Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
Topic's author
#181
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference?
Unless you can grow and refine your own sugar for your own personal use, your purchase of refined sugar contributes to a system that causes QUANTIFIABLE damage to the health of OTHER PEOPLE.
So, you have made a case for sugar being banned. Should sugar be banned like cigarettes from public areas or should there be a warning that too much is bad for you? Should I not grow sugarcane? Can someone eat it in moderation without harm? Again, if it is my preference to eat it should you be allowed to stop me if I am harming no one else? If it is shown that eating sushi can kill you should sushi be banned and a law passed against it? You see, these things are not universally wrong. It depends on how sushi is prepared, to my knowledge. Eating a little sugar may not do me harm, and let's face it, we are all going to die someday. How many other things has hastened my death? 

Now with the case of killing innocent people, should that ever be allowed as a preference and sometimes killing innocent humans is unavoidable such as in an act of war? 
Topic's author
#182
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINK
I listened to the whole thing and agree with some of it. What is the main point that you want me to glean from it? 
(IFF) morality is "objective" and "universal" and a logical extension of the "IS" of "YHWH" (THEN) you must be able to program your PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS into a computer and it would be forced to compute MORAL MATHEMATICS (perfectly moral, unambiguous, moral judgements)

I'm not sure your meaning or significance? 
Topic's author
#183
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
They must have a different standard of measure from quantitative values which are empirically measured.
Please QUANTIFY empirically measurable MORAL AXIOMS.
Morality operates on a different standard than physical objects because it is an abstract concept. Morals are mindful things.

Some would argue that behaviours are the physical measures for deciding morality. Again, a behaviour is a descriptive thing. If I have a twitch when I am put in a stressed situation how does that make it wrong? It just is. 
#184
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills
Incorrect. In a social species such as humans it is a function of consensus. A sense of fairness (proto morality) can be observed to a degree in canines and to a larger degree in apes. Humans have codified these moral consensus decisions into law. These laws tend to reflect what is in general considered to favor human wellbeing. This is unsurprising under the current accepted models as those tribes which did not cooperate and care for one another as well would not have survived to pass on their genes. In as much as many behaviors would seem to be at least partly determined by genetics I would expect any race of sentient social tool users to develop something we can recognize as "morality".

The point is that it isn't a stretch that humans would object to getting killed and understand that taking measures against individuals who cannot be trusted not to kill is preferred to no such measure. What else is necessary in order for us to agree that killing people is wrong than the mutual agreement that we would not like to kill each other, be killed by each other or see each other killed? This can be applied to any given law. I would not like to be stolen from. Can we agree not to steel from one another? I would not like to be owned by another human being as their property. Can we agree not to own one another? I would not like you to violate my bodily autonomy or the sanctity of my home. Can we agree not to violate each other's bodily autonomy or the sanctity of our homes? This us actually super easy and requires no god(s) and no metaphysical codex of absolute right and wrong written into the fabric of reality. The onus therefore of proving any god(s) or any such code on the one claiming they exist. Humans agreeing to live in (relative) harmony with one another is not evidence for any such. 

Topic's author
#185
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Thou shalt not kill (murder).
This is a perfect example of a QUALITATIVE moral standard.
Yes, it is a should not or ought not to do, which is prescriptive. 

An unjustified kill is murder.
It would be a killing in which there was hate or malicious intent, not an accident. 

What is a justifiable kill?
An accident (unintentional and not malicious) that was not preventable that results in the death of someone. It was a mistake that does not deserve life for life. In times of war where shooting at enemy results in the death of an innocent bystander/civilian.

And please try to avoid any "appeal to authority".
An inappropriate appeal to authority, IMO, is an unjustified appeal that may not lead to facts but be devoid of them. Alternatively, the authority may not be an expert in a particular field, or particularly biased. At times we all use some kind of appeal to authority to support a claim by name dropping someone who is not an expert, or right. It may appeal to the authority alone as the justification. God, granting His existence as true, by necessity, would qualify as the highest authority that can be appealed to since we are speaking of a Being of whom no higher can be thought of. My argument is that God is more reasonable than atheism or other beliefs. I know it is something that infuriates unbelievers to cite God.

Imagine you and I are on a remote island.

Two of our friends go hunting in the forest.

Only one of them comes back.

Our friend who comes back says the missing friend tried to kill them and so they pushed the missing friend off a cliff.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE MORALITY OF THIS SITUATION.
Sometimes we cannot ascertain what happened because there is not enough evidence to be objective.  

Sometimes the scene gives clues, such as evidence of a struggle or the beforehand conversation or witness of a threat. Perhaps that particular situation gives other clues as an indication of what happened, but if it does not and there is an unknown wrong done, the person is still answerable/accountable to God. Without God/gods and His revealed moral decrees there is no accountability. 

So in that case God may be the only objective Judge of the situation. 
Topic's author
#186
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism?
Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with christianity? After all don't forget 
It is not. If all I have is preference there is no moral good, just opinion based on likes, dislikes, and/or force or charisma. 

God understands there are some things I must do to live
This is an interesting tidbit too. If he can make exceptions based on the situation isn't that suddenly a subjective standard.

Topic's author
#187
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your post is going to take some work. 
Topic's author
#188
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How does a mob make anything right or good?
Brass tacks.
That is not right or you would have to agree Hitler's treatment of the Jews was right. 

"YHWH" IS REAL AND THE HOLY-WORD IS 100% TRUE.

Now what?

You live in a city swarming with heavily armed mafiosos.

But you know that "YHWH" is real and morality is objective, not relative or contextual.

These mafiosos demand that you pay tax to them.

If you refuse to pay your tax, your land will be seized and you will be incarcerated (without medical care).

Every store you visit gives 12% of their gross sales revenue to these heavily armed mafiosos.

You know for a fact that these heavily armed mafiosos commit horrifying atrocities.

They don't even try and hide it most of the time.

Does "YHWH" allow you to contribute your hard-earned cash (taxes) to support these horrifying atrocities?

So what is right about any of this?

He has given me a will, a volition to choose. I know what is the right. Do I put myself first or others and suffer the consequences. I hope I have the will to choose to go to prison for the good of others. 
#189
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,342
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheism has no morality. Nor does it purport to do so.  It is a non-system of individuals who share no common doctrines or dogma. They simply state they are non-faith people. 

Hence, it is impossible for them to argue they have morality - they don't - not as atheists. The only morality they could possibly use is morality they have borrowed from other worldviews.    This is their cake - they cannot eat it as well.   Either they have morality - which means they have a shared doctrine or dogma or they have no morality of their own - but borrow it from everywhere else. 

How of course they are able to measure whether it is good or not - is going to be interesting.  They will try and say science - but this is nonsense. Not because science is nonsense - because it is not - but because science is objective - allegedly. Morality is subjective. And cannot be tested scientifically.  
Topic's author
#190
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God.
Why don't you follow the full 613 biblical commandments? [LINK]
1. The covenant was made with Israel.

2. It was made for a different time, the purpose (of God) to demonstrate our inability of meeting His righteousness in and of ourselves.  

3. It is nullified with the New Covenant. Jesus fulfilled every letter of the law. Thus the law is dead for those who have faith in Him, in His ability. Because of that, because of His sacrifice, His worthiness, we live by a new covenant. I do not live by works but by grace. 

 
Topic's author
#191
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...rstand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the...
OK, you've convinced me.

How do I detect moral absolutes?
You find out what is necessary to make sense of morality (that is God) and then you find out if any such being is claimed to have revealed themself to humanity. Then you check out the internal and logical consistency of that said beings' message and what kind of evidence is offered for that being both within and without that revelation. 

1. Morality needs a best as a reference point or ideal.
2. Morality needs an unchanging or fixed reference point. 
3. The moral source needs to be objective (one that qualifies is an omniscient being). 
4. Morality is a mindful process. It requires a mind and one that is necessary. That is not your mind or mine. 

The Ten Commandments fit the bill in what is addressed in those decrees. 
#192
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
If all I have is preference there is no moral good, just opinion based on likes, dislikes, and/or force or charisma. 
We are talking at cross purpose here. I don't care what you call the actual standard I use that informs me to not kill people because that isn't what I want the world to be like it has the effect of making me and most humans atheist or theist adopt some legal standard. If this isn't morality it is still enough for me and enough for a working legal system. At this point I think you may be defining morality out of existence which is fine I'll just need a word that means what I am actually trying to say which is working consensus legal/moral opinion such that it informs itself to human welfare (since I don't really care to participate in a system with other goals this works for me and I certainly don't need any god to tell me not to kill people all willy nilly.)
Topic's author
#193
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Christ and His righteousness, His sacrifice 
Yeah let's talk about that shall we? Is it not by definition unjust to punish someone for the crimes of another?
It depends on what the offended party is willing to accept. If I owe you money and my rich relative offers to pay my debt should I refuse it? It means very little to him in financial strain. God is offended by sin. The Son offers to make the payment on our behalf. To do so He must not have sin found within Himself. To do that He must take on the life of a human being since humanity is guilty of the offense. It also means living that righteous life before God as a man. That means dying in our place for our sin, for the penalty for sin is death to God. (And I contend the kind of death is firstly a spiritual death since God is a Spirit and we were alienated from Him by our wrongdoing). He took our death we deserved by our faith/trust/dependence in/on Him! So God's anger is appeased. His justice is met. His righteousness is met. And all in Jesus Christ!

If you hit someone with your car while drunk driving and I agree to serve your prison sentence should you be absolved of all wrongdoing? Maybe given your driver's license back? Would that be moral? Do you think it would satisfy the family of the deceased or the community at large?
No, I should not be absolved if guilty, but I don't drink. (^8

But you don't understand the problem. You (all of those of accountable age, plus also through the representation of our federal head - Adam) have wronged your Creator by your willful sin. Thus, you are accountable to Him. Your nature has too been affected by Adam's sin. It is no longer open to God. Because of His grace the Son chose to address our problem and make our relationship with God good again. Since He made us for relationship with Him He is willing to fix the wrong without sacrificing His justice and righteousness. A good Judge does not overlook the law or what is right. Neither did God. 

Also what exactly is an omnipotent immortal being sacrificing by having (arguably) a pretty bad weekend followed by going back to being an omnipotent immortal being?
Many things. First, He humbled Himself, made Himself of no importance. He was born into a low income family, worked for a living, obeyed and respected them even though He was Lord over them. He did not use that Lordship to rule over them because of what He came to do. Next, as a human being, He lived a life of righteousness before the Father while suffering ridicule and hardships from His people, the people whose descent He was born into, to fulfill prophecy. Then He was ostracized, falsely accused, flogged, speared and stripped of all dignity for your sake. He was tortured on a cross in which His human life was given in extreme pain, gasping for breathe while wounded by a spear and forty lashes, until His body gave out, also for your sake, if you will believe and trust in the sufficiency of His sacrifice. And to think, those He came to save mock(ed) His suffering and hardship.  

He didn't lose anything but it did prove that his love is conditional and that my mother loves me more (whenever she needed to forgive me for something she just forgave me. She didn't have to sacrifice anything/one) than the Yahweh loves humanity (according to the source material).
He suffered more than most humans do. He lost His human life. He experienced pain for His innocence. He was wrongly convicted. That may not mean anything to you but I am eternally grateful!

What innocent person would die on behalf of others? That shows love. What person is willing to humble and humiliate themselves for the sake of others? What person is willing to forgive those who have offended and done him wrong? Jesus, that is who! God the Son, that's who!

Really this seems more like performance art than noble sacrifice. 
You speak of things you don't understand or know of. If a person is righteous, has done nothing wrong, yet is willing to die in the place of others and they mock and spit on Him it shows that they are ignorant or ungracious people. 

Or you could say.

(IF) Yahweh is incapable of simply forgiving humans for the serious crime of being human (THEN) he is not omnipotent.
If a good, righteous, just Judge winks at wrongdoing the law and justice is not met. God is appeased in that His Son meets the just standard as well as appeasd of His righteous anger for wrongdoing because the Son takes the penalty.

(THEREFORE)

(IF) the Yahweh is omnipotent (THAN) it was a possible to forgive humans without a sacrifice
Then how will the wrong be dealt with? Do you really think a just judge will let a murderer go free without penalty? How would that be just? 

(AND)

(IF) it was a possible for the Yahweh's to forgie humans without requiring  a sacrifice (THEN) the Yahweh could have forgiven humans without a sacrifice.
Remember, God created human beings in His image and likeness. That means they were reasoning beings would could chose. So when Adam sinned, humans had to realize the grievous nature of sin, of doing what was wrong before their Creator. They had to realize the gulf it created between them and their Creator, that He is pure in nature, good, without sin. They had to experience what it was like to live without God, all the time God opening His arms to those who would seek Him sincerely. They had to see that their good works did not measure up to His purity and goodness. Then perhaps they would consider a better way, once they discovered the evil within themselves and others.  

(THEREFORE)

THE SACRIFICE WAS COMPLEYELY UNNECESSARY.
If you could live a life without sin you would not need the sacrifice of another, just like Israel needed to atone for their many sins yearly to maintain fellowship with God. They had to realize that sin required their life (spiritual separation from God) as well as physical death, and that the animal was sacrificed as an appeasement that they recognized should have been them. 

How well do you measure up? Have you ever sinned? Have you ever been mad enough to kill someone? Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen something that was not yours. Have you ever coveted something that was not yours. Have you ever committed adultery, either the physical act  or spiritual adultery by lusting after a woman? Then have you ever idolized something and ignore God the respect He deserves as your Maker? If so, why should He forgive you? Yet He chose to in His Son. 

If you disagree then please point put the specific flaw in my logic and or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.
See above.

(I was going to talk about the other points you made. I feel like some of it was interesting but I deleted all of the rest in favor of talking about this point first. You really do have a gift for the old gish gallop. It's a real gift and if left unchecked a great way to shut a conversation down.)
I am trying to help you realize what you are missing. (^8
I am trying to show you what makes sense and is necessary to make sense. 
I am having a hard time keeping up with all your posts, hardly any of which are relevant to the topic at hand. 

Topic's author
#194
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
God understands there are some things I must do to live
This is an interesting tidbit too. If he can make exceptions based on the situation isn't that suddenly a subjective standard?

It is not an exception. It is covered in the New Covenant. 

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

Colossians 2:16-17 (NASB)
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

No one is to judge me in regard to the Sabbath, because the Sabbath was a glimpse of what was to come and it represents our rest in Christ, our rest from all that we could not do but that Christ has done for us. 

Romans 14:4-6 (NASB)
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
Topic's author
#195
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
provided this God exists. 
Thank you for this. The most reasonable thing I think I've ever seen you write. Maybe there is hope for you yet. 
That is for your thinking, not mine. I know God exists yet I can never prove that to anyone who does not want to hear or accept it. They deny the obvious. They deny what is necessary. He has confirmed Himself to me by His word, His Son, His Spirit, His creation. I am certain of that yet I realize you are not. You have not done the leg work necessary. I believe you to be very ignorant of prophecy as a verification, thus you sluff it off. 

 
Topic's author
#196
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...and I agree to serve your prison sentence...
Yeah, people could just pay others to serve their prison terms.

This seems to be missing the point.
What is the point? that you have sinned? That you have wronged others? That you have the money to pay others to serve your time? Maybe before men, but not before God. He owns all things. What are you going to pay Him that He doesn't already own?
Topic's author
#197
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Although we have our reason and logic to work with are we necessary beings?
Yes.
You are necesaary for my existence?
You are necessary for truth? 
You are necessary for knowledge of origins? 
You are necessary for moral right? 
Topic's author
#198
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely. 
Why did "YHWH" create humans?
For His pleasure. He wanted to create a creature that could think and will and reason, and LOVE, so He created humanity in His image and likeness that we could have fellowship with Him and learn from Him. He did not need to do this. He just did it for His pleasure. Yet we rejected Him as He knew we would, so He lets us go through life searching for meaning and looking for justice. It is only found in Him. 
Topic's author
#199
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You are not the origin of yourself if you had a beginning.
I may or may not be the ultimate "origin".  That "question" is immaterial (beyond our epistemological limit).
Self-creation! Then you are having a sanity issue. Good luck with your conversation with yourself! (You/or is it me: "Psychiatric ward, I would like to report an issue with myself. Let me put myself in a straight jacket to restrain myself. Stop thinking this way or I will punch myself!")

HOwEveR, I am the starting point of my perception.

COGITO, ERGO SUM.

First and foremost, you must know thyself.

Only then can you start building models of how things relate to you.


Topic's author
#200
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Did you begin to exist, and do you owe your existence to something or someone else?
This "question" is immaterial (beyond our epistemological limit).
For you. I have no difficulty knowing I had a beginning and that I am a limited being. I did not create myself. I have enough evidence to believe my reasoning is sound. 
#201
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,223
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
That's one way of looking at things.

I would suggest that humanity created gods, as a way of answering questions that couldn't be answered.

Two valid hypotheses, though I think that mine is somewhat more logical as it doesn't rely upon super-nature to answer unanswerable questions.


Also interesting that you attribute a god with a specific gender (him)....Men creating gods in their own image, for sure.


Topic's author
#202
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't "map" logic by an empirical standard for it is conceptual.
You can test logic for efficacy using empirical standards.

All mechanical devices are logical systems.
They are not logical systems. You are attributing human qualities to things that are not capable of logic. They display our logic. 

They (mechanical devices) owe their origin to our conceptions, our thoughts, our logic, which are not empirical. Without our thoughts, our conceptions or ideas, they would not be possible unless you think a F14 can construct itself without intention? Information and logic is used to create devices. Information is mindful. Logic is mindful. A rock does not think of itself or anything else. The universe, however, is full of things we discover that are mindful, like mathematics. The concept of oneness is not only a product of my mind. Yet it is needed for mathematics to work. Without it, as one cog in the system, math would not be possible. Is it self-evident and universal or is it only you who think such thoughts?

#203
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You (all of those of accountable age, plus also through the representation of our federal head - Adam) have wronged your Creator by your willful sin. 
This is an damaging (and therefore by my measure immoral) attitude. People are not unworthy simply for being who they are and who they are born as and it is by definition unjust to punish someone for another's crime (sins of the father). 
I am having a hard time keeping up with all your posts, hardly any of which are relevant to the topic at hand. 
Well then on topic all morals come from moral intuition which is an emotion. Emotions are not rational therefore morals are not rational. Therefore your morals are not more rational than anyone else's. 


Also and just for the record if the Yahweh is incapable of forgiveness without sacrifice then by virtue of being unable to do something which I, a puny human and my mother, another puny human are perfectly capable of, he is not omnipotent. 


Topic's author
#204
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The alternative to a Creator is blind random chance happenstance.
There is no such thing as "random".

You are mistaken. 

ran·dom

adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

Without a personal Creator the universe would have no intent. There would be no reason why anything would act in a specific manner or sustain a definite pattern for any period of time. It would be like rolling a dice and getting six repeatedly. First, something causes the rolling, and second, do this for a million times with the same result each time and you would surely suspect the dice are fixed, designed to roll the same number. Third, now do that in real life, not in theory, without fixing the dice as see how long it would take to get a million rolls of six every time. Fourth, if you think is is probable, explain how without such a being. What is generating the roll?  
Topic's author
#205
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...but if that being is not almighty (which describes God) or necessary, and has a beginning, such as Nanabozho, then there is a greater cause and explanation.
NOUMENON fits your criteria perfectly.

EIN-SOF fits your criteria perfectly.

χάος fits your criteria perfectly.

What are your reasons? Then I will argue that the biblical God better fits the criterion.
Topic's author
#206
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
There are laws for murder, stealing, perjury, adultery, built into most (if not all) legal systems.
Which legal system do you consider "perfect", or you know "the best"?
I do not consider any man-made system perfect. Once finite beings start monkeying around with things everything goes south. I consider God's set of laws (The Ten commandments) a guideline for our legal systems.  

Don't the Jews have an extensive framework specifically purpose built for the practical, real-world application of "YHWH"s law?
For the ANE the 613 Mosaic laws were practical. The principles of the Ten Commandments are the ideal. 

Do you follow that system?
As with every other human being, I fall short of God's perfect stand of love for Him and love for my fellow human beings, which sums up the Ten Commandments. Thus, I recognize my need for a Saviour, someone who could achieve what I have failed to do on my behalf, and pay the penalty for my sins.
Topic's author
#207
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The starting point is either a personal Being - God, or naturalism (impersonal matter) and follows it up from that starting point.
Nope.  This is a false-dichotomy.
Blow away the fluff and you either are created by a personal Creator or you are a product of chance happenstance. There is either intention behind your existent or you are a product of random chance happenstance. 

Show me other options are feasible. We can discuss each one.
Topic's author
#208
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Your words convey your thoughts and how they relate or don't to the topic. 
You seem to eagerly jump to conclusions regarding my internal motivational schema.
I can see that you have very seldom addressed the topic of the thread. The topic is on morality and which system, Christianity or Atheism is more reasonable to believe. Please give examples of how and where you have answered that topic. 

Notice it says Christianity and Atheism, not some other god. That is because I only defend the Christian God in my thinking and I was addressing SkepticalOne specifically, but opened the discussion to others who felt that atheism could be shown to be more reasonable regarding morality. With any other god I will be right there with you in exposing the weakness of such a god. 

Are you familiar with the distinction between IMPLY (AND) INFER?
im·ply
  1.
a. To express or state indirectly: She implied that she was in a hurry.
b. To make evident indirectly: His fine clothes implied that he was wealthy. 
2. To involve by logical necessity

in·fer
 1. To conclude from evidence or by reasoning: "For many years the cerebral localization of all higher cognitive processes could be inferred only from the effects of brain injuries on the people who survived them" (Sally E. Shaywitz).
2. To involve by logical necessity; entail: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy).
3. (Usage Problem) To indicate indirectly; imply.

A speaker or writer implies, a hearer or reader infers; 
A speaker could do either. 

Implications are incorporated in statements, while inferences are deduced from statements.
Okay. 

You could both imply and infer from statements. So what? What is your point?

'God is real' is implied. It is an assertation with no direct evidence. That does not necessarily mean that none can be given. It just means the statement did not give any.  

'God is real and these are the reasons why'...is inferred. It provides reasons for the belief whether you deduce the same or not.
Topic's author
#209
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stephen
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely. 
Why did "YHWH" create humans?

Slavery.
"there was not a man to till the ground."   Till = dig = mine.

A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked. 
For His pleasure. Because He wanted to, not because He had to. He chose to make a creature like Him that had its own volition that He could have a relationship with and teach. Since God is love He wanted the creature to choose to love Him also, of its own will. If it decided not to do so God would show it the consequences of its limited knowledge in living life with the idea that good would come from it. What humans turn to evil God lets good come of that evil. Some people tire of the evil and seek a solution, which is God. But to get there they first see the consequences of living without God, the consequences of their 'perfect utopian illusion,' the consequences of their relative morality and of their systems of thought.
#210
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,312
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely. 
Why did "YHWH" create humans?

Slavery.
"there was not a man to till the ground."   Till = dig = mine.

A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked. 
For His pleasure. Because He wanted to, not because He had to.

So simply put then  we were created for his own self serving reasons as his toys or pets, to be discarded (killed and disposed of) at will as he could make more when he got fed up and bored with his old toys.  He certainly knew when to dispose of his childish things didn't he; anytime he felt like it.


Yes. He gave us extremely good examples of his behavior in stories such as that  of poor Job and his ten children where human life was, well, ten a penny.

Marvelous isn't it, that the bible, as do apologist , give us 'reasons' why god destroys humans including children. But has only ever given one reason for the creation of the humans species;   "there was not a man to till the ground".  Genesis 2:5