Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:91-120|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:54:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 11:43:56 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage 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?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.

An opinion based on fact. I don't know any atheist philosophers so I cannot comment on your argument from authority. I do note that you provide no source for your assertion so I reserve judgment on its veracity.

Opinion based on fact? That doesn't make any sense.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral?

Is genocide really just fine?

How about punishing an innocent? Is that proper?

Here's the study: look at the results for moral realism
http://philpapers.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:02:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 11:54:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:43:56 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage 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?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.

An opinion based on fact. I don't know any atheist philosophers so I cannot comment on your argument from authority. I do note that you provide no source for your assertion so I reserve judgment on its veracity.

Opinion based on fact? That doesn't make any sense.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral?

Is genocide really just fine?

How about punishing an innocent? Is that proper?

Here's the study: look at the results for moral realism
http://philpapers.org...

Nothing I said implicitly or explicitly says any of those things. Since your so-called God ordered a lot of that done and actually committed the acts himself, you should be ok with a genocide at the very least. Your god punishes finite acts with infinite torture so that's the pot calling the kettle black. Finally, where did you get the idea I approved of any of these things? You made some leap, dude. You should try out for the Olympic team in leaping to illogical conclusions.

As for the survey, I think you should really look at it a bit closer. I don't think it says what you think it says. I will dig a bit deeper into the statistics.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:09:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 10:18:39 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:

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

Peter

I would disagree. There are worldviews / philosophies / religions holding the same basic moral principles as Christianity that predate Christianity. Buddhism is one example. It predates Christianity by some 500 years. It could be argued that Christianity borrowed from them.

What was revealed and prophesied in the Old Testament came to fulfillment under the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son, in the new. Buddhism can't prophesy the future before it happens. The reason other religious beliefs have things in common is not because these beliefs came before God but because people are made in His image and likeness, however flawed that has become since the fall, and they have told of Him and of His dealings with mankind.

God revealed Himself to the first man and woman and to others in the course of human history. Man has a habit of distorting what He has said but he still retains a marred image and likeness of God. Therefore he knows in his conscience the difference between good and bad to some degree, hence he makes laws that reflect God's good nature on the one hand and on the other he says, "Did God really say?" and chooses his relative path as the consequence of no longer knowing God.

God has provided a written revelation of Himself to man in the form of the Bible. All other holy books distort who He is, thus you do not get a true picture even if some of His teachings remain to some extent in these other writings.

As God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - He has existed eternally so try predating that. Christians are followers of His Son, who took on humanity for various reason. He made Himself known before Judaism to the first man and woman who predate every other man and woman.

What is contained in the Old Testament is a shadow and type of what was coming and has come, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son, the living Word. He is the reality of the types and shadows of the Old Testament or covenant. We see a picture or shadow of the reality that is Christ in every book and probably every page of the OT. So I do not take any stock in your assertion that Buddhism predated Christianity because it did not predate the Son who Christianity has as its source.

Peter
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:12:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:02:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:54:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:43:56 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage 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?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.

An opinion based on fact. I don't know any atheist philosophers so I cannot comment on your argument from authority. I do note that you provide no source for your assertion so I reserve judgment on its veracity.

Opinion based on fact? That doesn't make any sense.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral?

Is genocide really just fine?

How about punishing an innocent? Is that proper?

Here's the study: look at the results for moral realism
http://philpapers.org...

Nothing I said implicitly or explicitly says any of those things. Since your so-called God ordered a lot of that done and actually committed the acts himself, you should be ok with a genocide at the very least. Your god punishes finite acts with infinite torture so that's the pot calling the kettle black. Finally, where did you get the idea I approved of any of these things? You made some leap, dude. You should try out for the Olympic team in leaping to illogical conclusions.

As for the survey, I think you should really look at it a bit closer. I don't think it says what you think it says. I will dig a bit deeper into the statistics.

(1) if all morality is subjective, you implicitly accept that everything is no more moral or immoral than anything else.

(2) I am not a Christian

(3) that's fine, the source speaks for itself.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:29:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:12:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:02:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:54:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:43:56 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage 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?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.

An opinion based on fact. I don't know any atheist philosophers so I cannot comment on your argument from authority. I do note that you provide no source for your assertion so I reserve judgment on its veracity.

Opinion based on fact? That doesn't make any sense.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral?

Is genocide really just fine?

How about punishing an innocent? Is that proper?

Here's the study: look at the results for moral realism
http://philpapers.org...

Nothing I said implicitly or explicitly says any of those things. Since your so-called God ordered a lot of that done and actually committed the acts himself, you should be ok with a genocide at the very least. Your god punishes finite acts with infinite torture so that's the pot calling the kettle black. Finally, where did you get the idea I approved of any of these things? You made some leap, dude. You should try out for the Olympic team in leaping to illogical conclusions.

As for the survey, I think you should really look at it a bit closer. I don't think it says what you think it says. I will dig a bit deeper into the statistics.

(1) if all morality is subjective, you implicitly accept that everything is no more moral or immoral than anything else.

(2) I am not a Christian

(3) that's fine, the source speaks for itself.

1. I imply nothing of the kind. We have had this same discussion on another thread, which you seem to have bailed out on. Human beings share a great number of moral imperatives because we are social creatures who need to live together and acts that are detrimental to the group, be it tribe or nation, are almost universally considered wrong.

Protection of our young is built into most of us as individuals and groups, although there are horrible exceptions that we read in the newspaper daily. Rape is a particularly heinous from of assault that, once again, is detrimental to both the individual and the society. It is, again, a shared moral imperative based on surviving as a society and a species.

2. If you're not Christian then please explain your belief system a bit more clearly. Many of the arguments you make seem to support the general Christian ethos.

3. The source you quoted shows that 72.8% of the respondents 'leaned toward' Atheism. There were numerous comments that criticized it for not allowing Agnosticism and other more neutral attitudes. Only 56.4% of the total leaned toward an objective morality which, by a rough calculation, yields approximately 41%. That is not a 2:1 ratio.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:35:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:29:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:12:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:02:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:54:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:43:56 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage 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?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.

An opinion based on fact. I don't know any atheist philosophers so I cannot comment on your argument from authority. I do note that you provide no source for your assertion so I reserve judgment on its veracity.

Opinion based on fact? That doesn't make any sense.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral?

Is genocide really just fine?

How about punishing an innocent? Is that proper?

Here's the study: look at the results for moral realism
http://philpapers.org...

Nothing I said implicitly or explicitly says any of those things. Since your so-called God ordered a lot of that done and actually committed the acts himself, you should be ok with a genocide at the very least. Your god punishes finite acts with infinite torture so that's the pot calling the kettle black. Finally, where did you get the idea I approved of any of these things? You made some leap, dude. You should try out for the Olympic team in leaping to illogical conclusions.

As for the survey, I think you should really look at it a bit closer. I don't think it says what you think it says. I will dig a bit deeper into the statistics.

(1) if all morality is subjective, you implicitly accept that everything is no more moral or immoral than anything else.

(2) I am not a Christian

(3) that's fine, the source speaks for itself.

1. I imply nothing of the kind. We have had this same discussion on another thread, which you seem to have bailed out on. Human beings share a great number of moral imperatives because we are social creatures who need to live together and acts that are detrimental to the group, be it tribe or nation, are almost universally considered wrong.

I haven't bailed out on it - I left after making my reply and read your previous response that you wouldn't be back until after Christmas.

Ok, so objective morality doesn't exist, correct? Either objective morality exists or it doesn't. It makes no sense to say that we have moral imperatives for "X" reason when our existence came about for no reason.

Protection of our young is built into most of us as individuals and groups, although there are horrible exceptions that we read in the newspaper daily. Rape is a particularly heinous from of assault that, once again, is detrimental to both the individual and the society. It is, again, a shared moral imperative based on surviving as a society and a species.

There can't be any moral imperatives if objective morality doesn't exist. Period.

2. If you're not Christian then please explain your belief system a bit more clearly. Many of the arguments you make seem to support the general Christian ethos.

I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality.

3. The source you quoted shows that 72.8% of the respondents 'leaned toward' Atheism. There were numerous comments that criticized it for not allowing Agnosticism and other more neutral attitudes. Only 56.4% of the total leaned toward an objective morality which, by a rough calculation, yields approximately 41%. That is not a 2:1 ratio.

Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 12:44:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:35:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:29:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:12:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:02:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:54:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:43:56 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage 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?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.

An opinion based on fact. I don't know any atheist philosophers so I cannot comment on your argument from authority. I do note that you provide no source for your assertion so I reserve judgment on its veracity.

Opinion based on fact? That doesn't make any sense.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral?

Is genocide really just fine?

How about punishing an innocent? Is that proper?

Here's the study: look at the results for moral realism
http://philpapers.org...

Nothing I said implicitly or explicitly says any of those things. Since your so-called God ordered a lot of that done and actually committed the acts himself, you should be ok with a genocide at the very least. Your god punishes finite acts with infinite torture so that's the pot calling the kettle black. Finally, where did you get the idea I approved of any of these things? You made some leap, dude. You should try out for the Olympic team in leaping to illogical conclusions.

As for the survey, I think you should really look at it a bit closer. I don't think it says what you think it says. I will dig a bit deeper into the statistics.

(1) if all morality is subjective, you implicitly accept that everything is no more moral or immoral than anything else.

(2) I am not a Christian

(3) that's fine, the source speaks for itself.

1. I imply nothing of the kind. We have had this same discussion on another thread, which you seem to have bailed out on. Human beings share a great number of moral imperatives because we are social creatures who need to live together and acts that are detrimental to the group, be it tribe or nation, are almost universally considered wrong.

I haven't bailed out on it - I left after making my reply and read your previous response that you wouldn't be back until after Christmas.

Ok, so objective morality doesn't exist, correct? Either objective morality exists or it doesn't. It makes no sense to say that we have moral imperatives for "X" reason when our existence came about for no reason.


Protection of our young is built into most of us as individuals and groups, although there are horrible exceptions that we read in the newspaper daily. Rape is a particularly heinous from of assault that, once again, is detrimental to both the individual and the society. It is, again, a shared moral imperative based on surviving as a society and a species.

There can't be any moral imperatives if objective morality doesn't exist. Period.

2. If you're not Christian then please explain your belief system a bit more clearly. Many of the arguments you make seem to support the general Christian ethos.

I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality.

3. The source you quoted shows that 72.8% of the respondents 'leaned toward' Atheism. There were numerous comments that criticized it for not allowing Agnosticism and other more neutral attitudes. Only 56.4% of the total leaned toward an objective morality which, by a rough calculation, yields approximately 41%. That is not a 2:1 ratio.

Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists.

"There can't be any moral imperatives if objective morality doesn't exist. Period." An unsupported assertion, aka, your opinion.

" I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality." Ok, where are these 'standards' codified and recorded? What examples to you use, since you say your are not a Christian and thus do not use their holy book. And what criteria did you use to determine that this code was objective?

"Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists"
This is wrong in a few ways. The study was done among professional philosophers and philosophy students. That is a very small percentage of the population so your sweeping generalization is wrong. Second, many of those responding, as I mentioned, did not actually classify themselves as atheists. Finally, you asserted that "Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective." I've proven that you either intentionally misstated the results of the survey or you chose to 'massage' the numbers to bolster your own point of view. Either is dishonest.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:02:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:44:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:35:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:29:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:12:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:02:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:54:25 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:43:56 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:33:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:24:50 AM, dhardage 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?

Quite simply, objective morality does not exist therefore it requires no source.

In your opinion. Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective.

An opinion based on fact. I don't know any atheist philosophers so I cannot comment on your argument from authority. I do note that you provide no source for your assertion so I reserve judgment on its veracity.

Opinion based on fact? That doesn't make any sense.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral?

Is genocide really just fine?

How about punishing an innocent? Is that proper?

Here's the study: look at the results for moral realism
http://philpapers.org...

Nothing I said implicitly or explicitly says any of those things. Since your so-called God ordered a lot of that done and actually committed the acts himself, you should be ok with a genocide at the very least. Your god punishes finite acts with infinite torture so that's the pot calling the kettle black. Finally, where did you get the idea I approved of any of these things? You made some leap, dude. You should try out for the Olympic team in leaping to illogical conclusions.

As for the survey, I think you should really look at it a bit closer. I don't think it says what you think it says. I will dig a bit deeper into the statistics.

(1) if all morality is subjective, you implicitly accept that everything is no more moral or immoral than anything else.

(2) I am not a Christian

(3) that's fine, the source speaks for itself.

1. I imply nothing of the kind. We have had this same discussion on another thread, which you seem to have bailed out on. Human beings share a great number of moral imperatives because we are social creatures who need to live together and acts that are detrimental to the group, be it tribe or nation, are almost universally considered wrong.

I haven't bailed out on it - I left after making my reply and read your previous response that you wouldn't be back until after Christmas.

Ok, so objective morality doesn't exist, correct? Either objective morality exists or it doesn't. It makes no sense to say that we have moral imperatives for "X" reason when our existence came about for no reason.


Protection of our young is built into most of us as individuals and groups, although there are horrible exceptions that we read in the newspaper daily. Rape is a particularly heinous from of assault that, once again, is detrimental to both the individual and the society. It is, again, a shared moral imperative based on surviving as a society and a species.

There can't be any moral imperatives if objective morality doesn't exist. Period.

2. If you're not Christian then please explain your belief system a bit more clearly. Many of the arguments you make seem to support the general Christian ethos.

I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality.

3. The source you quoted shows that 72.8% of the respondents 'leaned toward' Atheism. There were numerous comments that criticized it for not allowing Agnosticism and other more neutral attitudes. Only 56.4% of the total leaned toward an objective morality which, by a rough calculation, yields approximately 41%. That is not a 2:1 ratio.

Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists.

"There can't be any moral imperatives if objective morality doesn't exist. Period." An unsupported assertion, aka, your opinion.

It's not my opinion. It follows with the one of the three laws of logic - the law of identity.

"Furthermore, if something has an identity, it has a single identity. It does not have more than one identity. In other words, if something exists it has a set of attributes that are consistent with its own existence. It does not have a set of attributes that are inconsistent with itself."
https://school.carm.org...

Moral imperatives mean that moral duties are obligatory. If morality is totally subjective nothing is morally obligatory. Therefore it's a violation of the law of identity.

" I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality." Ok, where are these 'standards' codified and recorded? What examples to you use, since you say your are not a Christian and thus do not use their holy book. And what criteria did you use to determine that this code was objective?

They're self-evident. Objective morality is inherent in our moral code. I don't need a rule book to know that raping an infant is wrong. Would you?

"Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists"
This is wrong in a few ways. The study was done among professional philosophers and philosophy students. That is a very small percentage of the population so your sweeping generalization is wrong. Second, many of those responding, as I mentioned, did not actually classify themselves as atheists. Finally, you asserted that "Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective." I've proven that you either intentionally misstated the results of the survey or you chose to 'massage' the numbers to bolster your own point of view. Either is dishonest.

Among atheist philosophers and I didn't get the ratio correct but my point is still the same - moral relativism is indicated to be the minority among atheist philosophers. So saying "it's an opinion based on fact" that objective morality doesn't exist is evidently wrong even if you were asking just a large sample of atheist philosophers.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:15:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's not my opinion. It follows with the one of the three laws of logic - the law of identity.

"Furthermore, if something has an identity, it has a single identity. It does not have more than one identity. In other words, if something exists it has a set of attributes that are consistent with its own existence. It does not have a set of attributes that are inconsistent with itself."
https://school.carm.org...

Moral imperatives mean that moral duties are obligatory. If morality is totally subjective nothing is morally obligatory. Therefore it's a violation of the law of identity.

" I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality." Ok, where are these 'standards' codified and recorded? What examples to you use, since you say your are not a Christian and thus do not use their holy book. And what criteria did you use to determine that this code was objective?

They're self-evident. Objective morality is inherent in our moral code. I don't need a rule book to know that raping an infant is wrong. Would you?

"Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists"
This is wrong in a few ways. The study was done among professional philosophers and philosophy students. That is a very small percentage of the population so your sweeping generalization is wrong. Second, many of those responding, as I mentioned, did not actually classify themselves as atheists. Finally, you asserted that "Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective." I've proven that you either intentionally misstated the results of the survey or you chose to 'massage' the numbers to bolster your own point of view. Either is dishonest.

Among atheist philosophers and I didn't get the ratio correct but my point is still the same - moral relativism is indicated to be the minority among atheist philosophers. So saying "it's an opinion based on fact" that objective morality doesn't exist is evidently wrong even if you were asking just a large sample of atheist philosophers.

Let's define moral imperatives.
"A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason."

A large part of our so-called moral action is based purely in our collective desire to survive and thrive as a species. We know that there are acts that thwart that shared goal. Now, using this definition, we use reason to determine that certain acts are antithetical to our survival as a species and a society. These are, in large part, codified into law but are ingrained into us over millennia of both evolution as a social species and social development and advancement. This does not make them objective but shared. If they were objective and universal there would be no difference in the legal and moral codes of the entire human race but we know that not to be the case.

If this code were 'self evident' as you claim, then we would again have a universal moral system but again, this is not the case. You have no reference for your moral code except your own personal revelations and assumptions. As good as that might be, it's still subjective within your psyche, not objective and universal to the entire human race.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:28:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 1:15:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
It's not my opinion. It follows with the one of the three laws of logic - the law of identity.

"Furthermore, if something has an identity, it has a single identity. It does not have more than one identity. In other words, if something exists it has a set of attributes that are consistent with its own existence. It does not have a set of attributes that are inconsistent with itself."
https://school.carm.org...

Moral imperatives mean that moral duties are obligatory. If morality is totally subjective nothing is morally obligatory. Therefore it's a violation of the law of identity.

" I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality." Ok, where are these 'standards' codified and recorded? What examples to you use, since you say your are not a Christian and thus do not use their holy book. And what criteria did you use to determine that this code was objective?

They're self-evident. Objective morality is inherent in our moral code. I don't need a rule book to know that raping an infant is wrong. Would you?

"Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists"
This is wrong in a few ways. The study was done among professional philosophers and philosophy students. That is a very small percentage of the population so your sweeping generalization is wrong. Second, many of those responding, as I mentioned, did not actually classify themselves as atheists. Finally, you asserted that "Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective." I've proven that you either intentionally misstated the results of the survey or you chose to 'massage' the numbers to bolster your own point of view. Either is dishonest.

Among atheist philosophers and I didn't get the ratio correct but my point is still the same - moral relativism is indicated to be the minority among atheist philosophers. So saying "it's an opinion based on fact" that objective morality doesn't exist is evidently wrong even if you were asking just a large sample of atheist philosophers.

Let's define moral imperatives.
"A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason."

Immanuel Kant argued and held the belief that morality was objective. It doesn't help your case one bit to use Kant's moral imperatives argument for objective morality as an argument supporting the notion that all morality is subjective.

A large part of our so-called moral action is based purely in our collective desire to survive and thrive as a species. We know that there are acts that thwart that shared goal. Now, using this definition, we use reason to determine that certain acts are antithetical to our survival as a species and a society. These are, in large part, codified into law but are ingrained into us over millennia of both evolution as a social species and social development and advancement. This does not make them objective but shared. If they were objective and universal there would be no difference in the legal and moral codes of the entire human race but we know that not to be the case.

"Shared" doesn't mean that it's the way things ought to be. It just means that if you hold a moral value opposite of the majority you are just different. I disagree with what you said about differences in legal and moral codes. Since when has it been morally permissible to punish an innocent? Since when has it been justifiable to kill somebody without sufficient cause?

If this code were 'self evident' as you claim, then we would again have a universal moral system but again, this is not the case. You have no reference for your moral code except your own personal revelations and assumptions. As good as that might be, it's still subjective within your psyche, not objective and universal to the entire human race.

Our moral code is both objective and subjective. Believing that eating meat is wrong is an example of a highly subjective moral standard while believing that torturing someone for fun is immoral is an objective moral standard.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:31:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 1:28:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:15:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
It's not my opinion. It follows with the one of the three laws of logic - the law of identity.

"Furthermore, if something has an identity, it has a single identity. It does not have more than one identity. In other words, if something exists it has a set of attributes that are consistent with its own existence. It does not have a set of attributes that are inconsistent with itself."
https://school.carm.org...

Moral imperatives mean that moral duties are obligatory. If morality is totally subjective nothing is morally obligatory. Therefore it's a violation of the law of identity.

" I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality." Ok, where are these 'standards' codified and recorded? What examples to you use, since you say your are not a Christian and thus do not use their holy book. And what criteria did you use to determine that this code was objective?

They're self-evident. Objective morality is inherent in our moral code. I don't need a rule book to know that raping an infant is wrong. Would you?

"Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists"
This is wrong in a few ways. The study was done among professional philosophers and philosophy students. That is a very small percentage of the population so your sweeping generalization is wrong. Second, many of those responding, as I mentioned, did not actually classify themselves as atheists. Finally, you asserted that "Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective." I've proven that you either intentionally misstated the results of the survey or you chose to 'massage' the numbers to bolster your own point of view. Either is dishonest.

Among atheist philosophers and I didn't get the ratio correct but my point is still the same - moral relativism is indicated to be the minority among atheist philosophers. So saying "it's an opinion based on fact" that objective morality doesn't exist is evidently wrong even if you were asking just a large sample of atheist philosophers.

Let's define moral imperatives.
"A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason."

Immanuel Kant argued and held the belief that morality was objective. It doesn't help your case one bit to use Kant's moral imperatives argument for objective morality as an argument supporting the notion that all morality is subjective.

A large part of our so-called moral action is based purely in our collective desire to survive and thrive as a species. We know that there are acts that thwart that shared goal. Now, using this definition, we use reason to determine that certain acts are antithetical to our survival as a species and a society. These are, in large part, codified into law but are ingrained into us over millennia of both evolution as a social species and social development and advancement. This does not make them objective but shared. If they were objective and universal there would be no difference in the legal and moral codes of the entire human race but we know that not to be the case.

"Shared" doesn't mean that it's the way things ought to be. It just means that if you hold a moral value opposite of the majority you are just different. I disagree with what you said about differences in legal and moral codes. Since when has it been morally permissible to punish an innocent? Since when has it been justifiable to kill somebody without sufficient cause?

If this code were 'self evident' as you claim, then we would again have a universal moral system but again, this is not the case. You have no reference for your moral code except your own personal revelations and assumptions. As good as that might be, it's still subjective within your psyche, not objective and universal to the entire human race.

Our moral code is both objective and subjective. Believing that eating meat is wrong is an example of a highly subjective moral standard while believing that torturing someone for fun is immoral is an objective moral standard.

If it is objective, universal, and self-evident as you say it is, then why is your moral code not found in every society and every population on earth?

Let me ask you a question. Is slavery moral?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:54:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 12:09:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:18:39 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:

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

Peter

I would disagree. There are worldviews / philosophies / religions holding the same basic moral principles as Christianity that predate Christianity. Buddhism is one example. It predates Christianity by some 500 years. It could be argued that Christianity borrowed from them.

What was revealed and prophesied in the Old Testament came to fulfillment under the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son, in the new. Buddhism can't prophesy the future before it happens. The reason other religious beliefs have things in common is not because these beliefs came before God but because people are made in His image and likeness, however flawed that has become since the fall, and they have told of Him and of His dealings with mankind.

God revealed Himself to the first man and woman and to others in the course of human history. Man has a habit of distorting what He has said but he still retains a marred image and likeness of God. Therefore he knows in his conscience the difference between good and bad to some degree, hence he makes laws that reflect God's good nature on the one hand and on the other he says, "Did God really say?" and chooses his relative path as the consequence of no longer knowing God.

God has provided a written revelation of Himself to man in the form of the Bible. All other holy books distort who He is, thus you do not get a true picture even if some of His teachings remain to some extent in these other writings.

As God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - He has existed eternally so try predating that. Christians are followers of His Son, who took on humanity for various reason. He made Himself known before Judaism to the first man and woman who predate every other man and woman.

What is contained in the Old Testament is a shadow and type of what was coming and has come, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son, the living Word. He is the reality of the types and shadows of the Old Testament or covenant. We see a picture or shadow of the reality that is Christ in every book and probably every page of the OT. So I do not take any stock in your assertion that Buddhism predated Christianity because it did not predate the Son who Christianity has as its source.

Peter

denying facts makes you look extremely silly, everyone knows that Buddhism predates Christianity by over 500 years, Judaism predates it by more than 1200 years and Hinduism predates Christianity by nearly 2000 years. no serious Christian who cares anything about the truth would say anything so obviously false as you just did.
if someone writes something a week before you did and you come along and write the same basic story then you are guilty of plagiarism. Christianity borrowed stories from several different traditions and even greek mythology.

Are you simple? if god revealed himself to the first man and woman (adam and eve) then adam and eve populated the world, and then noah and his family re-repopulated the world speaking from first hand direct conversations with the god of christianity then where in the hell did all the other religions come from? not only did the other religions get started when they shouldn't have if what you were true, but even if they did, then one would certainly expect that they would come decades or centuries after Christianity and borrow from it, but the exact opposite is true.

prophecy fulfilled?

Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, when god was his father not Joseph remember the Virgin Birth?

nonsense
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 1:56:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 1:31:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:28:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:15:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
It's not my opinion. It follows with the one of the three laws of logic - the law of identity.

"Furthermore, if something has an identity, it has a single identity. It does not have more than one identity. In other words, if something exists it has a set of attributes that are consistent with its own existence. It does not have a set of attributes that are inconsistent with itself."
https://school.carm.org...

Moral imperatives mean that moral duties are obligatory. If morality is totally subjective nothing is morally obligatory. Therefore it's a violation of the law of identity.

" I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality." Ok, where are these 'standards' codified and recorded? What examples to you use, since you say your are not a Christian and thus do not use their holy book. And what criteria did you use to determine that this code was objective?

They're self-evident. Objective morality is inherent in our moral code. I don't need a rule book to know that raping an infant is wrong. Would you?

"Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists"
This is wrong in a few ways. The study was done among professional philosophers and philosophy students. That is a very small percentage of the population so your sweeping generalization is wrong. Second, many of those responding, as I mentioned, did not actually classify themselves as atheists. Finally, you asserted that "Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective." I've proven that you either intentionally misstated the results of the survey or you chose to 'massage' the numbers to bolster your own point of view. Either is dishonest.

Among atheist philosophers and I didn't get the ratio correct but my point is still the same - moral relativism is indicated to be the minority among atheist philosophers. So saying "it's an opinion based on fact" that objective morality doesn't exist is evidently wrong even if you were asking just a large sample of atheist philosophers.

Let's define moral imperatives.
"A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason."

Immanuel Kant argued and held the belief that morality was objective. It doesn't help your case one bit to use Kant's moral imperatives argument for objective morality as an argument supporting the notion that all morality is subjective.

A large part of our so-called moral action is based purely in our collective desire to survive and thrive as a species. We know that there are acts that thwart that shared goal. Now, using this definition, we use reason to determine that certain acts are antithetical to our survival as a species and a society. These are, in large part, codified into law but are ingrained into us over millennia of both evolution as a social species and social development and advancement. This does not make them objective but shared. If they were objective and universal there would be no difference in the legal and moral codes of the entire human race but we know that not to be the case.

"Shared" doesn't mean that it's the way things ought to be. It just means that if you hold a moral value opposite of the majority you are just different. I disagree with what you said about differences in legal and moral codes. Since when has it been morally permissible to punish an innocent? Since when has it been justifiable to kill somebody without sufficient cause?

If this code were 'self evident' as you claim, then we would again have a universal moral system but again, this is not the case. You have no reference for your moral code except your own personal revelations and assumptions. As good as that might be, it's still subjective within your psyche, not objective and universal to the entire human race.

Our moral code is both objective and subjective. Believing that eating meat is wrong is an example of a highly subjective moral standard while believing that torturing someone for fun is immoral is an objective moral standard.

If it is objective, universal, and self-evident as you say it is, then why is your moral code not found in every society and every population on earth?

Let me ask you a question. Is slavery moral?

The existence of objective morality doesn't exclude the existence of subjective morality. The exclusion of objective morality means that all morality is necessarily subjective.

There are objective moral codes found in every society. Can you point out one society that thought it was morally permissible to rape infants? Is this evidently a subjective or objective moral standard?

No, slavery is not moral. I hold that all mean are created equal and that the truth of that is self-evident.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:00:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

and you quote all that nonsense for what purpose? it is all man made BS that means nothing

besides, weren't snakes supposed to eat dust for all eternity,
didn't god lie to adam and eve telling them if they ate the orange from the tree of knowledge that they would die, then they ate it and didn't die?
either this god didn't know what the hell he was talking about
or he just lied. trying to scare them
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:10:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 1:56:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:31:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:28:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:15:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
It's not my opinion. It follows with the one of the three laws of logic - the law of identity.

"Furthermore, if something has an identity, it has a single identity. It does not have more than one identity. In other words, if something exists it has a set of attributes that are consistent with its own existence. It does not have a set of attributes that are inconsistent with itself."
https://school.carm.org...

Moral imperatives mean that moral duties are obligatory. If morality is totally subjective nothing is morally obligatory. Therefore it's a violation of the law of identity.

" I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality." Ok, where are these 'standards' codified and recorded? What examples to you use, since you say your are not a Christian and thus do not use their holy book. And what criteria did you use to determine that this code was objective?

They're self-evident. Objective morality is inherent in our moral code. I don't need a rule book to know that raping an infant is wrong. Would you?

"Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists"
This is wrong in a few ways. The study was done among professional philosophers and philosophy students. That is a very small percentage of the population so your sweeping generalization is wrong. Second, many of those responding, as I mentioned, did not actually classify themselves as atheists. Finally, you asserted that "Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective." I've proven that you either intentionally misstated the results of the survey or you chose to 'massage' the numbers to bolster your own point of view. Either is dishonest.

Among atheist philosophers and I didn't get the ratio correct but my point is still the same - moral relativism is indicated to be the minority among atheist philosophers. So saying "it's an opinion based on fact" that objective morality doesn't exist is evidently wrong even if you were asking just a large sample of atheist philosophers.

Let's define moral imperatives.
"A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason."

Immanuel Kant argued and held the belief that morality was objective. It doesn't help your case one bit to use Kant's moral imperatives argument for objective morality as an argument supporting the notion that all morality is subjective.

A large part of our so-called moral action is based purely in our collective desire to survive and thrive as a species. We know that there are acts that thwart that shared goal. Now, using this definition, we use reason to determine that certain acts are antithetical to our survival as a species and a society. These are, in large part, codified into law but are ingrained into us over millennia of both evolution as a social species and social development and advancement. This does not make them objective but shared. If they were objective and universal there would be no difference in the legal and moral codes of the entire human race but we know that not to be the case.

"Shared" doesn't mean that it's the way things ought to be. It just means that if you hold a moral value opposite of the majority you are just different. I disagree with what you said about differences in legal and moral codes. Since when has it been morally permissible to punish an innocent? Since when has it been justifiable to kill somebody without sufficient cause?

If this code were 'self evident' as you claim, then we would again have a universal moral system but again, this is not the case. You have no reference for your moral code except your own personal revelations and assumptions. As good as that might be, it's still subjective within your psyche, not objective and universal to the entire human race.

Our moral code is both objective and subjective. Believing that eating meat is wrong is an example of a highly subjective moral standard while believing that torturing someone for fun is immoral is an objective moral standard.

If it is objective, universal, and self-evident as you say it is, then why is your moral code not found in every society and every population on earth?

Let me ask you a question. Is slavery moral?

The existence of objective morality doesn't exclude the existence of subjective morality. The exclusion of objective morality means that all morality is necessarily subjective.

There are objective moral codes found in every society. Can you point out one society that thought it was morally permissible to rape infants? Is this evidently a subjective or objective moral standard?

No, slavery is not moral. I hold that all mean are created equal and that the truth of that is self-evident.

1. " There are objective moral codes found in every society. Can you point out one society that thought it was morally permissible to rape infants? Is this evidently a subjective or objective moral standard?"
As I pointed out, protection of the young is an instinctive reaction to provide for survival of the species. It goes well beyond the human race and if you ever try to attack a wolf's cubs you'd find that out quickly. That instinct, virtually universal, has been honed and developed by our evolutionary heritage and by our social nature so that it seems as if it should be present in everyone. Unfortunately, since it is not objective and not universal, there are those who do it.

2. "No, slavery is not moral. I hold that all mean are created equal and that the truth of that is self-evident."
Yet for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years great civilizations kept slaves. It was considered moral and normal, up until very recently. Tell me why that happened if it is an objective moral statement, self-evident, that slavery is wrong?
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:25:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 2:10:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:56:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:31:51 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:28:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:15:59 PM, dhardage wrote:
It's not my opinion. It follows with the one of the three laws of logic - the law of identity.

"Furthermore, if something has an identity, it has a single identity. It does not have more than one identity. In other words, if something exists it has a set of attributes that are consistent with its own existence. It does not have a set of attributes that are inconsistent with itself."
https://school.carm.org...

Moral imperatives mean that moral duties are obligatory. If morality is totally subjective nothing is morally obligatory. Therefore it's a violation of the law of identity.

" I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality." Ok, where are these 'standards' codified and recorded? What examples to you use, since you say your are not a Christian and thus do not use their holy book. And what criteria did you use to determine that this code was objective?

They're self-evident. Objective morality is inherent in our moral code. I don't need a rule book to know that raping an infant is wrong. Would you?

"Nevertheless, moral relativism is the minority position even among atheists"
This is wrong in a few ways. The study was done among professional philosophers and philosophy students. That is a very small percentage of the population so your sweeping generalization is wrong. Second, many of those responding, as I mentioned, did not actually classify themselves as atheists. Finally, you asserted that "Among atheist philosophers at a 2:1 majority believe that morality is objective." I've proven that you either intentionally misstated the results of the survey or you chose to 'massage' the numbers to bolster your own point of view. Either is dishonest.

Among atheist philosophers and I didn't get the ratio correct but my point is still the same - moral relativism is indicated to be the minority among atheist philosophers. So saying "it's an opinion based on fact" that objective morality doesn't exist is evidently wrong even if you were asking just a large sample of atheist philosophers.

Let's define moral imperatives.
"A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect. Not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason."

Immanuel Kant argued and held the belief that morality was objective. It doesn't help your case one bit to use Kant's moral imperatives argument for objective morality as an argument supporting the notion that all morality is subjective.

A large part of our so-called moral action is based purely in our collective desire to survive and thrive as a species. We know that there are acts that thwart that shared goal. Now, using this definition, we use reason to determine that certain acts are antithetical to our survival as a species and a society. These are, in large part, codified into law but are ingrained into us over millennia of both evolution as a social species and social development and advancement. This does not make them objective but shared. If they were objective and universal there would be no difference in the legal and moral codes of the entire human race but we know that not to be the case.

"Shared" doesn't mean that it's the way things ought to be. It just means that if you hold a moral value opposite of the majority you are just different. I disagree with what you said about differences in legal and moral codes. Since when has it been morally permissible to punish an innocent? Since when has it been justifiable to kill somebody without sufficient cause?

If this code were 'self evident' as you claim, then we would again have a universal moral system but again, this is not the case. You have no reference for your moral code except your own personal revelations and assumptions. As good as that might be, it's still subjective within your psyche, not objective and universal to the entire human race.

Our moral code is both objective and subjective. Believing that eating meat is wrong is an example of a highly subjective moral standard while believing that torturing someone for fun is immoral is an objective moral standard.

If it is objective, universal, and self-evident as you say it is, then why is your moral code not found in every society and every population on earth?

Let me ask you a question. Is slavery moral?

The existence of objective morality doesn't exclude the existence of subjective morality. The exclusion of objective morality means that all morality is necessarily subjective.

There are objective moral codes found in every society. Can you point out one society that thought it was morally permissible to rape infants? Is this evidently a subjective or objective moral standard?

No, slavery is not moral. I hold that all mean are created equal and that the truth of that is self-evident.

1. " There are objective moral codes found in every society. Can you point out one society that thought it was morally permissible to rape infants? Is this evidently a subjective or objective moral standard?"
As I pointed out, protection of the young is an instinctive reaction to provide for survival of the species. It goes well beyond the human race and if you ever try to attack a wolf's cubs you'd find that out quickly. That instinct, virtually universal, has been honed and developed by our evolutionary heritage and by our social nature so that it seems as if it should be present in everyone. Unfortunately, since it is not objective and not universal, there are those who do it.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral? If so, why? On what grounds is this evidently a subjective rather than objective moral standard?

Saying that raping an infant is subjectively immoral because somebody has raped an infant before is a faulty argument. By saying this you make the assumption that people *just can't* behave in ways that they know are immoral. One simply rebuttal of this is that people cheat on their significant others all the time despite knowing that it was wrong to do so.

2. "No, slavery is not moral. I hold that all mean are created equal and that the truth of that is self-evident."
Yet for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years great civilizations kept slaves. It was considered moral and normal, up until very recently. Tell me why that happened if it is an objective moral statement, self-evident, that slavery is wrong?

As I said in the previous topic, slavery was abolished solely on the grounds that it was self-evidently wrong. People had incentives (free slave labor = big $$$) and justification - the person was not a human being ( 3/5 compromise) to condone slavery. So they never believed it was moral they just justified it by dehumanizing them and their selfish motivations of profit.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 2:34:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

"Shared" doesn't mean that it's the way things ought to be. It just means that if you hold a moral value opposite of the majority you are just different. I disagree with what you said about differences in legal and moral codes. Since when has it been morally permissible to punish an innocent? Since when has it been justifiable to kill somebody without sufficient cause?

If this code were 'self evident' as you claim, then we would again have a universal moral system but again, this is not the case. You have no reference for your moral code except your own personal revelations and assumptions. As good as that might be, it's still subjective within your psyche, not objective and universal to the entire human race.

Our moral code is both objective and subjective. Believing that eating meat is wrong is an example of a highly subjective moral standard while believing that torturing someone for fun is immoral is an objective moral standard.

If it is objective, universal, and self-evident as you say it is, then why is your moral code not found in every society and every population on earth?

Let me ask you a question. Is slavery moral?

The existence of objective morality doesn't exclude the existence of subjective morality. The exclusion of objective morality means that all morality is necessarily subjective.

There are objective moral codes found in every society. Can you point out one society that thought it was morally permissible to rape infants? Is this evidently a subjective or objective moral standard?

No, slavery is not moral. I hold that all mean are created equal and that the truth of that is self-evident.

1. " There are objective moral codes found in every society. Can you point out one society that thought it was morally permissible to rape infants? Is this evidently a subjective or objective moral standard?"
As I pointed out, protection of the young is an instinctive reaction to provide for survival of the species. It goes well beyond the human race and if you ever try to attack a wolf's cubs you'd find that out quickly. That instinct, virtually universal, has been honed and developed by our evolutionary heritage and by our social nature so that it seems as if it should be present in everyone. Unfortunately, since it is not objective and not universal, there are those who do it.

Is raping an infant subjectively immoral? If so, why? On what grounds is this evidently a subjective rather than objective moral standard?

Saying that raping an infant is subjectively immoral because somebody has raped an infant before is a faulty argument. By saying this you make the assumption that people *just can't* behave in ways that they know are immoral. One simply rebuttal of this is that people cheat on their significant others all the time despite knowing that it was wrong to do so.

2. "No, slavery is not moral. I hold that all mean are created equal and that the truth of that is self-evident."
Yet for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years great civilizations kept slaves. It was considered moral and normal, up until very recently. Tell me why that happened if it is an objective moral statement, self-evident, that slavery is wrong?

As I said in the previous topic, slavery was abolished solely on the grounds that it was self-evidently wrong. People had incentives (free slave labor = big $$$) and justification - the person was not a human being ( 3/5 compromise) to condone slavery. So they never believed it was moral they just justified it by dehumanizing them and their selfish motivations of profit.

1. "Saying that raping an infant is subjectively immoral because somebody has raped an infant before is a faulty argument." Re-read. That's not my argument.

2. "As I said in the previous topic, slavery was abolished solely on the grounds that it was self-evidently wrong. People had incentives (free slave labor = big $$$) and justification - the person was not a human being ( 3/5 compromise) to condone slavery. So they never believed it was moral they just justified it by dehumanizing them and their selfish motivations of profit."
Of course the had incentive but this is still rationalization. Slave owners used their holy books and the rules from it to both justify their actions and, yes, punish the innocent. All a slave had to do was look at the owner or his representative in a way they didn't like and they could be whipped. As long as they didn't die, the rules in their holy book said that was ok. They were property, not people. Call it what you want, rationalize it however you wish, it was considered 'moral' by their 'objective' standard given to them by their deity, just as you have one.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 4:17:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 11:38:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:06:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
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.

Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.

There is one gigantic gap between you and God. His nature is pure, holy, good, wise; yours is not. It is flawed and lacks wisdom. If He likes something then it is good. You are not fully self aware of, nor do you know, all things. He is fully self aware and knows all things. Your subjective values are of a subjective nature and change because you are not the source of all things created and you do not know them fully. His values are objective/true to His nature since He is the source of creation and understand everything He has made perfectly and His nature does not change for it is what makes Him God. Thus in Him is truth and light and love and righteousness and wisdom and knowledge. To know Him is to know goodness. To reject Him is to open oneself to the possibility of every kind of evil.

Peter

Still waiting for you to show me what I asked.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 4:18:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 11:39:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:06:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
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.

Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.

God is the source but morality isn't God's opinion. Morality derives from God's absolute nature. Anything absolute can never be anything other that what it is.

What is the source of Gods nature?
Danielle
Posts: 26,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 4:31:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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?

This is a good OP - thanks for starting this dialog.

Without a definitive source of absolute morality, there is no reason to prefer one moral claim over another. The difference between entropy and the laws of gravity are that they are descriptors that proclaim how things ARE, not how they should be. An objective moral law, i.e. a code for figuring out the proper course of action, would indicate an objective goal or value we are trying to achieve or figure out using the laws of morality. However goals and values are subjective to individuals. I think it's a fallacious to compare physics and ethics.
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 5:20:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 9:52:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 2:58:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

This is a contradiction. If we ought to save humanity then we ought to rape a baby (as the scenario requires). You didn't directly answer my question. Would the person who raped the baby to save humanity be considered immoral? If no, then it shows that baby rape is not absolutely immoral. Your last sentence "it still ought not be done" comes from a mindset in which the scenario doesn't apply. I agree with you, we ought not to rape babies. But if this scenario becomes a reality well ... we ought to save humanity, right?

If we ought to save humanity then the best that could be said is that we ought to do something that we ought not to do. The thing that we still ought not to do is rape the baby. The act itself doesn't become something we ought to do. Just as a woman being held at gunpoint doesn't ought to be raped just because she'll be killed if she doesn't submit otherwise.

Making the contradiction more succinct doesn't make your statement any less of a contradiction. You continue to directly avoid my question of the morality of the situation. You turn to "ought" which doesn't necessarily pertain to morality. Like you ought not eat 20 hot dogs in one sitting, you ought to learn how to dance etc.

We should define love and what that entails. Also define moral, because depending on the scenario it may not be moral to love grandma.

Moral is right or good. Love is wishing good for something.

Good and right need to be defined, because

Good: to be desired or approved of.

Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable.

So let me get this straight.

Moral = Good
Right = Good
Good = To be desired or approved of

So then anything that can be Justified, Acceptable, Desired or approved of is Good/Right/Moral.

Given the baby rape scenario it is justified, desired and approved of so it is good.

Isn't that a scenario? I don't understand how it wouldn't be applicable when considering objective morality. If you argue that objective morality doesn't exist it follows necessarily that all conceivable scenarios are subjectively immoral.

No, it's an act. Baby rape by itself has no context. That's why when i put the act on the context of aliens it becomes morally gray. If you had said homicide, the act of killing a human being, it would also not help because it is devoid of context (say like self defense). The argument is not that all scenarios are necessarily moral or immoral. We need context to understand. And context is not necessarily absolute/universal/objective. That's why I put the acts into context. Depending on how much I love my racist grandma I could be perpetuating racism. That would be bad based on my values.

Well you yourself said "tired baby rape scenario" then went on to say that it wasn't a scenario. Objective morality is an argument that doesn't concern itself with context. "Killing without necessary justification is immoral" would be an example of objective morality. Moral absolutism is where something is immoral regardless of context like "it's always wrong to kill."

Because the act requires a scenario, acts just don't happen in a void. Objective morality and moral absolutism are the same as far as I'm concerned, they concern acts and acts require context to make sense.

"Killing w/o necessary justification" is putting the act of homicide into more context. The act of killing is neither moral or immoral until you put it into context. Frankly I wonder what the criteria for "justified" is. That caveat sounds like you can brand a lot of innocent people ripe for killing. For example in war a lot of innocents die, but is war justifiable? Or perhaps there are no innocents in war?

Yes but this doesn't really make sense to me because I'm arguing against objective morality. Also what is intrinsic meaning?

Intrinsic meaning means that things are valued just for being the thing that they are. A baby will have value without any extrinsic value given to it. There is no extrinsic value criteria that a baby needs in order to be valued.

Says who? Infanticide is committed all the time in the name of group survival. Does the group not have more value than a baby? I think when you're talking about values you're not talking about objective/absolute morality, I think you're just talking about your values.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 9:22:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Saying that raping an infant is subjectively immoral because somebody has raped an infant before is a faulty argument. By saying this you make the assumption that people *just can't* behave in ways that they know are immoral. One simply rebuttal of this is that people cheat on their significant others all the time despite knowing that it was wrong to do so.

Do you even know what you argue about? morality could be subjective or objective the point is that no matter which one you subscribe to neither was handed down from a supernatural being. Why religious people feel the need to say that a supernatural entity has to tell us what is right and wrong is ludicrous. The fact is that a society must have some form of morality in order to continue to exist, period. if we as a human species didn't have subjective morality then we would have died out and become extinct. We as a species had gotten down to a few thousand on earth and if we thought that incest rape and murder were ok we would have ceased to exist. Lucky for us our ancestors during this period didn't derive their morality from a book or religion. The bible says incest is ok, not only that it says that it is the way to populate the world. The bible says that rape is ok and not only condones it but gives instruction on it. the bible says that killing entire groups of people is ok as long as you hear voices in your head that make you think a sky god is telling you to which is also spelled out in the bible and Qur'an.

As I said in the previous topic, slavery was abolished solely on the grounds that it was self-evidently wrong. People had incentives (free slave labor = big $$$) and justification - the person was not a human being ( 3/5 compromise) to condone slavery. So they never believed it was moral they just justified it by dehumanizing them and their selfish motivations of profit.

just plain wrong slavery was not abolished solely on the grounds that it was self-evidently wrong. Don't you think it was self evidently wrong from the get go? of course it was, but it was established by mankind who then established gods and wrote books like the bible to give it a perceived divine warrant. Yes people had incentives mainly $$, but the primary justification for slavery was the bible. The bible even contains instructions for the slaves, which the slave owners used to show the slaves "what god wanted".
did you seriously just say that a justification for slavery was the 3/5 compromise? WTF, could you please know what you are talking about before you talk on something. the 3/5 compromise came in 1787 by then there had been centuries upon centuries of slavery. You can't say that it was a justification for slavery in America, because again slavery in America began in Jamestown VA in 1619. so why in the world would they need a justification for something they had been doing for over 150 years? They had their justification. RELIGION.
For your knowledge the 3/5 compromise made states want more slaves because it was all about representation in congress. the higher the population of a state the more seats it was rewarded, and if they had more slaves, which counted for 3/5 of a person they unfairly got more seats in congress. this did not justify slavery at all, slavery was already justified, what the compromise did was make states want more and more slaves. they never believed it was moral, wrong again many many many people did believe that it was moral. They were dogmatic and actually believed that god wanted them to own slaves. They considered the slaves property and used bible vs to condone slavery, which are absolutely there. The good thing Is that since the bible is the word of man and not of a god, and thus contains tons of silly stories and hundreds of contradictions, the same bible was used to be the main catalyst in the abolition of slavery. Amazing how you can make that book say anything you want.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 9:31:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 1:54:16 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:09:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:18:39 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
What is contained in the Old Testament is a shadow and type of what was coming and has come, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son, the living Word. He is the reality of the types and shadows of the Old Testament or covenant. We see a picture or shadow of the reality that is Christ in every book and probably every page of the OT. So I do not take any stock in your assertion that Buddhism predated Christianity because it did not predate the Son who Christianity has as its source.

Denying facts makes you look extremely silly, everyone knows that Buddhism predates Christianity by over 500 years, Judaism predates it by more than 1200 years and Hinduism predates Christianity by nearly 2000 years. no serious Christian who cares anything about the truth would say anything so obviously false as you just did.

We know from Scripture that Moses gathered the records of the genealogies from earlier accounts when he wrote the Torah. We also know from other ancient records that there were creation and flood accounts that have similarities with the OT accounts. It is not unreasonable to believe that many of these accounts were transmitted by word of mouth until they were put into written form. God gave Moses the task of writing a true account.

Genesis 5:1
[ Descendants of Adam ] This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.


Genesis 6:9
These are the records of the generations of Noah.


Genesis 10:1
[ Descendants of Noah ] Now these are the records of the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah; and sons were born to them after the flood.


Genesis 11:10
[ Descendants of Shem ] These are the records of the generations of Shem.


Genesis 11:27
Now these are the records of the generations of Terah.


Genesis 25:12
[ Descendants of Ishmael ] Now these are the records of the generations of Ishmael, Abraham"s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah"s maid, bore to Abraham;


Genesis 25:19
[ Isaac"s Sons ] Now these are the records of the generations of Isaac, Abraham"s son: Abraham became the father of Isaac;


Genesis 36:1
[ Esau Moves ] Now these are the records of the generations of Esau (that is, Edom).

Genesis 36:9
[ Descendants of Esau ] These then are the records of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir.


And on it goes. Moses took these records that had been handed down and included them in the Torah.

if someone writes something a week before you did and you come along and write the same basic story then you are guilty of plagiarism. Christianity borrowed stories from several different traditions and even greek mythology.

That is not the way the Bible portrays it. The Messiah would descend from the tribes of Israel to save Him people. This is what happens.

Since there were a number of false accounts, God, in His revelation to man, gives Moses and the OT authors a true account of His dealings. He pick a certain people in order to make Himself known to the world through.

Both you and I presuppose something and we both draw on a different authority so don't give me this plagiarism and borrowed stories BS. As I have shown, there were accounts in place that Moses used to give a genealogical record of Jesus' human lineage. Whose to say which came first, these other accounts or the biblical one, and although there are similarities they differ from the biblical account. Oral tradition spread these accounts across the known world and because of that although they had similarities they also differed. Someone put into written form the particular version they heard.

Are you simple?

Maybe, but I'm not stupid. You are 43 years old. How long have you researched the biblical account or did you dismiss it on someone elses account?

if god revealed himself to the first man and woman (adam and eve) then adam and eve populated the world, and then noah and his family re-repopulated the world speaking from first hand direct conversations with the god of christianity then where in the hell did all the other religions come from?

Religions came from man making a god or gods in his image and likeness instead of worshiping the true and living God and obeying Him.

not only did the other religions get started when they shouldn't have if what you were true, but even if they did, then one would certainly expect that they would come decades or centuries after Christianity and borrow from it, but the exact opposite is true.

There have always been false religions since the Fall and mans rejection of God.

Galatians 4:4New (NASB)
4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,


The Son was sent, the child born.

Isaiah 9:6 (NASB)
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.


prophecy fulfilled?

Exactly!

Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

You are making an argument from silence, 2000 years removed. He is certainly called God.

John 20:28 (NASB)
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"


The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, when god was his father not Joseph remember the Virgin Birth?

He met the requirements both through His mother, Mary and through adoption by Joseph into his family line. I'll provide the link below for the rest of your inquires.

The argument is made in more detail here:

http://christianthinktank.com...

nonsense

Ditto.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 9:47:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 4:17:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:38:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:06:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
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.

Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.

There is one gigantic gap between you and God. His nature is pure, holy, good, wise; yours is not. It is flawed and lacks wisdom. If He likes something then it is good. You are not fully self aware of, nor do you know, all things. He is fully self aware and knows all things. Your subjective values are of a subjective nature and change because you are not the source of all things created and you do not know them fully. His values are objective/true to His nature since He is the source of creation and understand everything He has made perfectly and His nature does not change for it is what makes Him God. Thus in Him is truth and light and love and righteousness and wisdom and knowledge. To know Him is to know goodness. To reject Him is to open oneself to the possibility of every kind of evil.

Peter

Still waiting for you to show me what I asked.

The difference between you and God is that you need His objective, universal, benevolent, omniscient, unchanging point of reference to actually have goodness. Without Him your "good" means nothing to me. Why "should" your dictates determine what I do and especially from a worldview that has as its origin blind, unguided, random happenstance. It can't make sense of its beginnings.

Peter
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 10:38:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 9:47:22 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 4:17:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:38:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:06:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
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.

Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.

There is one gigantic gap between you and God. His nature is pure, holy, good, wise; yours is not. It is flawed and lacks wisdom. If He likes something then it is good. You are not fully self aware of, nor do you know, all things. He is fully self aware and knows all things. Your subjective values are of a subjective nature and change because you are not the source of all things created and you do not know them fully. His values are objective/true to His nature since He is the source of creation and understand everything He has made perfectly and His nature does not change for it is what makes Him God. Thus in Him is truth and light and love and righteousness and wisdom and knowledge. To know Him is to know goodness. To reject Him is to open oneself to the possibility of every kind of evil.

Peter

Still waiting for you to show me what I asked.

The difference between you and God is that you need His objective, universal, benevolent, omniscient, unchanging point of reference to actually have goodness. Without Him your "good" means nothing to me. Why "should" your dictates determine what I do and especially from a worldview that has as its origin blind, unguided, random happenstance. It can't make sense of its beginnings.

Peter

You dropped this when I first asked you, and I know why.

If God is omniscient, He knows all.
If He is Benevolent, and full of Goodness, there is no reason for Him to tempt or cause suffering.

This 'all knowing' 'full of Goodness' Entity that you are claiming is the moral anchor of your world view asked one of his followers to kill his own son to demonstrate his dedication to Him. God did this, KNOWING what the outcome would be before it was even asked, and that Abraham was ALREADY dedicated, and WOULD kill his son, His omniscience told Him that... but He asked anyways. Your All Good God tempted His dedicated follower into murder of his own son for literally no reason, the outcome of such an event was already known to Him.

THAT is your frame work for 'Good', 'Loving', 'Benevolent'.

Should you have kids, will you ever find it 'Good, 'Loving', or 'Benevolent' to ask them to kill a pet that they might have to demonstrate their love for you?

Me, on the other hand, I don't need that kind of vain glorious ego stroking, but I consider myself to be a decent moral guy. I can safely say your God isn't, from that moral context.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:33:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 9:47:22 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 4:17:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:38:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 11:06:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:56:09 PM, PGA wrote:
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.

Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.

There is one gigantic gap between you and God. His nature is pure, holy, good, wise; yours is not. It is flawed and lacks wisdom. If He likes something then it is good. You are not fully self aware of, nor do you know, all things. He is fully self aware and knows all things. Your subjective values are of a subjective nature and change because you are not the source of all things created and you do not know them fully. His values are objective/true to His nature since He is the source of creation and understand everything He has made perfectly and His nature does not change for it is what makes Him God. Thus in Him is truth and light and love and righteousness and wisdom and knowledge. To know Him is to know goodness. To reject Him is to open oneself to the possibility of every kind of evil.

Peter

Still waiting for you to show me what I asked.

The difference between you and God is that you need His objective, universal, benevolent, omniscient, unchanging point of reference to actually have goodness. Without Him your "good" means nothing to me. Why "should" your dictates determine what I do and especially from a worldview that has as its origin blind, unguided, random happenstance. It can't make sense of its beginnings.

Peter

Your god's good includes infanticide.
HUGE FAIL.
You can go over there with the cannibals.
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2014 11:37:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 2:16:47 AM, PGA wrote

You need the education.

Why are you wasting you time on this site if that is the way you feel? Do you feel your intellectual position is superior to mine and every other intellectual?

I do not feel my "intellectual position is superior" to yours. I can just back up my position with empirical data and you cannot.

I feel I can justify the biblical position or else I would not believe it or the God revealed in it. My position is not one of blind faith.

Then do it. Walk the walk.

I will make the claim that you speak of things you know very little about. Prove me wrong or I will dismiss your wild assertions for what they are.

Please detail those "things" I know very little about. I am quite happy to debate you on any of these religious topics you so enthusiastically champion. List them and I will address your challenges appropriately.

You say your position is NOT one of blind faith ( pretending to know something you cannot possibly know).... prove it. Show me the evidence. Show me the objective data from which ALL can make an unbiased decision about YOUR god and belief structure. We're all waiting with unbridled anticipation.
Peter
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 2:38:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 9:31:12 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 1:54:16 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/26/2014 12:09:30 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/26/2014 10:18:39 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
What is contained in the Old Testament is a shadow and type of what was coming and has come, the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son, the living Word. He is the reality of the types and shadows of the Old Testament or covenant. We see a picture or shadow of the reality that is Christ in every book and probably every page of the OT. So I do not take any stock in your assertion that Buddhism predated Christianity because it did not predate the Son who Christianity has as its source.

My goodness I was right you are simple, first it is not My assertion that Buddhism predated Christianity it is a historical fact. Buddhism began between 560 and 480 BCE Judaism began between 1300 and 1500 BCE -- BCE meaning before common era which replaced the now politically incorrect BC or before Christ. The years remained the same. So to break it down for you 1300 years before Christ and 480 years before Christ means they came before this "son" you keep mentioning which would be jesus. Why would you destroy all of your credibility by continually trying to deny something that not a single Christian scholar would. These are historical facts not legends.


We know from Scripture that Moses gathered the records of the genealogies from earlier accounts when he wrote the Torah. We also know from other ancient records that there were creation and flood accounts that have similarities with the OT accounts. It is not unreasonable to believe that many of these accounts were transmitted by word of mouth until they were put into written form. God gave Moses the task of writing a true account.

you state these things as fact. Well here is a fact for you not even the Christian scholars of today claim that the stories in the genesis account are to be taken literally. They don't believe that adam and eve were real persons and further moses or noah. no exodus, no boat, no tree of knowledge and certainly no talking snakes or burning bushes.
I have asked the question before why your god didn't know that the earth was not flat and many more questions like this and of course got no answers.

Please know that you prove nothing by asserting that whatever is in the bible is historical fact. If you know so much about it as you claim then address all of the nonsense like a flat earth, and all of the killing of children ordered by god, and all of the rape, and slavery condoned by god
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 3:06:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The difference between you and God is that you need His objective, universal, benevolent, omniscient, unchanging point of reference to actually have goodness. Without Him your "good" means nothing to me. Why "should" your dictates determine what I do and especially from a worldview that has as its origin blind, unguided, random happenstance. It can't make sense of its beginnings.

nobody needs your god or his objective blah blah blah, we don't need his, we don't need it from zeus, we don't need it from allah , Muhammad, jesus, xenu, joseph smith Poseidon, aries, thor or any of the other fake made up gods people invent. Societies
good" may not mean much to you, but if you act rationally and morally and don't go around raping and killing just because you think some sky god doesn't want you to then you are certainly not a good person by nature. not only that if you think that a story about talking snakes, or the repopulation story that everyone in the world is descended from incest in noahs family, then you are a very gullible person who has the capacity to believe anything. Still think santa is real too?

finally who cares whether or not you think our good means anything or not, our good is the good of society and thus is backed up by little pesky things called laws. So go against them and see if your god will get you out of prison. Remember he says you can rape, go ahead try it, and while you rot away in jail, tell the 6'5" 300 pound cell mate they give you how much god loves you both as he whispers in your ear how much he loves you as he pounds you from behind. Of course prayers will ease the pain.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?

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