That makes what they did just as acceptable as what you are trying to do.[191]'

[191] Why do you keep making such false claims ? You keep telling me that you base your beliefs on some ultimate standard of truth, while I don't and yet you are the one who keeps spreading lies. Do you understand that if you had any credibility left, that would reduce it even further ?
About the rest of your paragraph : I don't think there is anything relevant that I haven't already addressed. If there is, please point it out to me.
Your argumentation is similar to arguing to someone who is starving that he should believe he has food, for without food bad things will happen to him.
[191'] If that holds for me then it also holds for you. You have merely claimed to have an absolute, universal "best". You have not, even after multiple requests, been able to demonstrate that claim (for obvious reason). Again, any lunatic can claim the most preposterous rubbish, but no one can demonstrate it.
You have also been unable to demonstrate that such a "best" would solve all the problems you complain about.

- PGA 780
No, I did not.[74] Stop and reflect. If morality is not based on a standard or measure that is above any other standard or measure then what makes your standard or measure better than any other?[75]
- Amoranemix 850
[74] I can't find your answer to the question 'Is what God prefers what should be ?' Please point me to it.
- PGA 854
The answer is implied in my question back to you.[192] What makes your standard any "better" than any other? There is nothing that makes it "better" because better implies a best, a standard that everything else is compared to. You don't have one from your worldview perpective that does not change, so how can it be best? All you have is what you like or what someone else has imposed on you.[193]
Yes, God is that standard.[194]

[192] a) What question you asked prior to post 491 in response to my question is supposed to be that answer ?
b) Please don't answer in riddles. It was a yes or no question that can be answered with a non-question response.
I understand you dislike clarity. However, I also believe you want to keep the appearance you like clarity. However, you are doing a bad job at hiding your preference for confusion.
However, your replies suggests the answer yes. Hence, please demonstrate that what God prefers is what should be.
[193] Already addressed.
[194] What are you talking about ?

- Amoranemix 850
I am going to anticipate your answer to the question you forgot to answer to be yes and present you a challenge that I have already presented but flesh it out more here.
Suppose Bob adheres to a moral standard called Bob's Morality (BM) and that BM is objective. Of course BM is also subjective by virtue of being chosen by Bob. Bob might as well have chosen a different morality, like God's Morality (GM), just like God might have chosen a different morality, like BM.
Now your personal preference seems to be that Bob should adhere to GM and not that God should adhere to BM. Why ?
- PGA 854
God, being all-knowing and self-sufficient by nature is good.[195] What makes Bob, a subjective being have the necessary characteristics to be, by his own nature, good?[196] So he would have to borrow from a nature that had those qualities in order to know that the standard he has adopted is objective.[197]

[195] To avoid clarity (the sceptic's friend) you omitted mentioning the moral standard you are referring to, but you once claimed you are referring to God's morality. So according to you God is good GM.
Please demonstrate that God is all-knowing and self-sufficient.
[196] Nothing, since as far as I know Bob is not good GM. What makes you think he is ?
[197] Again, why would Bob have to do borrow from a nature with those qualities ? Stop telling how bad it would be if he doesn't do that. If you turn your brain on, you know that is not sufficient. Does God also have to borrow from a nature with the necessary characteristics to be, by his own nature, good BM ?
So you shared your personal opinion on why Bob should adhere to GM rather than God to BM. For analogous reasons someone could be of the personal opinion that God should adhere to BM rather than Bob to GM. Are there good objective reasons to accept the arguments for the former iso the latter ?
There is an objective argument for Bob though : his existence can be proven.

- PGA 854
You sneak in all kinds of moral imperatives without the basis to do so.[198] Bob"s morality being "subjective by being chosen by Bob" is taking for granted something important; that Bob has the means, in and of himself, to determine what is virtuous and what is right[199], and that from subjectivity unaided by an revealed objective standard, and unaided by being made in the image and likeness of God, Bob could come up with such a standard.

Here is the analogy response :
You sneak in all kinds of moral imperatives without the basis to do so. If it does take that for granted then God's morality being subjective by being chosen by God is also taking for granted something important : that God has the means, in and of himself, to determine what is virtuous and what is right, and that from subjectivity unaided by any revealed objective standard, and unaided by being made in the image and likeness of Bob, God not only could come with such standard, but would and does.
Here is the classical response :
[198] Which moral imperatives ? You are only giving one assumption as an example.
[199] You are mistaken again. I have made no assumptions regarding Bob's knowledge of GM. Bob only needs to know BM.

- Amoranemix 850
Your answer is a list of criteria, chosen by God, God's criteria (GC). Moralities that meet GC are 'better' than those that don't according to God. Let's suppose that GM meets those criteria and BM doesn't. Suppose that Bob disapproves of those criteria. He has a different set of criteria, chosen by himself (Bob's criteria or BC). BM better meets BC than GC.
- PGA 854
How does Bob determine this? Does he just decide that what he likes is better than what God likes and therefore it is? So if Kim Jong-Un determines that his morality (i.e. what he likes) is more desirable than BM then it is so and Bob needs to be eliminated?[198] That is what you have without this objective best which your worldview has no idea of because anyone can just manufacture their idea of best and it becomes so to them and tough for those who disagree.[199]

[198] I don't know how Bob does it. As you may be aware, I was parodying your God-based morality. So, you would need to tell me how God determines GC in order for me to tell you how Bob does it.
I will just anticipate that it has to do with God's omniscience. Suppose for the sake of the argument that God, if he exists, is indeed all-knowing. What does that mean ? I suppose it means that he knows at least everything true. But does he also know things that are false (like the earth being larger than the sun) ? Does he also know things that are neither true nor false (like raping children for fun) ?
If God knows his criteria just because he has the ability to know them, then so does Bob have the ability to know his criteria.
[199] In that case it must also be what you have without this objective best that you worldview has no idea of because anyone can just manufacture their idea of best and it becomes so to them and tough for those who disagree.

- Amoranemix 850
Why should Bob change his morality ? In stead yet again complaining about all the problems reality is plagued with, explain how Bob adopting GM would make the world a better place.
- PGA 855
Because Bob does not have the means to determine the objective, the best outside of a standard that is such.[200] How can Bob know his standard is the best from his subjective standpoint? He can"t.[201] All he has is his subjective reference point. He needs a point above and beyond himself that is ACTUALLY best, not something he just manufactures because he likes it. That is what you do outside of God when you don"t inconsistently borrow what is good from His objective standard (Himself).

[200] So, you claim that someone who does not have the means to determine the objective, the best outside of a standard that is such should change his morality and that Bob does not have those means. In that case God also does not have the means to determine the objective, the best outside of a standard that is such and should therefore also change his morality. You again fail to demonstrate anything that makes God's morality objectively better.
[201] Great. Then neither can God. All he has is his subjective reference point. He needs a point above and beyond himself that is ACTUALLY best, not something he just manufactures because he likes it. That is what you do outside of Bob when you don't inconsistently borrow what is good from His objective standard (Himself).

One problem I have with your secretive worldview (with the dark sides you are unwilling to share) is not only that it is false, but even impossible (for reasons already given throughout this thread but that you wish to remain ignorant of and succeed brilliantly). You depend on ascribing virtues to God that allegedly make the problems of reality go away. So far you have been unable to prove God has those virtues (for obvious reasons). So I suggest you start with a less ambitious project : prove that it is possible for God to have those virtues.

- PGA 448
Prove what? That the Creator has the right to do with His creature whatever He wants to?
- Amoranemix 491
Yes. Can you prove that ?
- PGA 855
I can give you proofs but would you accept them?[202] The answer is no because of where you start from.[203] You would have to deconstruct all your false conclusions, your entire worldview, to accept the proofs because of where you start. You are not neutral or unbiased in your beliefs.[204] Your thoughts about life's ultimate questions influence every aspect of your being. All I can do is show the glaring inconsistency of a worldview (yours) that starts outside of God and His revelation.[205] I can only do that to the best of my own ability and by pointing to the One who is necessary and what He has said. I can show you that His word does not contradict itself when rightly understood and even that history confirms it. But my starting point is His authority, no my own. I rely on Him to shed light on my own thinking. I have to work from Him and correctly interpret His meaning or else I also become inconsistent in my thinking.

[202] Yes, I would. Unlike you, if there are serious errors in my worldview, I want to know it. Provide these proofs then.
[203] I am assuming you mean that you can't prove he has the right to do with his creatures whatever he wants to.
OK, suppose Bob is an intelligent, rational person and that Alice makes seemingly false claims that she can't prove (e.g. that Bob owes here a lot of money). She claims she can't prove them because of where Bob starts from (which she also can't prove). Should Bob believe Alice ?

Of course, if we remove the ambiguity of your claim by adding the reference morality you have alluded to (but again disingenuously forgot to mention), namely God's morality (GM), then your claim becomes : The Creator has the right GM to do with his creatures whatever he wants. That is still hard to prove, but if God exists and if the Creator is God, then it is plausible that according to his own morality God has the right to do whatever he wants.
After all, Adolf Hitler and Kim Jong-un also had very convenient rights according to their own morality, so why wouldn't God ? (It is not the kind of people I would praise, but your taste obviously differs.) The question, is what should rational people care about God's rights GM ? (For clarity : X is a necessary condition for Y if when X is false, Y is also false. X is a sufficient condition for Y if when X is true, Y is also true. You can't prove that caring about God's rights GM is sufficient for a better world or worldview.)

[204] Read who is writing.

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?

I put morality under three categories:

1) Subjective morality (morality you hold to yourself).
2) Objective morality (morality you agree with others on).
3) Absolute morality (morality that has a divine dictator).

Subjective and objective morality is kinda fuzzy but absolute morality is clear cut, I think.

205] That would explain why you haven't done so yet. It is only natural that if you if you can show glaring inconsistencies, you don't show any.
What is clear is that you cannot demonstrate your worldview is free of those inconsistencies.

I have discovered another error in your assumptions. You suppose that if a worldview has inconsistencies, it must be false. However, truth does not apply to worldviews. It merely applies to statements. A worldview with inconsistencies, is merely not entirely accurate and therefore not perfect. It does not imply any specific claim it makes is false.
Should a worldview with inconsistencies be abandoned ? For what ? For nothing ? Of course not ! With nothing as a worldview one wouldn't be able to function. One is better of with an imprefect worlview than no worldview at all. Should one replace it with a worldview with less important inconsistencies ? Well, (lack of) inconsistencies is an indication of the quality of a worldview, but it is not all that matters. Simplicity, completeness and practicality also matter. As for this debate : no one has been able present a worldview with less important inconsistencies than atheism.

- PGA 855
It can prove it in two ways, by the impossibility of the contrary in that God (and His revelation) is necessary to ultimately make sense of anything and by prophecy when rightly interpreted. I can show you the unity and consistency of His word and His thoughts, a consistency that no other mind has. By taking you to His word I can point out to you the irrationality and inconsistency of your objections.

Great, then prove it ! After more than 800 posts and 20 months I think you have stalled long enough.

- Amoranemix 850
[76] That's the point : I don't think such proof exists. Since you forgot to refer to a standard of right, your claim was merely your opinion and opinions cannot be proven. You could of course define a standard X according which the claim is true. The claim would then become the statement : 'According to standard X the Creator has the right to do with His creature whatever He wants to." (If you cared for clarity that is how you should make your claims, but for understandable reason you prefer confusion). Depending on standard X, that can be proven. However, unless you can demonstrate your chosen standard to be true (and you can't), your claim deserves no more respect than the claim that people have the right to do with God whatever they want.
- PGA 855
Again, you defeat knowing God from your starting point.[206] You have determined that you don"t think He exists so what evidence would you accept from Him if you will not accept His word?[207] You place your own subjectivity above that of God. So how can I even begin to address your request to prove God?[208] You have made it so that no matter what argument I make you will fall back on your own personal, subjective default, "I don't think such proof exists."[208']

[206] What does that mean ? It looks false.
[207] Stop talking in riddles. What do you mean with accept His word ? Believe your claims ? That would depend on what claims you make and how well you can support them. Very badly, so far.
I would accept any evidence that significantly supports the claim. (Like I said, it probably doesn't matter. I had forgotten that you implicitly referred to God's own morality. If a neonazi could prove that Hitler has the right to gaz Jews, to me that wouldn't matter either because I don't adhere to Hitler's morality. What matters is why sceptics should care more about God's personal morality than about Hitler's or Kim Jong-un's.)
[208] You ought not prove God, but your claims. Many of your claims are ambiguous (for example because you systematically 'forget' mentioning a reference standard). You should try (that is of course assuming your claims are worth trying to prove) to formulate them such that they are at least in principle provable (i.e make sure they are statements).
By the way, it is not my duty to advise you on how to prove your claims. Honouring your burden of proof is your responsibility entirely. To avoid dishonouring it you can of course also avoid making controversial claims you can't support. My 'inconsistent' worldview 'without foundation in truth' allows me to do that.
[208'] You are mistaken again, for I haven't.

- PGA 855
You want me to start from your starting point which naturally defeats my own.[208] I'm not going to go there. You want me to start from the standpoint that God might exist, that He is only a possibility, and that if He exists then the Bible could possibly be His Word. That is not where my presuppositional basis starts. My presuppositions begin with the biblical revelation of God. From it I can make sense of things. Yours does not. Mine starts from trusting that the Bible is His revelation to mankind. From it, I can make sense out of existence, out of morality, out of logic, out of origins, out of epistemology, out of life, out of beauty, out of information, out of the uniformity of nature.

[208] Stop making false claims. I want to debate in proper fashion. That implies relying on commonalities of our worldviews.
Suppose for the sake of the argument that if your worldview were true, you could make sense of things. So what ? You can't prove your claims. That is what matters.

- PGA 855
You start with your own authority " you " as the highest authority that can be appealed to. It becomes what you believe or disbelieve and since you do not believe such proof exists you set up a hurdle that you will not allow yourself to cross.[210] The Bible puts it this way; those who come to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him. You do not see the Bible as Him speaking to you as His creation so why would you take anything He says as true?[211]

[210] In a way that is true : I try to limit my worldview to reality. Including fiction in is a line I won't cross. What about you ? Are you prepared to include shamanism into your worldview, or do you set up a hurdle that you will not allow yourself to cross ?
[211] I don't know. Please enlighten me.

- PGA 855
Even though I can keep turning the spotlight on your own inconsistencies by comparing your errors to His word you will keep coming up with one excuse after another in order to justify something that you do not have the means to justify. You are a walking contradiction.

One excuse after another ? What are those excuses you are referring to ? And to justify what ?
I noticed you don't present excuses for not addressing the inconsistencies in your worldview. You just evade. [no response] is your most popular rebuttal to them. Not that I blame you though. With a worldview like yours it is probably the least bad option. You do on the other hand present excuses for not supporting your claims.

At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:

This is an involuntarily humorous post, yours.

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?

Why should God's opinion be valued above all others?

It is just subjective/relative/shifting unless it can show otherwise,

When did God show his opinions to be something else and more than his opinions?

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.

This verbose paragraph flies in the face of the centuries-long efforts to establish a secular objective morality. It flies in the face of other things as well. but let's save that for latter.

If you don't have one then don't try and impose your "good" on me or another culture that disagrees with your likes.

I realize you're desperate to smear secular morality as merely arbitrary, which is something no honest detractor would do. There's abundant evidence to the contrary. The most successful societies in history are built around secular morality.

You have no basis for right and wrong

False.
Human well-being is more than enough to establish the distinction.

Yours is much more elaborate and reasonable and thought through:
God says so.

and you imposing your subjective likes on someone else is what wars are fought over.

It never ceases to fascinate me that people who argue for the existence of objective morality on the grounds of God's existence don't seem to notice this platitude:
It can't be found anywhere on planet Earth.

For all intents and purposes, morality appears to be relative.
Go figure.

I mean, even among Christians, you can't find consensus on any major ethical divide, pacifism, abortion, gun control, drug liberalization, etc.

The fabled objective morality has proven to be useless.

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 can conceive of a greater being than the Biblical God.

I have never seen this assertion supported.

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

You missed the point. He said he hadn't seen the assertion demonstrated and you come back with a non sequitur.

How ironical.

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.

Why is God objective?

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

If we start from the remise that morality has to do with human well-being, a number of objective conclusions can be derived.
No need for God.

And I am not even endorsing objective morality at this point.

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

Stop pretending that it is completely arbitrary.
It is the apex of ad hoc moral thought the doctrine whereby an entity gets to dictate what is good and what is not.

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

They are wrong.
But thanks for your opinion.

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

It's a trivial matter to establish that killing innocents is wrong.
You know, the thing the monstrous God you've decide to become a mouthpiece for does left and right in the Bible.

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

To an ignorant person, perhaps.
Not only do I not borrow from Christian morality, I deem it utter trash best kept in recycling stations.

Well, having a god clearly does not bestow morality
http://imgur.com...

Did you get your argument on the Abortion Debate posted? I have not been able to access the site since Friday.

Peter

At 6/22/2017 12:10:16 AM, PGA wrote:
Did you get your argument on the Abortion Debate posted? I have not been able to access the site since Friday.

Peter

Message sent.

At 6/22/2017 3:20:37 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

At 6/22/2017 12:10:16 AM, PGA wrote:
Did you get your argument on the Abortion Debate posted? I have not been able to access the site since Friday.

Peter

Message sent.

Got it!

- Amoranemix 850
One thing you could try to do is demonstrate that God fits your personal criteria. There are however two problems with that : first, I don't think you can demonstrate that and second, you would have to demonstrate that your personal criteria are the ones that really matter.
- PGA 855
No, I don"t have to demonstrate that God fits my personal criteria. Why would I want to do that?[212] I have to demonstrate that my personal criterion meets His objective standard and my first step in doing that is to trust His Word as my final authority and work from there. You still need to answer what is necessary for an objective standard.[213] My person opinions and my standards only matter in as much as these comply with His ultimate standard and authority. [ . . . ]

[212] I didn't say you have to. I was merely giving advice you requested. You asked me how to do something that I believe impossible, so don't expect me to come up with a good solution. If you don't want my advice, don't ask for it.
A reason why you should demonstrate God fits your personal criteria is because you claimed it, it is controversial and it seems relevant. That gives you the burden of proof.
[213] I don't recall you having asked me that and 'being necessary for' is ambiguous. Objective criteria for evaluating whether a standard is objective are probably necessary though.

After all that distraction you still haven't demonstrated that God has the right to do whatever he wants with anyone or demonstrated how it matters that he has the right GM. Why am I not surprised ?

- Amoranemix 850
[77] I am confused. I thought the impossibility of the contrary argument was supposed to prove God exists, not that he has the right to do anything.
- PGA 855
God only does what is in His nature to do. He is consistent with His nature;[*] His omniscience, His eternal Being. He does what is good because He is good. The standard of all goodness is Him.

[*] So did Adolf Hitler and so was Adolf Hitler.
Notice how again you forgot to mention the reference moral standard to embellish your worldview. 'God is good' looks a lot better than 'God is good according to his own moral standard.' A neonazi could also claim that Adolf Hitler did what is good because He was good, that the standard of all goodness is in Him, trying to attract more followers. Neither you or the neonazi follow a guru that disapproves of deceit. Deceit is good according to their morality when it favours them.
OK, so the impossibility of the contrary argument does not demonstrate that God has the right to do whatever he wants, contrary to what you claimed. Why am I not surprised ?

- Amoranemix 850
In the rest of the paragraph I don't think that there is anything worth addressing that I haven't addressed already, except perhaps this. You claim that the reference standard must be benevolent, but what does that mean ? Benevolent according to who ? You suggest it means good, but what does that mean ?
- PGA 855
Benevolent according to God for He is all-knowing, you are not. Good is what He is and what He reveals good to be.[214] Love God with all your heart, mind, spirit and soul, with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself. God created both you and your neighbor and it is because of His providence and will that you have your being and exist, that perhaps you will find Him. Have you looked for Him with all your being? No, you rely on the opinions of those who doubt Him. They or yourself are your highest standard - some standard.

[214] So the reference standard must, at least according to you, adhere to another standard, which is determined by God's personal opinion and God's personal opinion is that his own morality should be the reference standard. Again, I understand idiots with a desire to believe in God are eager to agree with his personal opinion, but why should rational people care about God's alleged moral attributes ? You have yet to demonstrate that they are anything more than God's personal opinions. I don't care about Adolf Hitler's or Kim Jong-un's nature or revelations either. I don't love them with all my heart, mind, spirit and soul either and I am not going to change that because their fans with abysmal worldviews tell me I should. I just don't share their personal opinions, just like I don't share yours.

- Amoranemix 491
The point was to show you how the euthyphro dilemma shows that a God-based morality has bigger problems than a well-being based morality.
- PGA 855
How is that?

See post 446.

- PGA 780
"Well being" based on whose ideology? Yours?[78] Again, why is your subjective opinion any better than mine? Why does your limited, finite, dependent mind get to determine "well-being" and who cares if there is nothing we are accountable to but an uncaring universe?[79]
- Amoranemix 850
[78] No. Unlike your imaginary deity, well-being isn't based on any ideology.
[79] You are getting 'better' : that's two loaded questions in a row.
To the last question : I don't know who exactly cares, but I think most people do. They just don't know it. Some try to fill that ignorance with God.
- PGA 856
[78] Again, how can you know God when you do not want to know Him?[215] You continue to insult Him and call Him all kinds of names that you have no warrant to.[216] You also failed to answer my question.[217] Why are you the one who determines what well-being is?[218] Do you think you see enough of the big picture in determining this? How much do you know about the outcome of anything to determine this? Do you see the future?
[79] It becomes a loaded question to you when you do not care to answer it or when you have no answer for it and because you think that no one can answer and make sense of it.

[215] I don't know. Please enlighten me. Nice change of subject.
[216] You continually praize him and call him all kinds of names that you have no warrant to.
[217] You question was loaded : it assumed without justification that well-being is based on an ideology.
[218] Why are you the one who keeps asking loaded questions ?
To your last three questions the answers are in order : no, very little and to some extent. Relevance ?
Why are we again talking about my worldview in stead of yours ?
[79] You are mistaken. They became loaded questions when you asked them. Whether a question is loaded or not does not depend on any alleged dependencies you mentioned. Learn about one of your favourite fallacies here : http://www.fallacyfiles.org....

- Amoranemix 850
To the last question : I don't know who exactly cares, but I think most people do. They just don't know it. Some try to fill that ignorance with God.
- PGA 856
Who exactly cares is just my point. If morality conforms to nothing other than your subjective viewpoint then what should it matter to me who has his own viewpoint unless you make it matter by force or by trying to push your ill-founded (cannot give an account of them other than to say you prefer them - big deal) ideas on someone else.[219]
That kind of ignorance can only be filled by God who has revealed Himself.[220] Other than Him it is just your meaningless opinions which really matter not if He does not exist because you live in a universe where nothing ultimately matters, so quit trying to make that it does and quit borrowing from my worldview that believes it ultimately does matter.[*]

[219]Why are you again complaining about reality ? Oh, right : to divert attention away from the embarrassment that is your worldview.
At least have the decency not to pervert reality or your opponent's worldview before complaining about it.
[220] So you claim, but can you prove it ? The historic track record of 'I don't understand it, therefore God must have done it.' is very poor.
[*] Again, you are assuming that I am borrowing from your worldview. Turn on your brain and ask yourself : "Why am I unable to prove that ?" Then post the ans

Then post the answer in this thread.

- PGA 452 to DanneJeRusse

Again, these are assumptions made through the lens of your worldview, not mine.

Sir Fredrick Hoyle on the Formation of Life
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10 to the power of 40,000"It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Sir Fredrick Hoyle, "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837, November 12, p. 148.
- Amoranemix 491
Fred Hoyle is not representative for the scientific community and that you agree with him on a particular topic does not make him right.
- PGA 856
He is just one view among many that have no certainty, but what he said does raise some issues that the scientific community does not have the answers for - how mindless matter, plus time, plus energy, unguided, unintelligent, unintentional, can produce let alone sustain life or anything for an indefinite period of time. He raises the question of how life can come from such astronomical odds and your scientific community is like him in that it does not know and has no reasonable explanation apart from God, a reasoning and intentional Being who created it.

If I understand correctly your argument is the following :
P1. Fred Hoyle raised questions about phenomena scientists don't fully understand.
P2. Fred Hoyle only raised real questions.
P3. There were phenomena scientists don't fully understand.
P4. God is responsible for phenomena scientists don't fully understand.
P4. If God is responsible for something, God exists.
C. Therefore, God exists.

Is that indeed your argument ?

BTW, the understanding the scientific community has of God is so low that they even know what are the right questions to ask, let alone can answer them.

- PGA 780
Sure he is one representative. He is one of many with conflicting views questioning what the majority decides is the unmitigated truth and nothing but.
- Amoranemix 850
Being a representative does not make someone representative. Your second sentence is a straw man.
- PGA 856
Your sentence it total confusion: "being a representative does not make someone representative"? A representative is someone who represents others in that their thoughts on a particular matter are similar and in this sense Hoyle represents the scientific community in that he sees the likelihood of life forming by chance as having astronomical odds. How does life start from a Darwinian perspective? How could it?

Hoyle is a representative of the scientific community in being a scientist. However he is dissenting with his views on evolution by natural selection. A large majority of biologists disagree with him on that and therefore on the topic you quoted him he is not representative for the scientific community.
How life started from a Darwinian perspective is off topic. (Anything to avoid the embarrassing topic that is your worldview, right ? ;))

- Double_R 853 to PGA
Neither can you [produce any ultimate, universal, absolute standard]. All you can do is proclaim that your standard is ultimate, universal, and absolute because that is the standard you prefer and consequently apply to everything. Why should I care what standard you prefer?
- PGA 857
I can logically reason and argue for Him as the necessary standard upon which any truth is built because of the impossibility of the contrary.[221] If you can't know any ultimate, universal, absolute standard then how can you know that what you believe is true to what is or that what you suggest even exists?

[221] Necessary maybe, sufficient no. I have already asked you about 20 months ago to produce a sufficient standard. I am still waiting and will be waiting till I die.

- PGA 857 to Double_R
And I can argue for His standard based on His Word.
Why should you care? Because He is your Judge in the matter; because He has created humans with the capacity to know because of who He is.

What do you mean with God being the judge in this matter ? Does it mean that someone chose him to be the judge or does it mean his has the power to impose judgement ?

- PGA 857 to Double_R
You assume I cannot know based on your own subjective starting point, one that comes from you and that is ignorant.[221'] You assume that I have to start from the same point and thus am in the same ignorant state you are. No, I know because the God who is has revealed this to me, He has given me a mind in which knowing Him is possible.

[221'] You assume he cannot know based on your own subjective starting point, one that stems from ignorance and bias. You assume he has to start from the same point and thus is in the same ignorant state you are.
If someone claims to have exclusive, supernatural knowledge that he cannot prove (like David Koresh), is he more likely to be a hoax or a real source of knowledge ? (I suspect David Koresh could also come up with excuses for not supporting his claims.)

- Amoranemix 799
[62] Hitler wouldn't be using the same philosophy I do. There are similarities, but also differences. I base morality on well-being. Hitler didn't.
- PGA 866
Sure he did, just like you did. You base it on your well-being and your ideas of such and he based it on his well-being and ideas of such. In that respect, you are no different.[222]

Neither one of you has anything but subject preference to ground it on.[223] What is good about that?

[222] You are mistaken. Philosophically, I base my morality on the world's well-being. Adolf Hitler did not. That there similarities between our philosophies, does not make them the same. Otherwise your philosophy would be the same as Hitler's as well. On the other hand, your philosophy is more similar to a neonazi's than mine : both of you base your moral philosophies on a single guru. In that respect, you are no different.
[223] You are mistaken. Both Adolf Hitler and I base our moral beliefs at least in part on reality, but like you Hitler also relied on an imaginary deity.

- PGA 866
[62a] Again you avoided the point I made [62]. Your moral philosophy is grounded in the same kind of reasoning that Hitler's is;[62a] your subjective relative mind establishes what is "right" or "good" based on your opinion or likes. Either that or the likes and preferences of other relative, subjective human minds who share the same preferences establish those standards and "rights" which decree and enforce them on others. It is a matter of might makes "right" so whoever has the power controls what others do. It is not because what you believe or what they believe is based on some universal, objective, unchanging, absolute standard.[224] Your standards and those of your culture change all the time.[225] I point to two (if you are American) that have changed and are changing now, as we speak - abortion/the woman's "right" to choose and homosexuality/gay marriage. These are becoming the popular norm for your society, even though they are not the norm for all current societies. Why is what your society believes "better" than what those cultures or societies that oppose its views any "better" than their views? You can't say that it is, only that it is what you prefer or are made to believe.[226]

[62] Again, so what ? You pointed out similarities between my morality and Hitler's, which I addressed, and I pointed out similarities between your morality and Hitler's, which you avoided.
[62a] Again, what relevance does any of this have ? So is your moral philosophy and we already know your worldview is worse than mine. My morality is also based on the same kind of reasoning Mohandas Ghandi's is.
[224] That is just my point. Without The Flying Spaghetti Monster, this necessary Being, it can and has and does mean anything. Relativism is a self-refuting position, and without The Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is all you have. There is no "better" without The Flying Spaghetti Monster. All there is is someone pushing their agenda which makes you no "better" than Hitler.
[225] So do yours. Yet again, relevance ?
[226] You 'forgot' to clarify what standard of quality you are referring to. I could choose my own standard to answer, which you would complain about, which would be irrelevant, which you would know (because deep down you are not that stupid), but because you don't have a case and are embarrassed about your beliefs, you need a distraction to hide that fact.

- PGA 866
God has sufficient reason to know since He knows all things and is by His nature good.[227] You do not and you are not. Your lack of understanding is evidence and you cannot make sense of goodness because you have no best, fixed, absolute standard to point to.[227'] That is the bottom line. I will oppose your shifting views unless they align with His at every turn. Who are you to say what is good unaided by God?[228]

[227] So what ? Suppose I know that raping children for fun is good. Does that make raping children for fun good ? According to you it doesn't. But somehow for God it is different, but can you prove that ? Of course you can't. Neither can you support the other controversial, relevant claims you made in that paragraph. All you can do is share your personal opinions, which are not related to reality. Let me make this clear for once and for all : I prefer to believe reality, however bad it may be, over your personal opinions, however wonderful they may be. So please, no more bald assertions. Make only relevant, controversial claims you can support. Questions are not support.
[227'] You have claimed that about sceptics a few dozen times already, oblivious to the fact that it is irrelevant, since you don't have any best, fixed absolute standard to point to either.
[228] Someone who can make moral evaluations without the help of an imaginary deity. (Queue the same red herrings you have waved dozens of times already)

- Amoranemix 865
[62b] I am not sure about that and clearly it wasn't good for humanity as a whole.
- PGA 866
[Expresses political preference for Republicans over Democrats]

Nice red herring. I prefer the Democrats.
Just one comment. You claim that Democrats have departed from the necessary standard the Republicans use. After more than 800 posts in this thread you still haven't been able to demonstrate that standard exists ! In fact, that is what you are supposed to prove, but in stead you are just assuming it. For once in your religious life, try thinking without decimating your intelligence first : why might that be ? Why are you systematically unable to support your relevant claims ?

- Amoranemix 865
[62c] Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter. You only have to look at the real world to see what happens if one looses sight of her Divine Appendices.
- PGA 866
[62d] The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Again, a hypothetic being that has no logical or documented evidence.[229] The biblical view has the Bible as His Word and dealings with mankind in history, thus evidence that points to His existence that can be established with sufficient reasoning to its truth claims, and it can. Even though He is under no obligation to pander to His creatures, for He is greater than they are, the Bible is a testimony that claims He has revealed Himself.

[229] Again, so what ? This thread isn't about logical or documented evidence. It is about proving God with the moral argument. If you need logical or documented evidence, then you have lost the debate and indeed, you have.
Again you were using the the evil in the world as reason that people should believe in God, oblivious to the fact that it is as much a reason to believe in anything that there is lack of belief in :
P1. If people don't believe in God, anything is permissible.
C. Therefore, people should believe in God.

The problem with that argument is that God can be replaced by almost any fictional entity.

- Amoranemix 865
Meaning goodness and rightness can mean anything and thus nothing because it can't be made sense of. Adolf Hitler could just decide euthanizing Jews is good because he likes it.
- PGA 866
That is just my point. Without God, this necessary Being, it can and has and does mean anything. Relativism is a self-refuting position, and without God, that is all you have. There is no "better" without God. All there is is someone pushing their agenda which makes Hitler no "better" than you.

PGA, try thinking without reducing your intelligence first. I suspect you understand I was presenting a parody argument. Now, think : what point was I trying to make with that parody (the point you just claimed you were trying to make too) ?

- Amoranemix 865
[62d] No, I only have one, just like you. God's morality is just one of the many moral standards circulating. You are fond of it, but I dislike it.
- PGA 866
[62d] You have one that relies on subjective opinion that cannot establish why it is best or the true one.[230] It is one of many that can't make sense of itself like God's standard can for it is necessary that there be a "best" that we can compare goodness too, not some relative standard that is subject to change with the next change of leadership or person(s) in power. You can't establish your standard as any "better" than any other standard in a relative, subjective world of change. The standards and thoughts that depart from His standard have no basis for best.

[230] Yet again, so what ? You too have one that relies on subjective opinion that cannot establish why it is best or true, the opinion of someone whose existence cannot even be proven. I know you disagree with that, but why should I care ? You can't support your claims. I too could make bald assertions about me objectively knowing what is right. Would that make it true ?

- Amoranemix 892
Consider a car. Is there some ultimate fixed reference of what a car is ? If not, then car can mean anything and everything and thus becomes absurd. If car means whatever some relative individual or group decides it to mean then you can have any number of groups saying that they have the real definition for car. One individual or group can say the exact opposite of another which brings me full circle to which really is a car ?
Do you agree with that analysis ? Assuming not, then you disagree with your own analysis. (But who cares right ? You just claim your opponent is inconsistent and if you butcher your intelligence enough you may be able to superficially believe it.) Why don't the problems you identify with best and some moral terms not occur with other terms ?
So, you have no better alternative ? What a surprise.
- PGA
[no response]

With beliefs like yours, that's understandable.

- PGA 831
Hypothetically, the Russian judicial system may decide that the homosexual act is a wrong and if someone is found guilty of it the punishable is death. [The USA have a different judicial system and claim their view is right.] Which actually is?
- Amoranemix 892
That of course depends on the meaning of the word right. I said I would assume that if you failed to mention a reference standard you implicitly referred to God's morality. (I rephrase the question because of course I disagree with that standard.) So your question is : Who is actually right according to God's morality ?
I don't know, but as I understand it, God dislikes homosexuals, so I would guess the Russians.
Relevance ?
- PGA 892
[no response]

Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions ? To distract from the fact that you don't have a case.

- PGA 831
The problem with your utilitarian view of ethics is that is just can't produce any lasting, meaningful standard because it has not fixed or ultimate address for best. It is always in limbo, changing from time to time by the whims and preferences of those in power. It just pulls it out of its proverbial magicians hat and presto the old bad is now the new good, the old wrong the new right.[104]
Why is it the new right? Because someone had a preference that they wanted enforced and had the power to do so. Thus a Hitler can come along and murder 11 million undesirable (to him) people. Because he says it is right and he is in control that is the way things will be. You can have the most heinous acts being justified as right.[105]
- Amoranemix 892
[104] I disagree, but I won't argue about it since, despite those alleged problems of utilitarianism, you can't demonstrate you have a better morality (more specifically not a truer one). I prefer to stick with a morality with problems over an even worse morality. What is your preference ?
In addition, what you still fail to understand is that problems with reality do not falsify it.
[105] From where do you get that compulsion to complain about reality ?
- PGA
[no response]

You forgot to answer my questions.

- PGA 831
And that's the way the world is outside of God's good decrees.[105b] People can justify anything because when you lose sight of the ultimate standard any standard is possible.
- Amoranemix 892
It is also the way of the world outside of utilitarianism. People can justify anything because when you lose sight of the ultimate standard any standard is possible.
Can you prove there such a thing as 'the ultimate standard' ?
- PGA
[no response]

What a surprise.

- Amoranemix 892
I again asked you to demonstrate your worldview is better than mine. The only restriction I placed on the term better not merely depend on your or God's personal preference. As usual, you failed. I asked you this a few times before, but each time you forgot to answer : Why do you think it is you are unable to demonstrate your worldview is better ?
- PGA
[no response]

If you were to use your brain at full capacity, I am confident you would be able to figure it out.

- PGA 831
I believe God is the only one who can make sense of best, being omniscient - all knowing, omni benevolent - all wise and good, unchanging, eternal. You as a finite, limited, changing being can't make sense of anything without Him as your first cause. You can never have certainty in life without first presupposing Him.
- Amoranemix 893
Thanks for sharing your beliefs, but I am a sceptic. I don't believe Christian claims without evidence. Without that, they are just personal opinions, not facts. So again, why should anyone care about your personal opinions ? Surely you realize that the bald assertions you provided are for rational people no good reason to accept your personal opinion on what is best ?
- PGA
[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

- PGA 831
Why should anyone care about your personal opinion?[113]
[Lots of bald assertions and one question]
How do you know that your piddly, finite, limited view of anything is true to what is?[114]
- Amoranemix 893
[113] What personal opinion ?
Feel free to demonstrate your bald assertions, if you can.
[114] Your fallacy of choice is the loaded question : http://rationalwiki.org...
- PGA
[no response]

Of course, if your assertion is false, it is understandable you don't try proving it.
Of course, if you are dishonest, it is understandable you don't admit your assertion is false.
Of course, if your god is dishonest, it is understandable you are dishonest too.

- PGA 831
Who are you?[115] Why should anyone listen to you?[116] What value do you have to offer to anyone and where do you derive that value from in a meaningless universe?[117]
- Amoranemix 893
[115] Someone who doesn't let an invisible sky magician do the thinking for him. Relevance ?
[116] Because I keep winning arguments from you.
[117] You are supposed to demonstrate that objective morality exists and therefore God exists, remember ? (After 800 posts having done anything but that, you may have forgotten.) How is me answering that question supposed to contribute to that ?
" PGA
[no response]

With beliefs like yours, that's understandable.

- PGA 836
Lying is wrong. In this situation, it is the lesser of two evils. It is done because there is greater evil out there. If men obeyed God there would be no need to lie or murder or steal or commit adultery or covet something that is not your own.
- Amoranemix 894
How do you know lying is the lesser of two evils according to the Bible's moral standard ?
Can you prove lying is the lesser of two evils ?
Why is it wrong to do the lesser of two evils ?
- PGA
[no response]

You forgot to answer my questions.

- PGA 836
We live in a fallen world where men will not obey God so lying has become the standard or in some cases the necessary evil. It is still wrong yet in some situations people lie to protect themselves or someone else from getting hurt.
- Amoranemix 894
So Bob plans a crime and Alice lies to Bob to thwart his crime, then Alice is acting wrongfully according to your ultimate morality. Should people who act wrongfully be punished or not ?
- PGA
[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

- PGA 836
You keep asking me questions. Now answer some of my own instead of evading them.
- Amoranemix 894
Again ? What red herring do you want me to fish for now and why haven't you provided it yet ?
- PGA

Oh, that one. I have already fished for it.
You forgot to answer my question.

You keep repeating your red herrings over and over again and refuse to explain why you keep producing them. I assume you made yourself deaf to reason (probably a requirement to hold on to presuppositionalism) and convince yourself that they are somehow relevant anyway, so I will address this differently this time.

Suppose you were able to demonstrate the following :
a) My worldview has the problems you complain about.
b) Your worldview does not have those problems.

You haven't demonstrated the above yet (for obvious reason), but let's not be difficult.
1) Would it then follow that your worldview is true ?
2) Would that argument be on topic in this thread ?

- Amoranemix 865
[62e] This illustrates what I think of problem is with your worldview that you are projecting on the worldviews of others : you have a black and white view of the world. To you things must be either true or false, failing to understand that some things are neither[a], like standards. You also assume things are either objective or subjective. It doesn't occur to you that some thing may be a little objective in some way and a lot subjective in the same way, while being a lot objective in a different way and being a little subjective in that way.
- PGA 866
Again, you make self-refuting and totally senseless statements that have no basis for truth.

Again, is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

-PGA 866
[a] Spoken as a true Postmodernist.

Either something is true or it is not true. It cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner and not true at the same time and in the same manner.[231]

Yes, things must either be true or false.[232] They cannot both be true and false at the same time. That goes against every shred of logic. What a foolish statement.[233]

[231] This again illustrates how you have lost touch with reality : you imagine that I believe that things can be both true and false at the same time. There are only two explanations I can see for you possibly believing that :
a) You use your special ability of decimating your intelligence, thereby becoming an idiot.
b) You ignore what I tell you about my beliefs and reality. Hence explaining anything to you is like throwing pearls to the swine. (And then you are indignated that I don't fish for your red herrings.)
It is probably a combination of both.

It could of course be that you don't believe that and are just trying to distract from the fact that you don't have a case. Since sceptics base their beliefs on reality, these are hard to argue against and since you can't support your own beliefs (for obvious reasons) you pervert the beliefs of sceptics to have something to argue against.That is known as the straw man fallacy.

[232] Really ? Well then, I propose a formal debate. You defend the position that everything is either true or false, while I will defend the position that some things are neither. Are you game ?
[233] Actually, your statement after (232) was useless, but true, and therefore not foolish. Your previous statement was foolish, indeed.

- Amoranemix 865
That would explain how you conclude that since in my worldview 'good' isn't determined by some ultimate, true standard, it must be completely arbitrarily decided by me. That most of reality is in fact grey is something you seem to reject a priori.
- PGA 866
It is either decided by you in that you agree with it or it is forced onto you and you do not agree with it but have to live with it because you are not in control. Either way, you believe that you are the person necessary in determining that it is "good."[234] You have nothing beyond yourself or some other subjective, relative, changing being in determining this, or so you have determined. Big deal.[235] What makes your preference right? SEZ WHO?[236]

[234] You must have extraordinary worldview to be able to produce falsehoods in such large quantities. I don't consider that a virtue though. It certainly isn't something I would give up reality for.
What does "good" mean ? Earlier you said that good means good GM. If you had not decimated your intelligence, you would have realised that I don't believe I am necessary for determining good GM.
There are two things that you have been confusing throughout this thread : term and concept (like the term good and the concept good). I have already explained the difference to you, but of course it would be foolish of you to learn that difference for it might threaten your belief in God, not something a Christian would want to risk. To the Christian, ignorance is where his god resides. The smaller his ignorance, the less room for his god.
[235] Neither have you.
[236] You have committed another loaded question fallacy, for you have so far been unable to prove my preference is right GM.

- PGA 781
If so it was because I got confuse with your notation system. I have pointed it out to you many times before that when you answer a post one colon ( : ) means you and two ( :: ) means me or the person you are answering.[83] You lump them all together so it is hard to determine who said what
- Amoranemix 860
[83] Says you. Why is what you say right ? Why is your subjective opinion truth ?
- PGA
[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

- Amoranemix 860
If you have evidence that doing what one thinks is benevolent then is the same as doing what one likes, please present it.[a]
[84] Why do you keep asking loaded questions ?
What is what God decides benevolent ? (Prove your bald assertions please or have the honesty admitting that you can't.)
[85] What !? Benevolent means well-intentioned. If one is benevolent, able and not mistaken then one's actions will result in something good rather than in something benevolent.
- PGA
[no response]

[a] Then why do you assume they are the same ?
You forgot to answer my questions.

- Amoranemix 860
[52] Higher in whose opinion ? You ? What is the 'true' standard to measure height by ?
[52'] Unlike your god, well-being isn't based on anyone's opinion, likes or dislikes. Also, I wasn't referring to the well-being of anyone in particular, but to the well-being of the whole universe. I doubt the Great Leader cares about the universe's well-being
[52'] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?
- PGA
[no response]

[52] You forgot to answer my question.
[52'] Your personal opinions are irrelevant for they are not representative of reality.

- PGA 781
God!
- Amoranemix 860
Aha, finally we have piece of your worldview to analyse.
There are several ways to attack that view beside the popular 'Can you prove that ?' (to which the most popular answer is [no response], for obvious reasons)
1) For God to decide anything, he would need to exist. In this thread you need to prove God exits. Assuming his existence is question-begging.
2) Can you demonstrate that it is possible to make those criteria necessary for goodness ? (Necessities normally aren't subject to decision.)
3) Assuming God exists, I suppose that you claim the criteria God decided upon are those you listed. Can you prove God chose those criteria ?
4) Is there more than one morality that would fit those criteria ? If so, who decided God's morality is the chosen morality ?
5) If the answer in 3) is no, then by deciding the criteria, God decides the morality, which brings us to the first branch of the Euthyphro dilemma : divine command theory : something is good or evil because God decides it. How convenient for him. Didn't you say the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy ?
- PGA
[no response]

You have asked me why my worldview is better. My challenges and your (lack of) answers show again yours is worse and as a consequence mine better. But we already established that long ago. And then you wonder why sceptics reject your worldview.

Amoranemix wrote:

You keep repeating your red herrings over and over again and refuse to explain why you keep producing them. I assume you made yourself deaf to reason (probably a requirement to hold on to presuppositionalism) and convince yourself that they are somehow relevant anyway, so I will address this differently this time.

Suppose you were able to demonstrate the following :
a) My worldview has the problems you complain about.
b) Your worldview does not have those problems.

You haven't demonstrated the above yet (for obvious reason), but let's not be difficult.
1) Would it then follow that your worldview is true ?
2) Would that argument be on topic in this thread ?

- Amoranemix 865
[62e] This illustrates what I think of problem is with your worldview that you are projecting on the worldviews of others : you have a black and white view of the world. To you things must be either true or false, failing to understand that some things are neither[a], like standards. You also assume things are either objective or subjective. It doesn't occur to you that some thing may be a little objective in some way and a lot subjective in the same way, while being a lot objective in a different way and being a little subjective in that way.
- PGA 866
Again, you make self-refuting and totally senseless statements that have no basis for truth.

Again, is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

-PGA 866
[a] Spoken as a true Postmodernist.

Either something is true or it is not true. It cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner and not true at the same time and in the same manner.[231]

Yes, things must either be true or false.[232] They cannot both be true and false at the same time. That goes against every shred of logic. What a foolish statement.[233]

[231] This again illustrates how you have lost touch with reality : you imagine that I believe that things can be both true and false at the same time. There are only two explanations I can see for you possibly believing that :
a) You use your special ability of decimating your intelligence, thereby becoming an idiot.
b) You ignore what I tell you about my beliefs and reality. Hence explaining anything to you is like throwing pearls to the swine. (And then you are indignated that I don't fish for your red herrings.)
It is probably a combination of both.

It could of course be that you don't believe that and are just trying to distract from the fact that you don't have a case. Since sceptics base their beliefs on reality, these are hard to argue against and since you can't support your own beliefs (for obvious reasons) you pervert the beliefs of sceptics to have something to argue against.That is known as the straw man fallacy.

[232] Really ? Well then, I propose a formal debate. You defend the position that everything is either true or false, while I will defend the position that some things are neither. Are you game ?
[233] Actually, your statement after (232) was useless, but true, and therefore not foolish. Your previous statement was foolish, indeed.

- Amoranemix 865
That would explain how you conclude that since in my worldview 'good' isn't determined by some ultimate, true standard, it must be completely arbitrarily decided by me. That most of reality is in fact grey is something you seem to reject a priori.
- PGA 866
It is either decided by you in that you agree with it or it is forced onto you and you do not agree with it but have to live with it because you are not in control. Either way, you believe that you are the person necessary in determining that it is "good."

[234] You must have extraordinary worldview to be able to produce falsehoods in such large quantities. I don't consider that a virtue though. It certainly isn't something I would give up reality for.
What does "good" mean ? Earlier you said that good means good GM. If you had not decimated your intelligence, you would have realised that I don't believe I am necessary for determining good GM.
There are two things that you have been confusing throughout this thread : term and concept (like the term good and the concept good). I have already explained the difference to you, but of course it would be foolish of you to learn that difference for it might threaten your belief in God, not something a Christian would want to risk. To the Christian, ignorance is where his god resides. The smaller his ignorance, the less room for his god.
[235] Neither have you.
[236] You have committed another loaded question fallacy, for you have so far been unable to prove my preference is right GM.

- PGA 781
If so it was because I got confuse with your notation system. I have pointed it out to you many times before that when you answer a post one colon ( : ) means you and two ( :: ) means me or the person you are answering.[83] You lump them all together so it is hard to determine who said what
- Amoranemix 860
[83] Says you. Why is what you say right ? Why is your subjective opinion truth ?
- PGA

You forgot to answer my question.

- Amoranemix 860
If you have evidence that doing what one thinks is benevolent then is the same as doing what one likes, please present it.[a]
[84] Why do you keep asking loaded questions ?
What is what God decides benevolent ? (Prove your bald assertions please or have the honesty admitting that you can't.)
[85] What !? Benevolent means well-intentioned. If one is benevolent, able and not mistaken then one's actions will result in something good rather than in something benevolent.
- PGA

[a] Then why do you assume they are the same ?
You forgot to answer my questions.

- Amoranemix 860
[52] Higher in whose opinion ? You ? What is the 'true' standard to measure height by ?
[52'] Unlike your god, well-being isn't based on anyone's opinion, likes or dislikes. Also, I wasn't referring to the well-being of anyone in particular, but to the well-being of the whole universe. I doubt the Great Leader cares about the universe's well-being
[52'] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?
- PGA

[52] You forgot to answer my question.
[52'] Your personal opinions are irrelevant for they are not representative of reality.

- PGA 781
God!
- Amoranemix 860
Aha, finally we have piece of your worldview to analyse.
There are several ways to attack that view beside the popular 'Can you prove that ?' (to which the most popular answer is [no response], for obvious reasons)
1) For God to decide anything, he would need to exist. In this thread you need to prove God exits. Assuming his existence is question-begging.
2) Can you demonstrate that it is possible to make those criteria necessary for goodness ? (Necessities normally aren't subject to decision.)
3) Assuming God exists, I suppose that you claim the criteria God decided upon are those you listed. Can you prove God chose those criteria ?
4) Is there more than one morality that would fit those criteria ? If so, who decided God's morality is the chosen morality ?
5) If the answer in 3) is no, then by deciding the criteria, God decides the morality, which brings us to the first branch of the Euthyphro dilemma : divine command theory : something is good or evil because God decides it. How convenient for him. Didn't you say the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy ?
- PGA

You have asked me why my worldview is better. My challenges and your (lack of) answers show again yours is worse and as a consequence mine better. But we already established that long ago. And then you wonder why sceptics reject your worldview.

Not only is your worldview better, you also live in a nice country.