Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:121-150|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 10:21:14 AM
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.

Once again, this has nothing to do with the point of my question. I asked you to show me how your "objective" morality is anything more than the subjective desires of your God, and you answer that by telling me that God is objective. I'll take that as a demonstration that you have no answer to the very problem that you demand non-believers solve.

My dictates should have no bearing on what you do, that comes from you. Why is it so difficult to understand that morality does not need to be commanded to you?
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 11:27:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 11:37:35 PM, MEK wrote:
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.

But I can. I can do this with God's word. I start with prophecy.

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.

It takes work to establish my position since God is the core that everything else sits upon. Are you willing to go there? I don't want to start down hundreds of difference rabbit trails that you will take me on. I favor starting with one of two of my foundational beliefs. I choose prophecy because of its nature, its truth. That would be God predicting things that happen before they happen with amazing consistency.

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.

The intricate and united prophecy of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 that radiates out into the whole Bible.

You say your position is NOT one of blind faith ( pretending to know something you cannot possibly know).... prove it. Show me the evidence.

My contention is the evidence and logic support the Preterist view of Scripture and that all the prophesies of the OT were fulfilled by AD 70. Every prophecy of Matthew 24 was fulfilled by AD 70 also. Once you start to realize this the Bible comes together like no other book. It becomes so consistent that such reasoning is hard to dispute without revealing the internal inconsistency of all such refutation.

http://www.debate.org...

Show me I am wrong about AD 70. The internal evidence from the Bible plus the external evidence of history is hard to refute successfully without running into logical inconsistencies and will handcuff you if I am correct in what I say.

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.

No decision is unbiased. There is no neutrality. Your worldview is built upon foundational beliefs that all other beliefs rest upon and are filtered through. Ideas are not formed in a vacuum. They are built on the way you look at the world from these core beliefs so they are influenced through these core beliefs. You look for and accept evidence that support these basic beliefs and filter the rest out. Facts need interpretation. That don't come already interpreted.

In establishing that your beliefs are wrong I would have to show you the inconsistency and irrational nature of them. It takes a lot of work because most people are unwilling - there is a lot at stake (That is why people can get very protective when a core belief they thought was true is exposed and starts to unravel). What is at stake is your very foundational building blocks, what your whole foundation rests upon. If you are found to be wrong in these core beliefs then you will have to make a choice, you can either hang onto beliefs that you know to be wrong because of their logical inconsistency and inability to make sense of things or your can abandon them and replace them with new ones by starting over with a new base. Are you willing to go there, to test your ideas concerning the Bible? I like to start with specific prophesies because of how they are intrinsically related to and provide a hub that their spokes connect to every other part of the Bible.

Matthew 7:24-29New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Two Foundations

24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell"and great was its fall."

28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.


Are you ready to test the stability of your worldview with a little wind and flood action?

One of my presupposition core beliefs is that the biblical God is the one and only true God. I feel the best way for me to show this is to show you that His word is true, thus objective. So I would have to start with that as one of my basic presuppositional core beliefs in achieving my aim of establishing this objectivity. Are you willing to go there?

If you are willing to go there then would you agree that if the Bible is what it claims to be, the revelation of God, and this God who He has revealed Himself to be, good, holy and true, then the evidence would be objective, we could know for certain because an all knowing being who has said He is good, pure, holy, and true, incapable of lying, has told us what is through this written revelation?

Can you agree with this or not? If not your worldview will not allow me to go there because your worldview has already been made up, predetermined, not willing to examine its foundation. In such a case you will filter everything through your already established beliefs, even when the evidence does not favor them and makes them irrational and nonsensical to believe. In other words, you will not be open to finding flaws in your way of thinking that hinge on your starting points, your foundational blocks that everything else rests on and is filtered through.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 12:10:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 2:38:25 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
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.

Christianity is based on a Person and His teachings. We follow Him. Do you agree with this or not?

Christian revelation tells us that Christ, the Jewish Messiah, found in every book of the OT, the Law of Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets, predates the OT. Do you agree that the NT Scriptures reveal this or not? If they and the Scriptures are true (I put the "if" in there for your benefit, not mine because I am 100% convinced the Scriptures are true) then do you agree that if true His teaching predates that of Buddhism?

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.

Yeah, politically incorrect, which means squat.

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.

Because the Scriptures teach that Christ, the Messiah, the Son, existed before the world. If this can be established with reason and can be demonstrated to be true then the Son predates all other religious beliefs.

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.

So do you. Facts need interpretation. They don't tell you that the Son existed or did not exist before Buddhism. If you believe He existed and is who He claimed to be then you interpret the "facts" in light of this supposition. If you do not then you interpret them in light of some other supposition. The point is that neither you nor I was around to verify these "facts" or this data. We make up our minds on the evidence and the inferences we draw from that evidence. Stop your BSing.

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.

It depends on which scholars you are speaking of. You can heap as many scholars to your side as you wish to and I can do the same thing. What will that prove? It will confirm what your core beliefs rest upon, just as it will with me. You are not neutral, neither am I. So we need to examine these core beliefs.

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.

They interpret the accounts from a certain disposition and presuppositional basis.

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.

It is a senseless question because you have already confirmed it based on where you start.

Of course He did or He would not be God, the greatest conceivable Being of which no greater can be thought of. The problem with you is you don't understand the context and the culture so you take such sayings as wooden literalism.

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

I'm not going down your rabbit trails. It takes a lot of work that I'm not prepared to take the time to do right now. I have been down these rabbit trails with other people and I have found that their presuppositions foundational beliefs get in the way. They filter everything through such beliefs that are inconsistent when you peal them back to see the ones everything else rests on. That is where I tend to go and work on exposing this worldview foundation bias that all else rests with.

I believe only one worldview is capable of making sense of its core, foundational presuppositions (the ones that everything else rests on and are filtered through).

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 12:40:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 3:06:07 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
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.

Obviously some do or they would not believe what they do. I agree we don't need fake gods of which the biblical God is not.

Societies
good" may not mean much to you, but if you act rationally and morally

That is the whole point isn't it. Who determines "good?" You? Based on your subjective feelings? Why are they "right?" What unchanging standard do you base your sense of "right" upon?

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?

God never raped or murdered anyone. The life He holds in His hands, and has the right to take because He created it, He will not take or allow to be taken through His permissive will without restoring it. If an innocent life, one without sin, is taken He will restore it to fellowship with Him. If the life He takes is guilty of wrong then that life will be separated from His presence forever.

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.

You care or else you would not be making your points so vehemently. Your points betray the foundational origin/starting position on which your worldview rests and is built upon - a mindless, irrational, uncaring universe - yet you fail to realize this.

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.

God has never condoned rape. The people He chose to make Himself known to the world where guilty of it and He permitted it for a purpose (since the Fall God has been showing man the evil man does because He has abandoned Him as the source of all things), yet He teaches over and over that man should love God first and foremost, and then his neighbor as himself. Man has chosen to reject this. Instead one man decides to eat his neighbor and another to love him. Which do you prefer? Without this universal, unchanging reference that is God it all boils down to one mans subjective preference over another mans and enforcing that preference through might. It is the law of the jungle - the strong survive.

So don't give me your carp about how you don't care. You do despite your presuppositional starting points. You keep borrowing from my starting points that says there is an objective, universal, unchanging ultimate standard to make sense of anything for your whole worldview implodes upon itself when its core beliefs are untangled and unraveled for what they are and what they rest upon.

Here you are using the very mind that God has granted you to backbite and slap Him in the face. You get what you give - as you sow, so shall you reap. Do you think God is going to allow you into His perfect presence as you scream and cry fowl all the while polluting His perfect peace? You have forgotten your place. You are the creature, you have a beginning, you are finite in your understanding.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 1:10:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 10:21:14 AM, Double_R wrote:
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.

Once again, this has nothing to do with the point of my question. I asked you to show me how your "objective" morality is anything more than the subjective desires of your God, and you answer that by telling me that God is objective. I'll take that as a demonstration that you have no answer to the very problem that you demand non-believers solve.

I have stated that God is necessary and you have demonstrated just that because you have not been able to make sense of morality as anything other than your saber rattling that comes from your presuppositional origins - blind, indifferent, mindless evolution and a universe that shows more of the same blind, indifferent, uncaring, irrationality to it because it has no purpose, no agency no intent to do anything and sustain it. From your worldview cores beliefs it just happens - no rhyme, no reason - bang, here it is!

In order for a fact to be seen for what it is we need to see it in its true light. Why does your subjective mind know what is right and good? Is it because of your subjective preference and that of others or is there an unchanging right and good that it can appeal to? If not then I don't see how what you say and believe as being good can be justified other than by using force to do that. But is using force good in and of itself because this seems to be your recoil. As soon as I tell you your beliefs about abortion or same-sex marriage are wrong if this objective, absolute, universal Being exists who we derive all else from you immediately challenge me. Why are you right and what is the unchanging values that you place rightness upon? You don't have any. So if my "values" oppose your "values" then who is actually right? It makes rightness arbitrary and senseless and the only way you are going to make me do what you like is be bashing my head in or getting someone else who likes the same things you do to do it for you. And that is what I witness on these debate forums. I witness people with preferences trying to bash someone's head in who does not agree with their belief system, yet they cannot justify their belief system. God is necessary to justify a belief system, otherwise all you have is your tastes opposed to mine.

And if you are what your worldview leads you to believe you are I don't see how you can even get there from such a worldview basis that originates from mindless, irrational, uncaring matter plus energy without meaning, intent or purpose. You can't and in the process of trying to get there you have to heap a whole bunch of irrational presuppositions one on the other.

My dictates should have no bearing on what you do, that comes from you. Why is it so difficult to understand that morality does not need to be commanded to you?

If my dictates come from me then you are most definitely wrong based on my likes. If my dictates come from me then I will fight tooth and claw to establish those dictates no matter what it takes. If my dictates come from me and yours come from you without any universal, absolute, all knowing, benevolent, unchanging God then your life has no ultimate meaning, neither does mine. Do what you want. Fly a plane into a building if you like! Exterminate 6 million Jews if you can! Enforce whatever you like if it is within your ability! It is this kind of mentality we see so much of in our world. Morality has no fixed address with this kind of thinking. Good can mean anything, so can evil, until evil is perpetrated against you personally, then it becomes a definite evil.

You have no fixed standard, nothing to base good on but the changing whims of those who command you do what they like, yet when God commands you freak out. And His commands are based on unchanging universal goodness - Himself.

The problem with your worldview is that it does not see its inconsistencies and its lack of ability to make sense of itself.

Peter
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 2:15:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 4:18:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
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?

God is an eternal being that has always had an objective nature. Asking for the source of God's nature would be to ask for the source of God. God is beginningless and has no source. The absolute nature of an all-truthful being never changes so to say that morality is derived from God's personal likes and dislikes implies that God can do things that are contrary to his objective and absolute nature.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 2:27:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 1:10:34 PM, PGA wrote:
I have stated that God is necessary and you have demonstrated just that because you have not been able to make sense of morality as anything other than your saber rattling that comes from your presuppositional origins - blind, indifferent, mindless evolution and a universe that shows more of the same blind, indifferent, uncaring, irrationality to it because it has no purpose, no agency no intent to do anything and sustain it. From your worldview cores beliefs it just happens - no rhyme, no reason - bang, here it is!

Your point?

In order for a fact to be seen for what it is we need to see it in its true light. Why does your subjective mind know what is right and good? Is it because of your subjective preference and that of others or is there an unchanging right and good that it can appeal to? If not then I don't see how what you say and believe as being good can be justified other than by using force to do that. But is using force good in and of itself because this seems to be your recoil. As soon as I tell you your beliefs about abortion or same-sex marriage are wrong if this objective, absolute, universal Being exists who we derive all else from you immediately challenge me. Why are you right and what is the unchanging values that you place rightness upon?

That's the point of my challenges. If you wish to examine and determine whether the points I have made are right then you need to actually address them which you fail to do each time as demonstrated by the fact that you are still calling God "objective" while failing to understand that whether he is objective as a source for morality is the very point I am questioning you on.

God is necessary to justify a belief system, otherwise all you have is your tastes opposed to mine.

I am sorry that you don't like the idea of having nothing more than your tastes as opposed to mine, if that's true however then guess what... too bad. Deal with it. That's how truth works. All you and I can do is use our reason to determine what that truth is, I suggest you start doing that and stop giving me these meaningless appeals to emotion.

God does not justify an objective moral belief system, he justifies a subjective one. Once again... demonstrate how this is not the case. And try to do it without simply calling God objective.

If my dictates come from me and yours come from you without any universal, absolute, all knowing, benevolent, unchanging God then your life has no ultimate meaning, neither does mine. Do what you want. Fly a plane into a building if you like! Exterminate 6 million Jews if you can! Enforce whatever you like if it is within your ability! It is this kind of mentality we see so much of in our world. Morality has no fixed address with this kind of thinking. Good can mean anything, so can evil, until evil is perpetrated against you personally, then it becomes a definite evil.

Your point... other than the fact that this is not the world you wish to live in?

You have no fixed standard,

That's just plain stupid. I have a standard and have explained where it comes from. You don't like the answer so you reject it. Well reject it all you want, but don't sit here and tell me I don't have a standard because you can't figure out how to come up with one for yourself without a 2,000 year old book telling you what to think.

... yet when God commands you freak out.

I freak out when God commands me to be good just as you freak out when Santa Clause commands you to be good.

And His commands are based on unchanging universal goodness - Himself.

How did you determine that God is good?

The problem with your worldview is that it does not see its inconsistencies and its lack of ability to make sense of itself.

No, the problem is that the inconsistencies you see are the result of your own presuppositions blinding you form the point of view that I actually hold. Less speeches, more questions, and more listening and just maybe you will get it.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 2:32:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago


Christianity is based on a Person and His teachings. We follow Him. Do you agree with this or not?

as long as we doesn't include me, then I agree

Christian revelation tells us that Christ, the Jewish Messiah, found in every book of the OT, the Law of Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets, predates the OT. Do you agree that the NT Scriptures reveal this or not? If they and the Scriptures are true (I put the "if" in there for your benefit, not mine because I am 100% convinced the Scriptures are true) then do you agree that if true His teaching predates that of Buddhism?

That is the silliest nonsense I have ever heard, and believe me I have heard plenty.
No I don't agree that the NT scriptures reveal anything. I will grant that they SAY that. Now saying that simply because a book, and no matter what you believe the bible is just a book, tells stories about the first people on earth, who would of course have to predate any religion means that the religion making the claim is the oldest is about as silly as it gets.
I notice that you don't address the fact that for thousands of years people had language, and the bible says since human existence they had language, but the gods they wrote about, were Zeus and Athena and thor.
let's take the oldest "written down for your benefit" religion Hinduism which was written down or established over 2000 years before Christianity was written down or established. Please please please explain how or why the direct descendants of adam and eve, who would have had the benefit of oral tradition being handed down to them directly from adam and eve, who remember supposedly lived for over 900 years and would have been able to correctly give direct testimony to generation after generation about the god of Christianity, original sin, the snake, the naming of animals on and on and on. Again straight from the horses mouth (adam and eve) then cain, even abel for a short while and lamech and enoch and mahalaleel and their children, again first hand accounts passed down. and remember the bible says that these people lived 6 and 700 years with their children and grandchildren etc for almost 9 generations each. Explain how with all of this first hand descendent tradition any grandchild of adam and eve ever wrote down or established any religion other than Christianity. Hinduism was written down and established almost 500 years before the character moses was supposedly even born

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.

Yeah, politically incorrect, which means squat. true so l will just say before christ


Because the Scriptures teach that Christ, the Messiah, the Son, existed before the world. If this can be established with reason and can be demonstrated to be true then the Son predates all other religious beliefs.

problem is that this is what your book says and just because YOU believe what your book says, that doesn't make it true.
billions of people believe what the Qur'an says, does that make it true?
Mormons believe that a convicted con artist named joseph smith found some gold plates in new York and an angel helped him translate the plates into the book of Mormon although no one else was allowed to lay eyes upon them - Mormons believe this nonsense - does that make it true?
scientologists believe that an entity called xenu brought human beings to earth from outer space millions of years ago, does them believing it make it true?
hell no believing what is in the particular religious book of the faith you belong to in no way whatsoever makes it true, and that is the same whether you are talking about scientology - Christianity - or islam.
using your super flawed logic, the Qur'an teaches that it is the perfect word of god and that their prophets revelation came after your prophets revelation and he said that this would be the last and final revelation. Again does them believing it, and asserting it over and over make it true? hell no and neither does you believing in your book.

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.

again WE don't KNOW anything from scripture - YOU believe from scripture that ....................
again that is what YOU believe, but believing that means that you believe that for centuries and centuries god allowed people to establish several fake religions, and that these people were direct descendants of adam and eve, who for some unknown and very strange reason established every religion of the time, wrote them down, and then practiced them until moses came along, and then after "god gave moses the task of writing a true account" his cousins continued to follow their own separate religions, and this happened even after god killed everyone on earth in the flood these religions began in the lifetime of shem and would have had to be started by his children or grandchildren! how


So do you. Facts need interpretation. They don't tell you that the Son existed or did not exist before Buddhism. If you believe He existed and is who He claimed to be then you interpret the "facts" in light of this supposition. If you do not then you interpret them in light of some other supposition. The point is that neither you nor I was around to verify these "facts" or this data. We make up our minds on the evidence and the inferences we draw from that evidence. Stop your BSing.

facts don't need interpretation, facts are facts. how many people do you see arguing on websites or in live debates about who the first president of the united states was? no one. What does need interpretation are ancient books translated from one language to another. so if you believe the bible then you believe that Pontius pilate and the romans saw jesus and his supposed miracles yet were unconvinced that he was the messiah, you who admittedly weren't there, but are convinced -strange


It depends on which scholars you are speaking of. You can heap as many scholars to your side as you wish to and I can do the same thing. What will that prove? It will confirm what your core beliefs rest upon, just as it will with me. You are not neutral, neither am I. So we need to examine these core beliefs.
religious scholars was putting it nicely - look at any poll you want to. less than 30 percent of all Christians take the bible literally, meaning that they take the account of genesis metaphorically.
.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 2:35:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 2:15:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 4:18:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
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?

God is an eternal being that has always had an objective nature. Asking for the source of God's nature would be to ask for the source of God. God is beginningless and has no source. The absolute nature of an all-truthful being never changes so to say that morality is derived from God's personal likes and dislikes implies that God can do things that are contrary to his objective and absolute nature.

If God's nature has no source, and morality is based on his nature, then morality does not come from God.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 2:52:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2014 5:20:20 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
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.

It isn't a contradiction. Saving humanity is something we ought to do. Raping a baby is always something that we ought not to do. No matter what scenario is presented actually raping the baby is always something that ought not to be done.

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.

Raping a baby is never justified, desired, or to be approved of. The thing that is justified, desired, or to be approved of is saving humanity. This still doesn't make raping the baby anything that is justified, desired, or to be approved of anymore than a woman who is 'justifiably' raped by her attacker because she didn't want to die.

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.

"Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance."
http://en.wikipedia.org...


"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?

Do you believe that killing without justification is justifiable? If morality is subjective, as you seem to be arguing, this would be your position. Depending on the circumstance it may or not be justifiable - the objective remains the same.

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.

we're not talking about 'more value' but whether babies have any intrinsic worth at all. In order for objective morality to be true we can't be intrinsically worthless. It can't be true that we definitely ought to value a valueless thing. There are many good reasons to believe that babies and human life has intrinsic worth. Do you need any extrinsic value criteria in order to rescue a baby on the side of the road? Doesn't the controversy over abortion rest on the fact of whether or not a fetus is considered a human being? What criteria do we need to value a baby? None. Yet babies are still valued. Therefore the value is intrinsic.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 3:03:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 2:35:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/27/2014 2:15:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 4:18:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
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?

God is an eternal being that has always had an objective nature. Asking for the source of God's nature would be to ask for the source of God. God is beginningless and has no source. The absolute nature of an all-truthful being never changes so to say that morality is derived from God's personal likes and dislikes implies that God can do things that are contrary to his objective and absolute nature.

If God's nature has no source, and morality is based on his nature, then morality does not come from God.

By saying that if God's nature has 'no source' and reaching the conclusion that morality does not come from God, you're equivocating something sourceless to mean non-existent instead of beginningless. God's nature isn't conditional and has always existed.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 3:11:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
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.

They interpret the accounts from a certain disposition and presuppositional basis.
and so do you, you presuppose that the bible is the true and literal word of god

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.

It is a senseless question because you have already confirmed it based on where you start.

again no answer. and what I confirmed is that the bible says the earth has 4 corners

Of course He did or He would not be God, the greatest conceivable Being of which no greater can be thought of. The problem with you is you don't understand the context and the culture so you take such sayings as wooden literalism.

wrong again, I take the bible for what it actually is, a bunch of made up stories passed down and finally written down, then picked through and voted on for inclusion in a book that became known as the bible. while others that didn't "fit the story" were tossed aside.
The understanding the culture argument is one of your worst, and falls flat on its face. Remember that you assert that this is the word of your god. What culture is he from? I thought he was outside of space and time? if he is and his word today (the bible) is the same word he have 2000 years ago, then what exactly does the culture matter. Yes the CULTURE of the time was such that women were considered possessions, slavery was ok, rape was ok, all of which are condoned in the bible which you say is gods word. So what happened, I know that the culture has changed, I know that society has changed, so are you saying that god has changed his mind too? Are you saying that he used to think slavery, genocide, infanticide, rape and all the other atrocities in the bible were ok, but he has learned better now? If not please explain your "culture" statement. Secondly in what context does god say it is ok to commit genocide, infanticide, own slaves, and rape women, In what context do you claim your god thinks this is ok?


I'm not going down your rabbit trails. It takes a lot of work that I'm not prepared to take the time to do right now. I have been down these rabbit trails with other people and I have found that their presuppositions foundational beliefs get in the way. They filter everything through such beliefs that are inconsistent when you peal them back to see the ones everything else rests on. That is where I tend to go and work on exposing this worldview foundation bias that all else rests with.

typical Christian copout - you simply can't defend what you believe in. A historical fact is that king james the I had the bible rewritten in the early 1600s like 1603 and gave instructions to those doing the translations
before him martin luther no doubt a human just decided to take books out of the bible, these books known as the apocrypha did not meet his (martin luthers) approval and you still sit here and claim it to be the word of god - how?

I believe only one worldview is capable of making sense of its core, foundational presuppositions (the ones that everything else rests on and are filtered through).

how silly a statement is that? You Christians can't even agree with each other, let alone other religions. leave them out. Catholics (Christians) have a bible with 73 books while the protestant book has 66
then you have orthodox Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist and on and on and on - each having different "knowledge" of what the ONE GOD wants -- so which ONE worldview are you talking about?
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 3:22:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

God is an eternal being that has always had an objective nature. Asking for the source of God's nature would be to ask for the source of God. God is beginningless and has no source. The absolute nature of an all-truthful being never changes so to say that morality is derived from God's personal likes and dislikes implies that God can do things that are contrary to his objective and absolute nature.

If God's nature has no source, and morality is based on his nature, then morality does not come from God.

By saying that if God's nature has 'no source' and reaching the conclusion that morality does not come from God, you're equivocating something sourceless to mean non-existent instead of beginningless. God's nature isn't conditional and has always existed.

ben can you please tell us why you religious people assume that when debating the topic of religion vs whatever, be it cosmology, morality, again whatever, tell us why you think it is ok to just assert that god is outside of space and time, god is eternal, god has always been. How do you claim to have any honesty at all and continually think that because you have faith in a thing, then it is necessarily true. Not a single solitary shred of evidence exists to say that god is outside of space and time or has always existed, or is eternal, or whatever you claim.

we could say MORALITY has always existed
we could say the UNIVERSE has always existed
hell I could say that I have always existed - you can't prove I haven't, which still doesn't make it true
Please stop arguing from the stance of whatever I say is true
zeus had always existed and was eternal too until he hadn't and wasn't
you claim 6000 years and scientologists say xenu brought humans to earth from outer space millions of years ago.
neither of your assertions are necessarily true.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 3:40:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 3:22:55 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:

God is an eternal being that has always had an objective nature. Asking for the source of God's nature would be to ask for the source of God. God is beginningless and has no source. The absolute nature of an all-truthful being never changes so to say that morality is derived from God's personal likes and dislikes implies that God can do things that are contrary to his objective and absolute nature.

If God's nature has no source, and morality is based on his nature, then morality does not come from God.

By saying that if God's nature has 'no source' and reaching the conclusion that morality does not come from God, you're equivocating something sourceless to mean non-existent instead of beginningless. God's nature isn't conditional and has always existed.

ben can you please tell us why you religious people assume that when debating the topic of religion vs whatever, be it cosmology, morality, again whatever, tell us why you think it is ok to just assert that god is outside of space and time, god is eternal, god has always been. How do you claim to have any honesty at all and continually think that because you have faith in a thing, then it is necessarily true. Not a single solitary shred of evidence exists to say that god is outside of space and time or has always existed, or is eternal, or whatever you claim.

we could say MORALITY has always existed
we could say the UNIVERSE has always existed
hell I could say that I have always existed - you can't prove I haven't, which still doesn't make it true
Please stop arguing from the stance of whatever I say is true
zeus had always existed and was eternal too until he hadn't and wasn't
you claim 6000 years and scientologists say xenu brought humans to earth from outer space millions of years ago.
neither of your assertions are necessarily true.

Time began to exist during the Big Bang. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Something cannot sufficiently cause itself to begin to exist. Therefore the cause of time is necessarily timeless.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 4:08:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Time began to exist during the Big Bang. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Something cannot sufficiently cause itself to begin to exist. Therefore the cause of time is necessarily timeless.

how can you quote the rule, and then give your god an exception simply because you want to. When you argue in this intellectually dishonest manner, all you do is fall into an endless regression.

You claim god exists, while simultaneously claiming that something cannot sufficiently cause itself to begin or exist, therefore god could not cause himself to exist any more than you say the universe couldn't. so what caused god to exist? then what caused, whatever caused god to exist, to exist? --- endless regression

Not sure what believers think gives them the right to simply claim things - how do you know there is a god that has always existed? simple you can't
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 4:10:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 4:08:20 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
Time began to exist during the Big Bang. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Something cannot sufficiently cause itself to begin to exist. Therefore the cause of time is necessarily timeless.

how can you quote the rule, and then give your god an exception simply because you want to. When you argue in this intellectually dishonest manner, all you do is fall into an endless regression.

You claim god exists, while simultaneously claiming that something cannot sufficiently cause itself to begin or exist, therefore god could not cause himself to exist any more than you say the universe couldn't. so what caused god to exist? then what caused, whatever caused god to exist, to exist? --- endless regression

Not sure what believers think gives them the right to simply claim things - how do you know there is a god that has always existed? simple you can't

God never began to exist. He has always existed. The rule only applies to things that begin to exist - like the beginning of time during the Big Bang.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 4:52:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
God never began to exist. He has always existed. The rule only applies to things that begin to exist - like the beginning of time during the Big Bang.

why is this true? because you say so?

jains which number about 4.5 million say that the universe is eternal and has no beginning or end and certainly was not created by a god.

Buddhists, which number about 350 million say that the universe comes in and out of existence dependent upon the actions of those within it and that no god exists

hindus which number 1.2 billion believe that the universe is merely one in a number of universes that throughout history were created and destroyed

so again what makes only what you say true? what exactly exists that gives you the power to assert that your god is exempt from the rules to which all other things must adhere - my thought is that since he is man made it naturally follows that anything that can be conceived as a power can be given to him.

kind of like the continual addition of power to superman. the original 1938 superman could jump 1/8 of a mile, hurdle a 20 story building, but could get hurt by a bursting shell. in 1943 he gained the ability to fly and in a few years this evolved to be at least at the speed of light. he then went on to gain the ability to blow out a star with his breath, and even the ability to fly so fast around the earth that he caused it to rotate in reverse, thus taking time backwards to save lois. which suggests he had the ability to suspend/break the remaining laws of the universe in his favor without consequence - how could he do all of this? well since, like god, he is a fictional character you can give him any ability you can conceive.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:10:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 2:52:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/26/2014 5:20:20 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

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.

It isn't a contradiction. Saving humanity is something we ought to do. Raping a baby is always something that we ought not to do. No matter what scenario is presented actually raping the baby is always something that ought not to be done.

Again you dodge directly answering my question. And again you point out the contradiction: We ought to do what we ought not to do.

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.

Raping a baby is never justified, desired, or to be approved of. The thing that is justified, desired, or to be approved of is saving humanity. This still doesn't make raping the baby anything that is justified, desired, or to be approved of anymore than a woman who is 'justifiably' raped by her attacker because she didn't want to die.

Ah so then we should let humanity die? I mean there's no justification for doing what needs to be done ...

As for your woman rape scenario it differs on a couple key areas, the baby rape scenario is an agreed upon contract (not too big a diff) and the baby will be given a better life by the aliens (the main diff). So in the end it work out for everybody.

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.

"Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

So they are the same thing? Thanks for the definitions.

"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?

Do you believe that killing without justification is justifiable? If morality is subjective, as you seem to be arguing, this would be your position. Depending on the circumstance it may or not be justifiable - the objective remains the same.

Do I personally believe that killing w/o justification is justifiable? Generally no. However my point was that in the context of war civilians are killed because they are not deemed innocent. It was a common strategy in WW2 to bomb civilian targets because they helped the enemy war effort and degraded morality. So there was in fact JUSTIFICATION for killing innocent(?) civilians. Ending the war of course being the desired end to come about by those dastardly means.

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.

we're not talking about 'more value' but whether babies have any intrinsic worth at all. In order for objective morality to be true we can't be intrinsically worthless. It can't be true that we definitely ought to value a valueless thing.

This is a matter more of what you want rather than what is.

There are many good reasons to believe that babies and human life has intrinsic worth.

Yes there are. In the context of your understanding there are many good reasons. However in other contexts those reasons are not so clear and in fact a baby can be seen as a detriment rather than a blessing.

Do you need any extrinsic value criteria in order to rescue a baby on the side of the road? Doesn't the controversy over abortion rest on the fact of whether or not a fetus is considered a human being? What criteria do we need to value a baby? None. Yet babies are still valued. Therefore the value is intrinsic.

lol again, you're projecting your values as universal. You may be confusing potential for value (which everything has) for something being actually valued (which requires a 2nd party to place value upon). This is all contextual, sometimes baby are not given value because they can be seen as detrimental to the survival of the whole.
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:14:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 4:52:15 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
God never began to exist. He has always existed. The rule only applies to things that begin to exist - like the beginning of time during the Big Bang.

why is this true? because you say so?

jains which number about 4.5 million say that the universe is eternal and has no beginning or end and certainly was not created by a god.

Buddhists, which number about 350 million say that the universe comes in and out of existence dependent upon the actions of those within it and that no god exists

hindus which number 1.2 billion believe that the universe is merely one in a number of universes that throughout history were created and destroyed

so again what makes only what you say true? what exactly exists that gives you the power to assert that your god is exempt from the rules to which all other things must adhere - my thought is that since he is man made it naturally follows that anything that can be conceived as a power can be given to him.

kind of like the continual addition of power to superman. the original 1938 superman could jump 1/8 of a mile, hurdle a 20 story building, but could get hurt by a bursting shell. in 1943 he gained the ability to fly and in a few years this evolved to be at least at the speed of light. he then went on to gain the ability to blow out a star with his breath, and even the ability to fly so fast around the earth that he caused it to rotate in reverse, thus taking time backwards to save lois. which suggests he had the ability to suspend/break the remaining laws of the universe in his favor without consequence - how could he do all of this? well since, like god, he is a fictional character you can give him any ability you can conceive.

No it's because of the law of cause and effect. Nothing can bring itself into existence. So whatever is uncaused either has existed forever or doesn't exist at all. If there are an infinite number of causes this means that there was no initial cause - but since existence is contingent on a prior cause this means this is impossible. Therefore there must exist an uncaused cause. God is the uncaused cause that was transcendent of time in order to cause the beginning of time.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:17:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 5:14:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:52:15 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
God never began to exist. He has always existed. The rule only applies to things that begin to exist - like the beginning of time during the Big Bang.

why is this true? because you say so?

jains which number about 4.5 million say that the universe is eternal and has no beginning or end and certainly was not created by a god.

Buddhists, which number about 350 million say that the universe comes in and out of existence dependent upon the actions of those within it and that no god exists

hindus which number 1.2 billion believe that the universe is merely one in a number of universes that throughout history were created and destroyed

so again what makes only what you say true? what exactly exists that gives you the power to assert that your god is exempt from the rules to which all other things must adhere - my thought is that since he is man made it naturally follows that anything that can be conceived as a power can be given to him.

kind of like the continual addition of power to superman. the original 1938 superman could jump 1/8 of a mile, hurdle a 20 story building, but could get hurt by a bursting shell. in 1943 he gained the ability to fly and in a few years this evolved to be at least at the speed of light. he then went on to gain the ability to blow out a star with his breath, and even the ability to fly so fast around the earth that he caused it to rotate in reverse, thus taking time backwards to save lois. which suggests he had the ability to suspend/break the remaining laws of the universe in his favor without consequence - how could he do all of this? well since, like god, he is a fictional character you can give him any ability you can conceive.

No it's because of the law of cause and effect. Nothing can bring itself into existence. So whatever is uncaused either has existed forever or doesn't exist at all. If there are an infinite number of causes this means that there was no initial cause - but since existence is contingent on a prior cause this means this is impossible. Therefore there must exist an uncaused cause. God is the uncaused cause that was transcendent of time in order to cause the beginning of time.

Hilarious, all you do is set up strawmen with false premises so you can knock them down and pretend it's valid when you confirm your bias towards it. Thinly veiled, though.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:19:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 5:17:09 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:14:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:52:15 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
God never began to exist. He has always existed. The rule only applies to things that begin to exist - like the beginning of time during the Big Bang.

why is this true? because you say so?

jains which number about 4.5 million say that the universe is eternal and has no beginning or end and certainly was not created by a god.

Buddhists, which number about 350 million say that the universe comes in and out of existence dependent upon the actions of those within it and that no god exists

hindus which number 1.2 billion believe that the universe is merely one in a number of universes that throughout history were created and destroyed

so again what makes only what you say true? what exactly exists that gives you the power to assert that your god is exempt from the rules to which all other things must adhere - my thought is that since he is man made it naturally follows that anything that can be conceived as a power can be given to him.

kind of like the continual addition of power to superman. the original 1938 superman could jump 1/8 of a mile, hurdle a 20 story building, but could get hurt by a bursting shell. in 1943 he gained the ability to fly and in a few years this evolved to be at least at the speed of light. he then went on to gain the ability to blow out a star with his breath, and even the ability to fly so fast around the earth that he caused it to rotate in reverse, thus taking time backwards to save lois. which suggests he had the ability to suspend/break the remaining laws of the universe in his favor without consequence - how could he do all of this? well since, like god, he is a fictional character you can give him any ability you can conceive.

No it's because of the law of cause and effect. Nothing can bring itself into existence. So whatever is uncaused either has existed forever or doesn't exist at all. If there are an infinite number of causes this means that there was no initial cause - but since existence is contingent on a prior cause this means this is impossible. Therefore there must exist an uncaused cause. God is the uncaused cause that was transcendent of time in order to cause the beginning of time.

Hilarious, all you do is set up strawmen with false premises so you can knock them down and pretend it's valid when you confirm your bias towards it. Thinly veiled, though.

You are a ripe and green tomato.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:29:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 5:19:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:17:09 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:14:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:52:15 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
God never began to exist. He has always existed. The rule only applies to things that begin to exist - like the beginning of time during the Big Bang.

why is this true? because you say so?

jains which number about 4.5 million say that the universe is eternal and has no beginning or end and certainly was not created by a god.

Buddhists, which number about 350 million say that the universe comes in and out of existence dependent upon the actions of those within it and that no god exists

hindus which number 1.2 billion believe that the universe is merely one in a number of universes that throughout history were created and destroyed

so again what makes only what you say true? what exactly exists that gives you the power to assert that your god is exempt from the rules to which all other things must adhere - my thought is that since he is man made it naturally follows that anything that can be conceived as a power can be given to him.

kind of like the continual addition of power to superman. the original 1938 superman could jump 1/8 of a mile, hurdle a 20 story building, but could get hurt by a bursting shell. in 1943 he gained the ability to fly and in a few years this evolved to be at least at the speed of light. he then went on to gain the ability to blow out a star with his breath, and even the ability to fly so fast around the earth that he caused it to rotate in reverse, thus taking time backwards to save lois. which suggests he had the ability to suspend/break the remaining laws of the universe in his favor without consequence - how could he do all of this? well since, like god, he is a fictional character you can give him any ability you can conceive.

No it's because of the law of cause and effect. Nothing can bring itself into existence. So whatever is uncaused either has existed forever or doesn't exist at all. If there are an infinite number of causes this means that there was no initial cause - but since existence is contingent on a prior cause this means this is impossible. Therefore there must exist an uncaused cause. God is the uncaused cause that was transcendent of time in order to cause the beginning of time.

Hilarious, all you do is set up strawmen with false premises so you can knock them down and pretend it's valid when you confirm your bias towards it. Thinly veiled, though.

You are a ripe and green tomato.

Must be embarrassing to have had your fallacious arguments exposed by a ripe and green tomato.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:38:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 5:29:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:19:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:17:09 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:14:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:52:15 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
God never began to exist. He has always existed. The rule only applies to things that begin to exist - like the beginning of time during the Big Bang.

why is this true? because you say so?

jains which number about 4.5 million say that the universe is eternal and has no beginning or end and certainly was not created by a god.

Buddhists, which number about 350 million say that the universe comes in and out of existence dependent upon the actions of those within it and that no god exists

hindus which number 1.2 billion believe that the universe is merely one in a number of universes that throughout history were created and destroyed

so again what makes only what you say true? what exactly exists that gives you the power to assert that your god is exempt from the rules to which all other things must adhere - my thought is that since he is man made it naturally follows that anything that can be conceived as a power can be given to him.

kind of like the continual addition of power to superman. the original 1938 superman could jump 1/8 of a mile, hurdle a 20 story building, but could get hurt by a bursting shell. in 1943 he gained the ability to fly and in a few years this evolved to be at least at the speed of light. he then went on to gain the ability to blow out a star with his breath, and even the ability to fly so fast around the earth that he caused it to rotate in reverse, thus taking time backwards to save lois. which suggests he had the ability to suspend/break the remaining laws of the universe in his favor without consequence - how could he do all of this? well since, like god, he is a fictional character you can give him any ability you can conceive.

No it's because of the law of cause and effect. Nothing can bring itself into existence. So whatever is uncaused either has existed forever or doesn't exist at all. If there are an infinite number of causes this means that there was no initial cause - but since existence is contingent on a prior cause this means this is impossible. Therefore there must exist an uncaused cause. God is the uncaused cause that was transcendent of time in order to cause the beginning of time.

Hilarious, all you do is set up strawmen with false premises so you can knock them down and pretend it's valid when you confirm your bias towards it. Thinly veiled, though.

You are a ripe and green tomato.

Must be embarrassing to have had your fallacious arguments exposed by a ripe and green tomato.

I'm trying to get you to realize that your assertions are baseless unless you provide reasoning to defend those assertions. You responded with another baseless assertion (that my arguments were fallacious) so I'll provide you with another: you are a ripe tomato.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 6:10:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 5:38:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

I'm trying to get you to realize that your assertions are baseless unless you provide reasoning to defend those assertion.

Yes, the ripe and green tomato has told you that already. You know need to provide evidence that your assertions have any validity. They don't as they stand.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 6:23:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 6:10:02 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:38:08 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

I'm trying to get you to realize that your assertions are baseless unless you provide reasoning to defend those assertion.

Yes, the ripe and green tomato has told you that already. You know need to provide evidence that your assertions have any validity. They don't as they stand.

Yes, thank you. All of my unsupported assertions should be thrown out along with all of yours.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:22:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago

No it's because of the law of cause and effect. Nothing can bring itself into existence. So whatever is uncaused either has existed forever or doesn't exist at all. If there are an infinite number of causes this means that there was no initial cause - but since existence is contingent on a prior cause this means this is impossible. Therefore there must exist an uncaused cause. God is the uncaused cause that was transcendent of time in order to cause the beginning of time.

ben ben ben you just can't stop can you. you use a lot of scientific words then you inject your own personal beliefs and think it is ok.

nothing can bring itself into existence -- EXCEPT YOUR GOD
nothing existed forever -- EXCEPT YOUR GOD
an infinite number of causes makes an initial cause impossible due to this infinity and you are intelligent enough to understand this principle then please explain why you lose this intelligence when the infinite number in the probability equation you are working is the infinite number of possible gods, which by the same token would make that impossible as well

since you can"t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no before the Big Bang, we can assume that it doesn"t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. So this means that there is no possibility for a god, because there is no time for a god to have existed". Time didn"t exist before the Big Bang. So, there is no time for God to make the Universe in- unless you do exactly what you seem to assume that you have the power to do which is make up some kind of special "god time" again where you get the power to do this from I have no idea

if I grant that there is a such thing as an uncaused cause, then you still have all of your work ahead of you - working to prove it was first A god and then proving it was YOUR god.

you are caught in a sh*t storm of logical fallacies
1. affirmation of the consequent - you say god but the fallacy is that it could have some other origin
2 converting a conditional since we grant that the universe began it must have been caused by god -- no no no no no see 1.

in short god is not the uncaused cause simply because you say he is!! you have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. stop asserting it as fact please.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:48:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 7:22:07 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:

ben ben ben you just can't stop can you. you use a lot of scientific words then you inject your own personal beliefs and think it is ok.

you are caught in a sh*t storm of logical fallacies

in short god is not the uncaused cause simply because you say he is!! you have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. stop asserting it as fact please.

All of his threads and argument are just that, fallacies and false premises, stuff that he just says is so and it is instantly a fact, then he goes on to make conclusions based on his religious beliefs.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:15:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
All of his threads and argument are just that, fallacies and false premises, stuff that he just says is so and it is instantly a fact, then he goes on to make conclusions based on his religious beliefs.

I see that.

I wonder why Christians, or shall I say religious people in general do that? They state their nonsense like it is actual fact.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:28:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 8:15:23 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
All of his threads and argument are just that, fallacies and false premises, stuff that he just says is so and it is instantly a fact, then he goes on to make conclusions based on his religious beliefs.

I see that.

I wonder why Christians, or shall I say religious people in general do that? They state their nonsense like it is actual fact.

It's probably because of the fact that religion is based on a system of beliefs to be rejected or accepted regardless of whether they are true or not. No critical thinking is required. This could be the result of the person wanting to believe or they have been indoctrinated to believe, either way they will believe it to be fact.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:40:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/27/2014 3:03:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 2:35:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/27/2014 2:15:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
God is an eternal being that has always had an objective nature. Asking for the source of God's nature would be to ask for the source of God. God is beginningless and has no source. The absolute nature of an all-truthful being never changes so to say that morality is derived from God's personal likes and dislikes implies that God can do things that are contrary to his objective and absolute nature.

If God's nature has no source, and morality is based on his nature, then morality does not come from God.

By saying that if God's nature has 'no source' and reaching the conclusion that morality does not come from God, you're equivocating something sourceless to mean non-existent instead of beginningless. God's nature isn't conditional and has always existed.

No, I'm demonstrating the incoherent equivocation you're trying to make between God and his nature. This is exactly why I started an entire thread on theistic incoherence.

You claim that God cannot change morality because it's his nature. You claim that his nature has no source. This leaves you with one of two options:
A) Morality does not come from God
B) God and Gods nature are the same thing.

(A) Refutes your Argument. (B) Is completely incoherent. God is a being. God's nature is not a being. God cannot be a being and not a being at the same time. The two concepts are like oil and water; Mix them all you want, you still have two different things.

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