It is written by men who claim inspiration from God.A sane person would never accept such a ridiculous idea, those men were either lying, delusional, insane or all of the above. Why would you believe other men and not God?
So are you saying that the laws of logic are contingent on your mind believing them? If you didn't believe them they would not exist?No, they are practical to use against illogical nonsense such as men claiming inspiration from God.
2+2=4 is a logical conceptIts a simple equation.
I asked you who made the natural laws and enforces them?That has to be one of the dumbest questions I've heard today. It shows you have no clue what a physical law is and you actually believe there is some kind of police enforcing them. I'm stunned at this level of ignorance. Please put the Bible down and read a book.
You then cross-over to my worldview that has objective moral values in which some things are definitely plain evil or wrong. You then recognize that some things are BETTER than others.That is complete and utter baloney, I would do no such thing. Total fantasy.
Why can't He choose the way He communicates with us?Simple, it fails.
Some things are beyond our authority in determining our well-being.Such as?
I have spent many years wrestling with some doctrinal concepts, such as Calvinism v. Arminianism, Young/Old Earth, Preterist or Futurist, etc.Im so sorry to hear that but it certainly explains your widespread ignorance of the world around you.
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.That's exactly the kind of childish, ignorant behavior I've been referring. Even though no one has done anything wrong other than criticize your beliefs, you immediately lash out spitting poison with filth from Scriptures simply because you haven't the means to defend your irrational nonsense, which only serves to promote hate and cause conflict for no reason at all. Disgusting religion.
No one is killing human beings Mr. Godwin.
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”
“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.”
I advocate the protection of a woman's sole right to her own body.
I know that invisible friend declares women to be chattels and less than human but only fools believe that.
BTW your invisible friend aborts far more than humans do, what's his excuse?
I can produce tons of quotes from medical textbooks that confirm that human life begins at fertilization.
The human being developing in her body is separate from her body because it is a unique human in its own right.
God never ends an innocent life without restoring it
There must be an ultimate best to know good, just like without good we would not know evil. Evil is measured against good, just like good is measured against the best.And you can demonstrate that we can know good? Or that we can know evil? How can we show any of these things to be objectively true?
Objective best is God. He has commanded humanity to not kill (murder, or take innocent human life), not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not covet something that is not ours, honor our parents, love Him, and do not defame Him.Ok. I get that's your postion, but you still haven't answered my question. Can you show that best exists objectively?
You are saying you don't know best because your worldview does not have what is necessary for best.No, I'm saying that we have no demonstrable example of good or best existing. We have no way of determining if they are anything more than ideas we made up. Until we can demonstrate that they exist let alone what they are how can anyone logically claim they know what good or best are?
You make sense of the concept because you understand that good and better are degrees that depend on the ultimate, best.No. I make sense of them as because I understand when someone says 'X is good' they are basing that on a collection of criteria they determine to be good. Same when they say 'X is best'. This fits every example of best or good I have encountered. Please don't assume to know what I understand and don't, it's quite insulting.
I can produce tons of quotes from medical textbooks that confirm that human life begins at fertilization.
I can produce more that reject that claim, big deal.
The human being developing in her body is separate from her body because it is a unique human in its own right.Then there shouldn't be any problem removing that separate body from hers, you could adopt the blastocyst and bring it up like the human you claim it is.
God never ends an innocent life without restoring itShow me.
You make a lot of claims but never have any evidence to support them.
You deny Him. His authority means nothing to you (for now). Every single example I give you will be denied. It is a waste of my time, like it was on the DDO threads.
God never ends an innocent life without restoring it
You deny Him. His authority means nothing to you (for now). Every single example I give you will deny. It is a waste of my time, like it was on the DDO threads.You haven't shown me that
God never ends an innocent life without restoring itSo he restores the life of the "human" that he "murders" what does he do with the ones humans "murder"?
What gives you more authority over a woman's body than she does? Oh that's right your god teaches you that women are to be controlled by men and your misogyny agrees with that.If you can't tell the truth about abortion why should I listen to anything you have to say on the subject.
Why do you refuse to take on the responsibility of bringing this separate human body to adulthood. Just let it be known far and wide that you will take any aborted separate human body and continue the process of bringing it up.Your prophesy shtick has been laughed out of every thread you've posted it in.
You have to start somewhere and with something. Those core beliefs are presuppositional by nature. It is whether or not they are justifiable or inconsistent that is the question. When you begin with the presupposition/position that God's existence is unknown and then use an atheistic belief system to channel your inquiry you are not being neutral.You are acting on the presuppositions of that atheistic belief system.My starting point doesn't presuppose. That would mean making an assumption. The only thing my position takes as true is that I don't know how the universe began (I have since concluded it is likely I never will) and that I don't know if a god exists. As for my taking on an 'atheistic' world view. That depends on your definition of atheism if you mean holding the negative belief that god doesn't exist, then you're wrong. To believe god cannot possibly exist would be an assumption and the bases for presupposition.
So you start nowhere? (i.e., starting point) You have no starting point?No, I start with a question. Why would I start with an answer when I have no means to support that answer.
I argue it does presuppose since you were not there, neither was any other human. Even if you don't know you still look at or start with the universe from God as Creator (or the greatest personal being), or you begin with a material origin alone and origins via a chance instead of by intent. You ASSUME that everything that exists came about by your presupposed method, even if you have no surety (ignorant).No. You don't have to assume either. To assume is to believe. I don't believe the universe came to be without god, I don't believe the universe came to be with a god. The only belief I have in regards to the nature of the universe is that it appears to have had a beginning. No assumptions are made in that position at all and as such no presuppositions.
That is precisely the point, if you don't know but exclude God then you are taking a position. You are presupposing that the material worldview is the more evident worldview.My only presupposition is that my senses are generally reasonably accurate and that I am able to make somewhat accurate deductions from the information I receive from these senses (the fact I survive and function suggests these assumptions are reasonable). I make these assumptions because they are necessary to function, without them I would literally be able to observe nothing and reason nothing. However, once we have these necessary assumptions, I see no reason to assume anything else, reason tells me assuming as few things as possible is more likely to produce accurate results. As for excluding god, I don't exclude god. I simply question the claims god exists, even in that statement you show your biased. You cannot objectively or reasonably address the existence of god because you have already concluded god exists before the
Even if you don't know whether God exists by looking at the world through " a naturalist's eyes" you see things through "atheistic eyes" - eyes that deny God. Jesus made this point:[ The Unpardonable Sin ] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
If this is true then there is no neutrality. I do not believe we are unbiased and neutral in the way we look at origins or life. We either cling to the one worldview or the other. In the Christian worldview, an atheist is the one who denies Jesus. He/she does not take the biblical God at His Word, for the Bible claims to be His revelation.It's a false dichotomy. I am not 'against' Jesus, I care very little one way or the other.
No denying that, but we are all biased. I'm glad that you are looking for reasons! Doubt is a part of life. I'm asking you to find out which is more REASONABLE and LOGICAL by examining the evidence as best as I can present it. There are lots who are much more sophisticated and polished, yet in regards to prophecy, I have been examining the evidence for the Christian worldview for a long time. I've professed faith in Jesus Christ for almost 40 years now. Debating unbelievers for most of that time has helped me to look hard for the explanations that confirm God for others. That said, even if the evidence is most compelling, those who are rebelling will always find another excuse not to believe. That has been my witness. On these forums I find but a handful of people who are really willing to test what they believe. The rest are locked solidly in their position and do not budge, do not hear the message or evidence. They do the opposite. They deny it. The more you present the more they dig into their position. That is why you, me, or anyone else coming to faith depends on God and His word.Let's begin the examination of the evidence with the most pertinent question. [1] What methods have been used to date when the gospels were written? Internal prophecy is always hard to handle. The claims that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy is questionable at best because the only details we have to Jesus' life are held within the text that is claiming he fulfilled prophecy (I tend to question outside the source for claims when seeking to confirm claims). Our issue here is again going to be your presupposition of the bible. I don't claim to be particularly versed in prophecy, nor do I claim to be particularly versed in history. I would however question how we confirm the Gospels were written before AD70 and how we confirm the events of Jesus' life occurred as is claimed in the Bible as a starting point (to believe these things and then build a case is making strong assumptions that will heavily bias our conclusions).
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
The claims that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy is questionable at best because the only details we have to Jesus' life are held within the text that is claiming he fulfilled prophecy (I tend to question outside the source for claims when seeking to confirm claims).
Our issue here is again going to be your presupposition of the bible. I don't claim to be particularly versed in prophecy, nor do I claim to be particularly versed in history. I would however question how we confirm the Gospels were written before AD70 and how we confirm the events of Jesus' life occurred as is claimed in the Bible as a starting point (to believe these things and then build a case is making strong assumptions that will heavily bias our conclusions).
No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic.Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing?Here you make to mistakes in what my point is I think. Firstly regardless of a topic you're assuming that morality on said topic is a single thing, that there is a good and a bad. Yet we have no way of knowing such a thing exists, let alone how to apply it to this (or any other position). Your position is that it's meaningless to state X is good or bad without an objective morality. I don't disagree, I simply state that we don't have any evidence for an objective morality. We have only our own opinions and assumptions to use as a basis, so until an objective morality can be shown to exist, then it logically is meaningless to state X is good or X is bad. This point makes sense of morality by acknowledging that morality is meaningless until we have an objective morality. You don't want to make sense of morality you want to justify morality having meaning. In short, morality in no way supports the existence of god, it simply shows a reason why people may want to believe in god.
Here you make [ ] mistakes in what my point is I think. Firstly regardless of a topic you're assuming that morality on said topic is a single thing, that there is a good and a bad. Yet we have no way of knowing such a thing exists, let alone how to apply it to this (or any other position).
Your position is that it's meaningless to state X is good or bad without an objective morality. I don't disagree, I simply state that we don't have any evidence for an objective morality. We have only our own opinions and assumptions to use as a basis, so until an objective morality can be shown to exist, then it logically is meaningless to state X is good or X is bad. This point makes sense of morality by acknowledging that morality is meaningless until we have an objective morality. You don't want to make sense of morality you want to justify morality having meaning. In short, morality in no way supports the existence of god, it simply shows a reason why people may want to believe in god.
Exactly, and good becomes meaningless if it has no fixed, objective address.And that is evidence that god exists how? This again seems to be an argument from consequence, this doesn't show anything other than the fact that good may be meaningless (and that our opinion of what is good is meaningless until we can demonstrate that not only objective morality exists, but that we can and do know what it is). You're pointing out something you don't like and stating that because your world view allows you to view the world otherwise your worldview is valid, this isn't a case for your world view unless you can show that morality is objective.
It is COMMON SENSE.No it isn't.
We give a fixed term to the thing you and I call a dog. You understand when I use that term that it does not mean a cat or tree. It refers to that thing and nothing else. When it comes to goodness on any given specific subject the term is interchanged with other meanings, depending on where you live. It can mean the exact opposite. Some countries believe abortion as a woman's choice is wrong/ evil and others believe it is right/good.This is because dog has a (reasonably) clear and defined meaning, it means a canid, especially the canis familiaris(it can also mean a worthless or contemptible person).Notice this is a clear definition, the traits necessary to fit it are fairly small, a cat and a tree aren't canids, so they're not dogs.
Now look back at the link I presented for good, it lacks that same traits, if we were to write a definition for good that included the traits and criteria that made a thing good (there are several definitions for good that actually do this, but they're for very specific context), then we'd have a world that clearly meant one thing, it wouldn't however be anymore objectively 'moral' than it is now. The first definition presented for good is actually: of a favorable character or tendency.
1That's subjective, that's dependent on circumstance. How about these:(2): free from injury or disease one good arm(3): not depreciatedbadmoney drives out good(4): commercially sound a good risk(5): that can be relied ongood for another yeargood for a hundred dollarsalways good for a laugh3, 6, c1 and 3 are certainly subjective. We have to scroll the page down quite a way before we come to anything that addresses morality directly and then it states:'something conforming to the moral order of the universe'
That's fine, show that this moral order exists and how we can demonstrate what it is and we may finally have a clear definition of good, but until then, we've nothing to give traits to good within a moral context. You can claim this is why your worldview is better, but what you actually mean is it's why you prefer it. You see I'm not debating what worldview is best, I'm debating which worldview is most accurate to what we can show to be true.
So who is actually right? Which is the true position, since logically they are not both good? You CAN'T answer that because you have no objective best.It's entirely dependent on what you conclude the moral order of the universe is. I would personally say we've not got evidence that either is good. So I would answer neither.
I have no authority over a woman's body (heaven forbid). She does. Don't make this personal. It is a moral issue
Many people would adopt the child in a heartbeat.
When you say "a favorable character tendency" - which persons or groups favor? If it is subjective then it is not wrong for someone who believes the opposite. Can you live in a world like that? Watch what happens if the Democrat's take back the power to govern and pass their agenda with their relative ideas. Your country is done if that happens. The downward spiral into despair and meaninglessness will continue at an accelerated rate. Watch what happens to the wealth of your country.This is again an argument to consequence. I don't have a choice in any of this, I can only logically and reasonably follow the evidence where it leads, so far it has all led to the conclusion that if there is an objective morality we have no evidence to show it or what it is. In short, reality is what it is. I can only conclude based on facts.
You can't say you're objective because you don't have what is necessary for objectivity with your worldview. It does not allow it. Yet, people with a relativistic worldview keep borrowing from an objective worldview everytime someone crosses the line. Then their subjectivity goes out the window.I can be very objective when there is objective data to work with, same as you. The difference is that I don't assume that data when I don't have it. When I'm left without that data, I rather concede the fact that I can only be objective. I will ask again, can you demonstrate objective morality? So far you have argued:that good cannot be made sense of without it, yet I can make sense of good. Your issue seems to be more with the idea that good is meaningless without it. Considering we have cases where 'good' is meaningless without objective morality and as of yet no one has shown objective morality exists what is the logical reason to conclude good isn't meaningless?
You don't want to live in a world where morality is subjective. This is moot since the reality is what it is regardless of what we want.
I objectively consider what is presented to me and then conclude what warrants belief based on that.I don't claim that my worldview doesn't hold subjectives, it does, it holds many of them, the difference is that I admit they're subjective, I hold them strongly, I will do a lot to support these values, but they are subjective and they are no better and no worse than your subjective values, which I suspect you hold just as strongly, just as dearly. Where in all this do I borrow from your worldview? Or do you mean in some hypothetical situation where you spin my actions or reactions to suit what you want?
You haven't shown me that God never ends an innocent life without restoring it
You haven't answered this: So he restores the life of the "human" that he "murders" what does he do with the ones humans "murder"?
I have no authority over a woman's body (heaven forbid). She does. Don't make this personal. It is a moral issueIt's not a moral issue at all it is all about bodily autonomy and you have no right to interfere.You keep waffling about "killing human beings" when we are discussing the removal of a growth from a woman's body.
Many people would adopt the child in a heartbeat.Let them adopt the aborted "child" then. Oh that's right it's not a child, regardless of the lies contained in your preachers propaganda.If your over 60 then let me tell you that you have wasted your only life and have learned nothing. When you die you will be dead but don't be afraid, you won't know that it's over it'll just be over. No more fairy tales just no more anything.
An innocent person is without sin. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin are death (by the way that is spiritual death/separation from the presence of God for eternity). How could a JUST Judge condemn an innocent person? Answer - He can't. He is just!What is the promise of those born again? It is restored life in God's presence. Jesus continually spoke of the kingdom of heaven.It is a SPIRITUAL kingdom, not a physical kingdom on earth.Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”So when He said the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, He pointed to the little children. Those He died to save!
An innocent person is without sin. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin are death (by the way that is spiritual death/separation from the presence of God for eternity). How could a JUST Judge condemn an innocent person? Answer - He can't. He is just!What is the promise of those born again? It is restored life in God's presence. Jesus continually spoke of the kingdom of heaven.It is a SPIRITUAL kingdom, not a physical kingdom on earth.Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”So when He said the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, He pointed to the little children. Those He died to save!Relying on a book of myth and untruths to support your erroneous beliefs is simply absurd. We are discussing human life ie the woman's life and her right to control it.
You produce a fantasy about some fictional character in a book bringing the foetuses he aborts back to life. When I ask you does he do the same for the foetuses humans abort you run away and pretend you don't understand the question.But I'm being harsh, the real reason you have trouble answering questions is because you You produce a fantasy about some fictional character in a book bringing the foetuses he aborts back to life. When I ask you does he do the same for the foetuses humans abort you run away and pretend you don't understand the question.
If you and your fictional god were consistent then aborting a foetus is the best thing that could happen to it. Allegedly they go straight to heaven no matter who aborts them, or are you going to make another claim?
I've never said best is subjective in regards to moral good and evil. It is only subjective in terms of personal preference (what is as opposed to what should be). As soon as a moral ought is brought into the equation there has to be a best to make sense of it. There has to be something (or Someone) that does not change in which we can measure everything else in relation to it (Him). If there is nothing that does not change then you can't measure it. God is that something (Someone).It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what.
Makes sense of it? Why is your view any better than any other view? You have already admitted it is not. Thus, you are inconsistent which means you have major problems. Why is your good better than my good? Not only this but as I have pointed out a number of times, everything has an identity and that identity cannot be what it is not.
"Finally, if morals are relative to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites."
That brings another cog into the wheel, moral absolutes.
Funny thing is that you can't deny an absolute without implying one in the process of the denial and I noticed you have been fairly conscientious not to do so. God is that absolute.
Missed this, sorry.Yes, I can show it as reasonable and logical because only one system is necessary for morality and no other meets that criterion. If you want to know what is good you need God - the unchanging, benevolent final standard of appeal.
Some truths are logically self-evident. Would you know what straight was without knowing what crooked is? How would you measure good if all you knew was evil?
The law of identity states that a thing is what it is. (A=A)
With goodness, how would you know what that was unless you have a standard to compare goodness to that was ideal? And you can't arbitrarily call something good without it actually being good. Why should I believe your opinion? Hitler thought it was good to eliminate 6 million Jews and 11-12 million undesirables. Is it good because he called it good? NO. Good has to have an identity that does not change on a particular issue and morph into its opposite. Abortion was an example I gave you. Before Roe V. Wade abortion was considered wrong and a crime unless the mother and unborn were both threatened and would lose their life. After Roe v. Wade abortion was legalized to a specific period in the development of the unborn.
So who was right with abortion? They both can't be logically right since they state opposites. Right, or good loses its identity when it can mean the opposite depending on who holds the view. It is stupidity to say that both views are right/good.
You said that good can mean anything (and I agree if there is no ultimate standard then any standard goes). You said I could not demonstrate there is such a thing as objective good. I agree if there is no objective source. However, the Bible claims there is such a source and gives good reason to believe it is that source.
I chose the abortion debate as one issue in which we can question what the "good" is. Whose view is more reasonable and logical? It all hinges on what the unborn is (i.e., a human being) and on what value there is to be human. If you say none, then why can't we kill other classes of human beings when we feel they don't measure up to our standards? If we can kill one class of human beings, the unborn, then why can't we kill other classes? Surely, in the US if you are going to discriminate against the unborn why can't you discriminate against a person of a certain color, or size, or where they live? Those who control the power and wealth could just go into urban slums and wipe out those who are undesirable. Then you could turn the tables on those who hold a different political view from you (if you hold the power). You could shut down their free speech and kill them for expressing their views. Then you could take aim on those who are weak and sick like Hitler did. Get rid of them too. Then you could discriminate against those who don't meet a certain height restriction. Then you could pick on religious people. Get rid of them by whatever means necessary.
So, you must answer why it is okay to kill one whole class of human beings because of the choice of another class (i.e., unborn and women), yet you punish and set rules with other classes when they kill whole classes. That same woman can kill her unborn human offspring but not her two-year-old? The class of born as opposed to unborn gives different laws on killing. Why can't you kill the newborn but you can the unborn? They are both dependent on her. They are both smaller than she is. The difference is their environments. Is it okay to kill someone because they are in a different environment than you are?
If you have no objective standard then you are at the mercy of those in control and it is okay for them to do what they prefer because they are in control. Is that reasonable and logical to believe? If so, "You're next; please step this way!"
So, is might makes the right GOOD? How can you know? Only if a necessary objective standard exists. Without it I would be in the same position as you, not knowing any moral truth, and that is where you are.
I've never said best is subjective in regards to moral good and evil. It is only subjective in terms of personal preference (what is as opposed to what should be). As soon as a moral ought is brought into the equation there has to be a best to make sense of it. There has to be something (or Someone) that does not change in which we can measure everything else in relation to it (Him). If there is nothing that does not change then you can't measure it. God is that something (Someone).It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what.It is nonsensical when the person you are conversing with has said that it would appear that A) there is no 'better' in an objective sense or B) We've no way of demonstrating that we can determine objective 'better'. This is the problem is you haven't shown that we can measure objective best, you have simply stated that without god we can't. Can you demonstrate that we can know best? Can you show how we can know this. You can say 'god is best so we measure against him' great, now show god exists. At this point you're not longer able to logically use objective good/best/morality as evidence of god as you need to show god exists before you can show any of those things objectively exist. That would be a circular argument.
