Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 1,638
#1111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
There is no ATHEIST tradition.
Yet every atheist here will quote atheist comments  of our founding fathers if you tell them that America's tradition is Christian.
Most of the "founding fathers" were self-identified DEISTS and did NOT call themselves ATHIESTS.
#1112
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no ATHEIST clergy.
Sure there are. You guys quote them all the time. Is not your holy book "The God Delusion"?

I've never heard of it.
Lol. Ok. Watch your nose there Pono.

Most of the "founding fathers" were self-identified DEISTS and did NOT call themselves ATHIESTS.
Tell that to the atheist congregation quoting them in support of atheist claims.
#1113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Tell that to the atheist congregation quoting them in support of atheist claims.
That's the entire point.

There is no uniformity of ATHEISTS.

The actions or ideas of any particular self-identified ATHEIST do not necessarily inform the actions or ideas of any OTHER particular ATHEIST.

There is not uniformity of belief because ATHEISTS do not share any particular belief.

They only share a particular LACK-of belief.
#1114
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
That's the entire point.

There is no uniformity of ATHEISTS.
They are quite uniform here.

The actions or ideas of any particular self-identified ATHEIST do not necessarily inform the actions or ideas of any OTHER particular ATHEIST.
This is true of everyone.

There is not uniformity of belief because ATHEISTS do not share any particular belief.
The chances of atheists all spouting the same beliefs coincidentally is so close to zero, the difference is invisible.

They only share a particular LACK-of belief.
But for the word "only" above, your comment would be correct. 
Topic's author
#1115
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix

There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. [a] What relevance do their preferences have?
No, what I do is invite them to prove me wrong, that your preference does matter in determining what is moral. 

[a] The relevance is that if they have the means (i.e., force is what you are speaking of, not whether something is actually good which you seem to have no clue of), they get to push their preference on others without sufficient reason to justify it other than force or charisma. Thus, if they have the means, they can force their unjust view on others like Hitler did with Nazi Germany through various methods such as indoctrination of the young through education. They can push through unjust laws that dehumanize and discriminate against those who are thought of as less favoured (the Jew, the deformed, the mentally challenged, the gypsy, the political opposition). Such people blur the meaning of morality, of right and wrong, because they do not describe and identify things as they are but how they feel about things and what they want things to be, as conforming to their subjective feelings. The reality, to them, is lost and becomes a power grab and a manipulative mind game. They can make something that is bad (from an objective standpoint, like murder) a civil right of the elite or favoured "race" by marginalizing and controlling the unfavoured groups of that society and eliminating them. The same thing (losing the reality of right and wrong) is happening in the USA via the Democrat party, IMO. I believe that the Dems control the thought patterns of the masses through all kinds of propaganda techniques. These people who think in relative, subjective, "feeling" terms are dangerous to a free society, as has been proven true with socialist and communist governance systems. 

No. First take the guess work out of your argument. Stop telling me what you think is immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you my standard and we can both discuss it because we both agree that there are humans and that the things we do effect their welfare.
PGA2.0 369
I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standard that we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more than subjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want to live?
You believe that reality reasons like this : “PGA2.0 would dislike it if there is no objective standard that people can measure values against that is fixed and best. He does have a point. Morality would be nothing more than a preference. One wouldn't be able to tell what is really good. That would be terrible. Hence, to please PGA2.0, I make sure that there is such astandard.”
[a] Skeptics on the other hand, know that reality doesn't work that way. [b] They know that reality does not cater to their desires. Hence, [c] which way skeptics want to live is irrelevant to the existence of an objective standard, [d] unless they can create such a standard themselves.
The whole idea of the thread was to show that atheism cannot make sense of morality. Thus it is not as reasonable as Christianity (the only form of theism I defend because I believe it is the most reasonable form of theism with justifiable evidence) as a system of thought. 

"Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"

[a] Again, you use spiked language to influence others. You are begging how you know the real (reality) by personal preference since you never state the evidence. How does an opinion make something real unless it supplies justifiable evidence that its thought system conforms to the real through argumentation?

[b] Skeptics know reality does not cater to their preference because they have nothing real or concrete to measure their opinions against other than other subjective, shifting opinions.  That begs the question of why I should believe you? There is no reason that your opinion is any BETTER than any other (no better than Hitler or Kim Jong-un) unless you can supply an objective source for your opinion, an unchanging measure. That means giving evidence that meets the standard of objectivity. You can't. You offer hot air that you want to meld and mould other opinions in conformity to your nonsense. 

[c] Again, "which way skeptics want to live" is very relevant to those who are being subverted and dehumanized and discriminated against by such skeptics and just saying so does not make it so. Your thinking on this topic is reminiscent of T.S. Elliot's first stanza of The Hollow Men, IMO.  You base morality once again on FEELING ("a skeptic wants"). 

We are the hollow men
    We are the stuffed men
    Leaning together
    Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
    Our dried voices, when
    We whisper together
    Are quiet and meaningless
    As wind in dry grass
    Or rats' feet over broken glass
    In our dry cellar
   
    Shape without form, shade without colour,
    Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

[d] An objective standard is one independent of subjectivity. It conforms to what is the actual case, to reality, not whatever you want to make the case to be. The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, of relativity, are actual principles. They are proven valid. The laws of logic are actual principles that exist. The laws of logic are self-evident. They are necessary to make sense of anything. You can't deny these laws without using them. To deny them does not make them any less real. They still operate whether you realize them or not. The laws of morality operate in the same manner.  There is such a thing as the good, the right, for any given actions, or else goodness is meaningless. It can mean anything because it has no fixed address. 

Again, your worldview is absolutely pathetic, IMO, of making sense of morality. I keep inviting you to try from an atheistic perspective. Go ahead. This is the objective of this thread. Show me you have what is necessary. 

Topic's author
#1116
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix

You have claimed to share the Yahwehs  standard. Great. Now please explain not just his pronouncements about specific actions but how he has determined what is and is not moral and if you don't actually know then I'm afraid you don't actually have a standard to present at all.
PGA2.0 352
Morality is based on His nature.[100a] The Being that is God is pure, holy, just,compassionate, loving. These are good qualities. Since He knows all things He knows what is harmful and hurtful to us[100b], thus He commands that we do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet(that hurts us, creating all kinds of discord and inner turmoil within our life), do not commit adultery, do honour your father and mother, and honour your Maker.
[100a] So you claim, but can you prove that?
You could of course choose to base your standard on God's nature somehow. The result would then be your favourite standard.
[100b] Harmfull and hurtfull are tied to well(/ill)-being. Are you saying that goodness and God's nature are tied to well-being?
[100a] You can't prove things to someone who is not open to the evidence. It is like talking to a wall. There is always one more "what if..."

I keep telling you the evidence or proof is reasonable. You keep denying there is evidence. How can I have a conversation with someone who does not want to hear it or look at the evidence? You say the Bible is not evidence of God, yet it claims to be a self-revelation of God. Thus, what it contains is either reasonable to believe, or it is not. So, how reasonable is this evidence, these written records, in accordance with what we can know (via history, archaeology, and internal evidence/consistency aligned with external evidence)? What is more reasonable to believe about our existence, our morality, our universe? Two of these are philosophical questions that should be weighed on logic and reason. The third, the universe, is more apt in applying physical evidence in its proof. The Bible speaks of creation by God, a Saviour, a covenant with a people (Israel), the destruction of that covenant, and the making of a better one. It speaks of a judgment in which a city and temple will be destroyed and a particulate people judged according to a specific timeframe. How reasonable are these things to believe as happening? How reasonable is it to believe these prophecies were written before the fact, the event, not after? I claim more reasonable than not believing them or believing the contrary. The prophesied Messiah comes before the destruction of the temple and city and sets in place a new covenant. That is most reasonable to believe. 

You are a master of smoke screens. You seldom reveal your own perspective or how these moral things can make sense from your atheistic perspective. Why should I believe what you say unless you can justify your belief??? This has been one-sided to date, IMO. How many times have I asked you to justify morality from your perspective to no avail? On the other hand, I have given you a more reasonable perspective with common sense and logic.  

PGA2.0 352
If God allowed His people to be destroyed by these hostile groups or be grossly influenced it would nullify the prophecies about the Messiah's lineage. Thus, God had the greater good in mind, the salvation of a vast number of people in the long run.
No doubt God has his personal greater good in mind, [a] as he is a narcissist. [b] However, what evidence can you present that he had the salvation of a vast number of people in mind and that [c] the promotion of military conquest and the oppression of natives contributed to that?
[a] Again, just saying so does not make it so. The Bible repeatedly states that God is looking out for the good of us by requiring what is right, and just since He is loving.

Love does not seek its own benefit; thus, how can it be narcissistic? 

[b] Again, what evidence will you accept? You do not accept the Bible as His word; you do not accept the proofs within its pages. You do not accept the logic of/for God as a necessary being but assert yourself as one in your pronouncements of declarative and imperative statements. You keep begging that I should believe you. Why?  

[c] About what? You try to detach the context from your statements all the time when it comes to biblical things. What specifically are you referring to? IMO, you fail to inquire why God would do such things to judge such people or save others. There are sufficient reasons. 

PGA2.0 371 to secularmerlin
Let me get this straight, in 99% of cases sex is consensual.[*] Both parties agree to it recognizing that it could produce another human being and that anew human being is the result of a woman consenting to have sex. Now you are telling me that if she gets pregnant she should take no responsibility for it if she does not want to. She knows if she gets pregnant another human being will be sharing her body for a period of time - roughly nine months
[*] Maybe. I don't know the figures, but what matters is what fraction of pregancies come from consensual sex, which is probably lower. Moreover, that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is disputable.
[*] Maybe? These stats are gathered from US polls, which I noted in previous debates and posts. I am not doing the work again of listing them.  

When sex is engaged in, there is often a chance that pregnancy will result, that a condom will fail and that fertilization will occur. To sluff off the idea that this can happen is again to find excuses if it does happen..."I did not know I could/would get pregnant."

Would you use the same excuse if you ran a red light and hit a pedestrian? "I did not know this could/would happen by running the red." It is your responsibility to know the consequences of doing the act, either sexual or disobeying traffic laws. 

In addition, [a] on what grounds would the mother have responsibility, beside opinions? [b] Furthermore, what about the responsibility of the father? Usually, in the case of abortion, he did nothing for the foetus, yet receives no blame.
[a] Because the woman knew that having sex could result in a pregnancy ( as did the father), however small that might be. Not only this, do we not have a moral responsibility to protect innocent human beings? If not, what is stopping someone from killing you even when you have not committed a crime or done anything wrong? Is it not self-evidentiary that it is wrong? We are speaking of killing an innocent human being here. Do you not recognize that? You continually gloss over that fact. Why do you do this?

[b] He has a responsibility too. It takes both the sperm and egg to create a new life. Thus, both males and females play a part in reproduction. When a new life is created, they both have a fundamental obligation to protect it, if you think an innocent life is worth protecting? Do you? Can you live with it not being the case?  

I'm not sure agree on what exactly justice is but let's pretend for a moment that that isn't an issue and that this sounds nice in theory.
PGA2.0 382 First of all, let me give you an idea of what it is in a nutshell. Justice is equal treatment under the law. It is not being particular depending on whether a person is rich or influential. It applies the letter of the law equally regardless of persons.
Aha. We have an objective definition for justice. [a] So far you seemed to use justice as if it were whatever is consistent with with God's personal standard of justice. [b] I presume God is exempted from equal treatment and deserves better treatment. That is self-serving favouritism.
[a] What the hell are you talking about? Where did I mention God in my statement? Is it not self-evident to you that if one innocent person is fined for breaking a law that he did not break and another guilty person is let off for breaking the same law that justice has not been served? IMO, you continually manipulate words and thoughts to serve yourself and your corrupt and illogical ideas. 

[b] First, you assume that moral rules are above God, not part of His nature. Second, you assume that moral laws apply to Him. Greg Koukle raises some good points about the Ten Commandments and morality. They apply to human beings, but how can they apply to God? 

How can stealing apply to God? Since God owns all things and created all things, how can He steal? He is just taking what already belongs to Him. How can that be considered stealing? 

As a human being, do you have a right to do with what you own as you want to do (on a human level)? Can you break the computer you own because you are frustrated with it? Can you give it away if you want to do so, as an adult? If so, how can you deny God the same right as the owner of all things?

How can murder apply to Him? He has revealed that He will not take innocent life without restoring it to a better place, so He does not murder. You do not have the ability to restore a life taken to a better place. Since God created life (is the giver and taker of life), how can He be guilty of murder? He determines how life should be lived by what is just. Murder is the unwarranted and malicious taking of innocent life. Punishing a person for murder by taking that life too is not the same thing as murder. It is applying equal justice - life for life, where one was wrongfully taken. You do not own that other life, but God does. He is the originator of it and decides how long it will live. Murder is wrong on the human level from a Christian perspective because you take something that belongs to God. He granted that life in the first place, not you. It is not your right to take it except in self-defence or to protect others from harm, not out of malicious intent, jealousy, and selfishness.  

In the stealing and ownership example, are you not being hypocritical, applying one standard to yourself and another to God? And as if it should apply to Him. How can you speak back to Him as if He is unjust? How do you determine this by your subjectiveness? What is justice to you? You required I define it. I defined my terms, yet you should also define yours, so we know we are speaking about the same thing. You always want to critique my view but seldom give justification for your own.

What makes you think God is accountable to you? He is under no obligation to answer you (per the Bible) but has graciously decided to anyway through the biblical revelation. 


Topic's author
#1117
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix

Mopac 386
The Truth is God.[101]
As atheism is a denial of Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, it is the position of nihilism.[102]
Nihilism demolishes morality. Anything built off nihilism is like a house built on sand. Morality becomes a matter of convenience for whomever has the ability to excercise authority.[103]
[101] What do you mean?
[102] Can you prove that?
[103] If morality becomes a matter of convencience, then, contrary to what you claimed, it is not demolished.
Since this is addressed to Mopac concerning his dialogue, I will let him answer it. 

Show me you have a fixed standard that is objective or don't call what you believe moral.
PGA2.0 400
I point you to the Ten Commandments. That is the standard from which we derive many other laws for the principles focus on love for God and love for neighbour. We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours. But what does that mean outside of a fixed, final standard or measure? It would be relative and subjective. Because of that, such a system of thought is incapable of providing a fixed and necessary standard.[104] Remember, I have asked SkepticalOne to provide one since he stated he has one. I am still waiting
[104] So what? Can any relevant conclusion be drawn from that?
[a] If so, why haven't you provided or demonstrated it yet?
Yes. It means that morality is constantly shifting and that the law of identity (A=A) is contravened, making nonsense of meaning. Thus, two people, two groups, two cultures, can have the opposite meaning of the other for the same thing being right.* That begs which is the actual right view.

* Group A = It is right to steal.
   Group B = It is wrong to steal.

Which is the actual case?

[a] It is a constant claim of yours which I have stated I have demonstrated what is necessary and what makes sense. My Christian perspective has what is necessary for making sense of morality; your atheistic one does not and has not been demonstrated as doing so. Just more hot air on your part.  


Most mammals have the following (moral) instincts,
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

These moral instincts are universal (relative to mammals anyway) and unchanging.
[a] These moral instincts predate the"discovery" of "YHWH" by Abraham.
PGA2.0 428
That is your assumption and presumption that comes from your worldview bias.
Are you disputing that these instincts existed before Abraham?
The biblical revelation does not say that Abraham invented the biblical YHWY or morality, so why Abraham is included is a mystery. 

No, I am debating that humans instincts are not what is necessary for morality. How I protect myself, my family, my property, or determine that I need to protect myself, family, or property may have a detrimental effect on those who have done nothing wrong or even on what is right and wrong. It is not based upon my feelings or perceptions but upon what is right and wrong. My instinct on right or wrong may or may not meet the moral standard.
#1118
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Amoranemix: There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. [a] What relevance do their preferences have?
No, what I do is invite them to prove me wrong, that your preference does matter in determining what is moral. 

There is no need to disprove that which has not been proven. 
Topic's author
#1119
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
EXACTLY LIKE YOUR PREFERENCE IN YOUR CHOICE OF GOD($).
PGA2.0 428
First, it is not based on me. I appeal to a source of revelation outside myself, a necessary personal knowing and revealing Being. What are you appealing to with your statements?
[a] 3RU7AL is appealing to his preference and you are appealing to your preference. [b] You are blaming atheists for having only their preferences, but you have nothing more. [c] All would you have extra, if your god were to exist, would be an additional option to prefer: You could prefer your god's morality, [d] while atheists can't. [e] Polytheistic religions have an even bigger advantage though.
[a] If God did not exist or if I failed to interpret His moral laws correctly, yes, it would be just another preference, but that is my whole argument, isn't it? I argue that the biblical God is God and that He has revealed and given evidence in His revelation, also by the created order. I argue the implausibility and even the contrary's impossibility, all the while asking atheists to give their evidence. For instance, I continually ask you why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference and how you determine this? To this query, I get many people playing tiddlywinks instead of playing the game before us - Go.

[b] Again, providing you can prove the biblical God is not God or is not necessary. You have not done that. All you have done is assert that the biblical God is an invention. 

[c] This is not true to a God who has revealed the truth about right and wrong. With such a God, I have an objective (universal and according to what is the case) standard and appeal.

[d] The atheist is wrong in such a case. Again, why should I prefer your moral preference? It is based on nothing concrete and fixed. 

[e] Polytheists hold many contrary views since their gods hold different views. Thus, only one god, if any, can be the true view. That one God, Christians argue, is the Christian God and with good reason. 

(IFF) you are unable to convince someone that your moral code is universal and unchanging (THEN) your moral code is a defacto OPINION.
PGA2.0 431
Some people cannot be convinced because it runs contrary to what they want to believe.[105]
There is proof available in and for the Christian worldview that is most reasonable.[106] It comes from what is necessary for there to be morality. How is yours anything other than opinion?
[105] as everyone who has debated Christians, you in particular, knows well.
[106] [a] Says who? [b] You? Why should skeptics believe you, [c] a fallacy king who cannot support his claims?
I am willing to reason with you and, in fact, have been. For instance, with morality, please provide me with a suitable and necessary alternative that is more than your preference or group preference. Show me why it is the actual case or more reasonable to believe. 

[106] [a] The argument is based on evidence from the Bible, history, logic, and philosophy via what is necessary for morality, a necessary Being. You are not that being. The subject of this thread addresses which worldview is more compelling, more reasonable.

[b] Because what I believe is more reasonable and plausible to believe.

Morality requires intelligent beings. 
Morality requires a fixed, objective, universally applicable revealed source for the right to be known.

[c] Better than the fanciful emperor who has no clothes. 

Just like your preference for a particular god($).
PGA2.0 431
The evidence is convincing and justifiable.[107] Christianity has what is necessary. I can make sense of morality. Show me your belief can too.
[107] See [106].
Again, you avoid showing me you have what is necessary for morality. It again avoided showing me it is capable of making sense of morality. 

Topic's author
#1120
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Amoranemix
How does what youlike (your subjective tastes and desires) equal what is good?
Well,I certainly wouldn't trust you totell me my likes and dislikes.
PGA2.0 431
You are evading the question, trying to turn it back on me to escape explanation. It is a ploy I have witnessed for those who have nothing to offer use.
I know the feeling. On debate.org I have debated a guy who forgot to answer hundreds of questions. ;)
I did not forget. I got to the point where I saw answering your posts was a futile process, the workload required too much (a barrage of detailed posts with complex explanations), and I felt it an unfairly one-sided discussion. You have a habit of not justifying your own position but mainly challenging mine, a one-sided dialogue where I am required to do all the leg work and where you get to evade questions or justification. Do you think that is fair? IMO, your main purpose seems like that of some other atheists I have encountered who have an agenda - make Christians look bad.  

(IFF) everyone agreed on the one-true-interpretation and practical application of the moral code of "YHWH" (THEN) we'd all be Orthodox Jews
PGA2.0 431
Argumentum ad populum. Truth is not true just because the majority think so.[108] What is good is so whether you believe so or not.[109]
[108] Your fallacy of choice: the straw man. 3RU7AL did not rely on that erroneous principle. Whether everyone is an Orthodox Jew does in fact depend on the popularity of certain beliefs.
"If, and only if, everyone agrees" is an appeal to popularity. He reasons that everyone has to agree for something, such as biblical morality, to be true. Then he says that we would all be Orthodox Jews in that situation, which is another fallacy, a haste generalization. 

He is making the argument that truth depends on a majority or, in this case, EVERYONE correctly interprets the one true interpretation of the Bible or Jewish Scriptures moral code for it to be true. His appeal is to EVERYONE agreeing to this (If and only if). I find that absurd. Truth, as I said, is true no matter who thinks otherwise and no respecter of persons.  

Thence, "truth depends on everyone agreeing" is wrong. He falsely perceives that to interpret biblical morality correctly, everyone needs to agree on the true meaning, which is the one true interpretation.

Some Muslims would argue that to interpret the Qur'an correctly; one must understand Arabic. I have had that argument used on me by a Muslim. Thus, any true meaning can only come from Arabic knowledge, not translating it into other languages. Thus, with Islam, according to some, there is no equivalency to other languages. 

[109] Your god on the other hand seems to think something is good because he believes it. I suggest you tell him the error of his ways.
No, He knows something is good because goodness is one of His attributes, part of His nature. He knows all things, which is another attribute of His nature. 

Your decalogue is indistinguishable from a (really old) personal preference or opinion.
PGA2.0 432
Your assertion, not mine. Back it up.
Can you provide/support such distinction with more than bald assertions?
3RU7AL made a claim. It was his statement, not mine. It is his onus to back it up as anything more than an assertion.

Can you prove "it" (his statement of it - the Decalogue - being indistinguishable from other older personal preferences) is not the case with anything other than bald assertions? How does he back that up? Is he going to appeal to the Code of Hammurabi or another god? Please give me some proof that those codes or accounts did not borrow from the biblical account or that such gods are more reasonable to believe in by the evidence for them.  

I am appealing to logic and what would philosophically have to be the case. If you disagree, then provide another justifiable reason or argument (set of premises).

Again, I refer you to what is necessary for morality. If you think otherwise, then we can argue on those aspects. Here we go: - a necessary, omniscient, objective, immutable, eternal mindful Being.

And even if you argue that the Ten Commandments are not required, I would argue that humans innately have the laws of God written into their moral being. They know, deep down, that it is wrong to murder.  

Didn't you choose your standard?
PGA2.0 434
I believe in God who is my standard of righteousness. He first chose me to be in Christ. Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe. My standard does not originate from or in myself. It is the revelation of Someone else who is logically necessary for morality.
[a] So you chose God and his morality. [i] A choice, assuming free will, is subjective.
[b] That your god is necessary for morality is something you have yet to prove. My worldview allows me to explain why you haven't done so yet, because I base it on reality.
So, you choose according to what you believe meets you preference and your preference is the moral standard of someone who has what is necessaryfor morality. But what if Kim Jong Un or Bashar Al Assad has adifferent preference?
[a] He first chose me to be born again in Christ. It begins with Him. Morality makes sense with God. It is reasonable to believe that morality comes from mindful beings, and a necessary being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal meets the requirements. 

[i] A choice for humans is subjective. We do not know everything. Thus we make a judgment. But if God has revealed, we can know what is objective provided; we correctly interpret His revelation. 

[b] There is an objective standard of appeal, provided the biblical God exists. It is not subjective if such a God exists, has revealed, and I correctly interpret His revelation. Agree or disagree? 

I keep asking you questions that you fail to answer. Be honest with yourself and others and stop hiding what you believe. I am not the only one giving an account here. Do you realize that? It requires two of us to test each other's worldviews. Here are some more questions concerning this very subpoint. 

Is a mind necessary for morality? If so, is that mind your mind? Yes or no?

If you did not exist, would morality still be possible? If so, why is your mind the necessary mind for morality's existence, or can you say it is? 

For you to know with certainty, would omniscience provide the answer? Yes or no? 

For morality to exist, does the law of logic, the law of identity apply? (A=A) If not, whose idea of the moral right is actually true to what is the case, or is there no actual case and how do you know?

If there is no fixed, unchanging standard - a best - then what do you use to compare goodness or rightness to?  

If morality is not eternally true (truth is always the case), then how can you say something is morally right or wrong? If it is not always the case that something is right, then it can change and what was once true is now false regarding the same principle. That begs why is the "now" better than the "then"? How do you get better in such a case? Who gets to determine that?

Again, if moral values are not eternal, unchanging, they are inconsistent with logic. They fail the law of contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles. 

PGA2.0 335
Not for those who are true believers.
You don't seem to understand what "unfalsifiable" means.
Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part.
I want to compliment you, Peter. You admit fault and you've integrated some awareness of logical fallacies into your repertoire. Kudos, sir.
So a good script for evasion seems to be:
1. Miss the point with a nonsensical response.
2. When confronted, admit your mistake.
3. Accept the congratulations!
I've lost the greater context, so I will respond to what is available.

Point three - Thank you! I realize you are the only one who can't be wrong or misunderstand something!!!

All communication requires that we get the meaning the other person is conveying to understand them correctly. Misapplying a term or not understanding it can result in a misunderstanding. You seem to think I am not allowed that benefit. Are you so perfect, or is this your way of beating up on me? 

How do you know the "revelation" is moral?
PGA2.0 448
It has what is necessary for morality. Subjective humans who have no fixed foundation do not. I keep inviting you to show me a standard (other than the biblical one, since you are not a believer) that does have what is necessary and we will focus on that standard. I have not heard a chirp.
[a] Although you have failed to answer his question, you suggest that something that has [b] what is necessary for morality, is moral (benevolent). [c] Why would that be so?
[d] You also claim that a fixed foundation is required for morality. Can you prove that? (Repeating how bad it is without such foundation and repeating fallacious questions do not constitute proof.)
[e] You also seem to be under the impression that asking something gives the recipient of your request the duty to fulfill it. However, that is not so according to the [f] moral standard of most of your recipients.
[a] I have answered how I know many times before, till I am blue in the face. I find the evidence in the Bible is reasonable and compelling to believe, and in an example like prophecy, it is confirmed on many accounts by external historical evidence. I have also argued philosophically, ontologically, metaphysically, morally, and epistemological for my case.   

[b] In the biblical case, yes.

As I have said before, I don't argue about other gods, so my theistic argument is about a specific God I deem meets the requirements of what is necessary, as explained in the biblical revelation/writings.

[c] Why, because moral good depends on goodness AND justice/accountability. It also depends on the best, which would be an omniscient being. If you don't know what that best is and can't reason for it, you do not have what is necessary to explain morality.

[d] If something does not have a fixed identity, how can you say it is what it is? I think it is self-evident. Do you believe that some things are self-evident? 

[e] I am under the impression that you cannot fulfill my questions or requests, so you avoid them. It, to me, shows the moral and epistemological bankruptcy of your atheistic position. It can't make sense of itself with anything other than assertions and calling the kettle black. 

[f] What moral standard? Are you speaking about your preferences? How are they moral? Justify them as moral. Do you think that just because you can make something up, that means it is moral? 
Topic's author
#1121
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Amoranemix: There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. [a] What relevance do their preferences have?
No, what I do is invite them to prove me wrong, that your preference does matter in determining what is moral. 

There is no need to disprove that which has not been proven. 

There is adequate proof. Christianity is reasonable to believe. Its foundation is firm. You just deny it, so that lets you off the hook of accountability.  Your skeptical foundation is not firm. It crumbles away when investigated. It can't make sense of itself when you find out what its core beliefs are - mindless chance happenstance. There is no reason behind it or with it, yet you take for granted all the meaning you find despite this. Go figure. You construct meaning in a supposed meaningless universe. You care about meaning. You discover meaning. You are inconsistent with where you begin. The biblical interpretation and perspective: You live in a fool's paradise. 
Topic's author
#1122
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Is being free your moral preference?
Individual freedom is impossible without the individual ability to freely generate their own food, clothing and shelter.
You mistake the physical with the abstract. Food, clothing and shelter are physical things. Freedom is an abstract state of mind. 
Topic's author
#1123
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
[d] You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. [c] Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?
[a] You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. [b] Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?
[a] I do have a footing - a necessary being and His revelation. I can reference that revelation and compare it to history to show it is reasonable to believe. I can compare it and contrast it with other explanations. I can examine the nuts and bolts of such a worldview and see if they have what is necessary to make sense of anything. I can philosophically ponder what is more reasonable to believe because I am a reasoning being. 

I question how you can and if any explanation you give is sufficient, and if so why. 

[b] I am asking you which is more reasonable to believe, not if you will believe it. I am using you to justify your belief as to the more reasonable of the two.  

[c] Unless you can provide a necessary and objective standard, not some preference, I fail to see any reason to believe you know what you are talking about. Because you like something doesn't mean it is right. It just means you like it. 

[d] Your worldview is inconsistent. WARNING: That is a logical sign that discerns it is not sound. 
Topic's author
#1124
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened.
Occam’s Razor (or Ockham’s Razor, also known as the Principle of Parsimony) is the idea that more straightforward explanations are, in general, better. That is, if you have two possible theories that fit all available evidence, the best theory is the one with fewer moving parts.
It’s important to emphasize the part about fitting all available evidence. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is very wrong because it fails to account for all the evidence! In this case, Occam’s Razor does not apply. [***]

FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN A COP FINDS A DEAD BODY NEXT TO A WALLET, THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS THAT THE OWNER OF THE WALLET IS THE KILLER.

THIS MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE THE CASE (IT COULD BE A FRAME-UP).

YOU CAN'T JUST USE "OCKHAM'S RAZOR" AS AN EXCUSE TO JUMP-TO-CONCLUSIONS.
Already addressed in two other posts, if my memory serves me correctly. 
Topic's author
#1125
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 onus is for both the atheist and the theist to present their case. Here is a reminder of the thread's theme - Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

OP: "This topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based...By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods."  
Atheist: All mammals first defend themselves, then defend their families, then defend their property.  This is the natural and obvious basis of ethics & morality.
Are you equivocating morality with instinct and perhaps humans with animals? Humans are the only earthly beings that can make known through communication and demonstration the difference between abstract and physical things. We, as humans, can speak in terms of the abstract.  

Not only this, but you speak in generalities, right? All? Not all human beings defend themselves or their families and what makes that morally good or right if this is all relative? Sometimes they just give up or resign to death. Sometimes some animals and humans do not protect their families but flee from harm and let their families suffer the harm rather than themselves. Run away and live to fight another day. Sometimes property is not defended but given up or ignored. 

Next, if we are governed by evolution then our genetic makeup, our environmental conditioning, and chance happenstance determines whether it is fight or flight. If it is through evolutionary means then we learn from instinct and rote habits what hurts and what helps us. How is that good in a meaningless universe? How is it good with a shifting, subjective, relative standard based on preference?

Finally, protecting family and property is a biblical principle based on the greater good - God.
The Christian standard is fixed. It has the best as a comparison for the good and better.   

Theist: [a] My personally preferred version of a magic sky-daddy says you're wrong and that makes it "objectively" "true".

Atheist: [b] So what's this godly moral code, specifically?
[a] That is not the theistic take but a pretty poor misrepresentation by an atheist. It reminds me of the Freudian primative tribal illusionary imagery of God as a psychological crutch in times of crisis, a defense mechanism to protect against fear and the unknown natural world where the volcano on the tropical island blows its top. 

Theist: [a] Well, you know, like, the ten commandments and love your neighbor and stuff.

Atheist: [b] So it's perfectly ok for parents to beat their children and [c] slaughter (not neighbor) foreigners?
[a] Again, the concepts involved are found in most cultures. It is wrong to steal, murder, lie, covet, etc. 

[b] Already explained and justified. The child owes their existence to the parents and need nurturing in right and wrong, of which disrespecting those who know better is wrong and deserves punishment for correction. 

[c] The survival and well-being (moral and spiritual purety) of Israel depended on not being overrun by these hostile foreigners and absorbed into these cultures and influenced by false gods.

Theist: Of course not!!

Atheist: I think your godly moral code needs more detail.  It covers some basics, but [d] relies too much on interpretation for behaviors not specifically mentioned.

Atheist: For example, when does your godly moral code indicate that it's morally justified to attack a foreign country with deadly force?  That would seem to be a big one.
[d] The Bible claims to be a revelation from God so how it is interpreted is important. A proper interpretation will gain an understanding of what the Author means.

Interpret this: 

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.

Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked sinners against the Lord.

Deuteronomy 9:3-5 (NASB)
3 So be aware today that it is the Lord your God who is crossing over ahead of you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive them out and eliminate them quickly, just as the Lord has spoken to you.
4 “Do not say in your heart when the Lord your God has driven them away from [a]you, ‘Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to take possession of this land.’ Rather, it is because of the [b]wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to take possession of their land, [c]but it is because of the [d]wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and in order to confirm the [e]oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

As you can see, these foreign nations and people were describes as wicked, doing things not fit to be done. 

These nations, like the Canaanites and Amalikites practiced child sacrifices and other abominal practices that would influence Israel if not addressed. 

Leviticus 20:1-5  (NASB)
On Human Sacrifice and Immoralities
20 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “You shall also say to the sons of Israel:
‘Anyone from the sons of Israel or from the strangers residing in Israel who gives any of his [a]children to Molech, shall certainly be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his [b]children to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name. 4 If the people of the land, however, [c]should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his [d]children to Molech, so as not to put him to death, 5 then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the prostitute with him, by playing the prostitute with Molech.

These last two paragraphs are just a few of many, many examples of why God judged these people in the land of promise. 
#1126
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
There is adequate proof. Christianity is reasonable to believe. Its foundation is firm.
Assertions.

You just deny it, so that lets you off the hook of accountability.  Your skeptical foundation is not firm. It crumbles away when investigated. [Etc., etc., etc.]
Ahh, so its my fault your claims cannot be substantiated with anything approaching verifiable evidence. Ok. 😄



#1127
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@PGA2.0
[Continued from post 1101]
PGA2.0 906
Which is the correct standard? In Country A, the person will lose their life by having one. In Country B, the person takes the life of an innocent human being with no consequences. Are you saying it is okay for them to do either or both?[292] You see, abortion has lost its moral identity.[293] It can mean two opposite things, thus how can they both be right?[294] Once the line is blurred on right and wrong, anything can pass. The question is, can you live consistently in such a world?[295]

Not only that but within a particular society, say Country A, subgroups and individuals are holding contrary views to the "law of the land." Why are they wrong if a preference is the order of the day?[296] No, you say. Then how can they be punished if they believe the opposite?[297] (Goodbye justice)

Is the majority always in the right?[298]

Is it the minority who holds power? Are they right?[299] If so, then how could anyone outside Nazi Germany condemn what the Nazis did?[300] It would be good to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political opposition in Nazi Germany. How can you say otherwise?[301] To each (preference) his/her own
[292] No.
[293] I don't know what a moral identity is. If it means, having a particular classification according to a moral standard, then you are mistaken, for it would have two moral identies.
[294] Your fallacy of choice : the equivocation. Right according to what standard ?
[295] Yes.
[296] You again omitted to mention the moral standard to maintain confusion (the Christian's friend), but l shall assume you to mean the moral standard of the land. Apparently your worldview does not allow you to answer such a simple question. Fortunately, thanks to my reality-based worldview, I can. They are wrong because the are violating the moral standard of the land.
[297] So, you don't know how justice works either. That is off topic, but simply put, and that varies from country to country, when the law-enforcement knows about a possible transgression, they or the justice system will investigate. If the suspect is found guilty of a transgression, a punishment is usually imposed by force.
[298] No.
[299] That depends.
[300] Even inside the zone of control of the powerful, their power is not always sufficient for them to prevent an insurgent from sharing his opinion, let alone outside their zone of control.
[301] They can disapprove by adhering to a different moral standard and express that through writing of speaking for example.

All these mysteries to you are to me simple aspects of reality. They are so because I base my worldview on it.

PGA2.0  80
Yes, that is chattel slavery, IMO. I believe that is morally wrong and I determine this based on what I consider a necessary or self-evident truth by pointing to a necessary being revealing it.
Most of us disapprove of chattel slavery. A popular reason is religion, another is valuing human freedom.
PGA2.0 906
Are you saying that chattel slavery is objectively wrong, or is this just your own subjective moral preference?[302] If someone likes to have chattel slaves, then to them, is it right?[303]

Is being free your moral preference?[304] What about those who think otherwise of you, that you should not be free?[305] Are they objectively wrong, or is this too just their moral preference?[306]

Your inconsistent language and moral stance imply an actual objective good to judge chattel slavery as wrong.[307] Then you say elsewhere that morality is nothing but a preference.[308] Thus, why are you getting so worked up about what other people believe???[309] Why should it concern you?[310] It is none of your business what others do to others, even yourself, as long as they think it is "right."[311] It is their PREFERENCE. Stop being a hypocrite and dictating what others should think UNLESS you can show that it is objectively, universally, morally wrong to own chattel slaves.[312] The Christian system of thought can. Yours can't.[313] You borrow from it all the while trying to undermine it.[314] The term for that is hypocritical.
[302] That is a false dilemma. It is wrong according to moral standards and opinions that value human freedom.
[303] Not necessarily. Their moral standard may not coincide with their likes.
[304] No. Freedom does not qualify as a moral preference, but as a value. It is something one can care about, or not.
[305] What exactly is it that you want to know about these people ?
[306] That depends on the reference moral standard, that thing that you systematically avoid mentioning to avoid clarity (the Christian's enemy). Also, 'objectively wrong' is vague, as objectivity and subjectivity come in ways and degrees.
[307] Please demonstrate that my language is inconsistent.
[308] I doubt I have said that. Please provide the quote of me saying that morality is nothing but a preference, with the post number.
[309] I don't know how to describe degree of workedupness, except for extremes and for a specific topic, nor how it would be relevant. My degree of workedupness is determined by my nature and the subject. Please ask only clear, relevant questions.
[310] Morality should concern me because I am a social animal and because I am debating it.
[311] Who are you to decide what is whose business ?
[312] In order to stop being a hypocrit, I would have to start being one first and I prefer not to. You on the other hand, are a hypocrit : blaming others for doing what you are doing yourself, namely claiming that others should follow your moral standard.
[313] You can't even demonstrate that if God were to exist and you have yet to demonstrate God's existence.
[314] Is that a fact of just your personal opinion ?

Amoranemix 844 to 3RU7AL
He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.
PGA2.0 906
God is the necessary objective moral standard since He knows all things, revealing (the factual) that His nature is good. An objective fact is different from a subjective preference. A subjective preference or opinion is not morally binding on all people. An objective moral good or best has a fixed and unchanging identity.[315]

God does not issue moral preferences but moral commands. He is consistent. A moral relativist like yourself is not consistent.[316] Moral relativism is a self-refuting standard. On the one hand, you say, "everything is relative; everything is a preference."[317] On the other, in contrast, demanding that I treat your statement as an absolute, everything is indeed relative except that statement;[318] everything is preferential except that your statement is not preferential. So, as always, you are a walking contradiction.[319] You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say?[320] You subjectively like what you push, but why should I?[321]
[315] Even if God knows that his nature is good according to God's morality (GM), GM would still be subjective.
You are doing what you were also doing in our debate on debate.org. Almost all of your claims are either, irrelevant, false or already known not me. Why do you almost never make interesting, true claims ?
[316] Those are three bald assertions : that God is consistent, that I am a moral relativist and that I am not consistent. Please prove them.
[317] Please demonstrate that I have indeed stated that.
[318] I doubt I made that statement and I doubt even more that I have demanded that you treat it as an absolute.
[319] The problem with most of your conclusions are those of this one : they don't follow from the premises and the premises are at best bald assertions.
[320] You should not, because you don't want to learn what reality is like without God. Why did you ask ?
[321] I have never said that you should like what I do. Why do you keep asking irrelevant questions ? You, on the other hand, try to push your preference on me.

[17] One should, must or ought according to a standard or goal. In case of moral prescriptions they refer to a moral opinion or standard.
[18] Actually there is, but it is not a philosphical bridge. That is, one does not correctly reason from only facts to an obligation. On the other hand, opinions and standards have causes in reality.
PGA2.0 909
[*] Notice you say we "indeed" did. We did cross the bridge, the divide between the physical non-personal, non-mindful to the non-physical personal and mindful, yet you provide no means of how this happened. Nice avoidance of the problem. Nice assertion with no proof (Indeed we did). Your worldview, without God, is devoid of a suitable or necessary explanation.[322]
[Paragraph 2]
[Paragraph 3]
What we run into is the NaturalisticFallacy, defining morality in terms of natural properties.[323] Natural properties are tangible properties. You can't grab hold of goodness. It has no tangible qualities. It is an abstract concept. A value has to have a valuer. Nature, in itself, has no valuer. That valuer has to be the ideal or else we have nothing fixed to measure values against. Without the ideal, the best, values are turned on their head and become illogical.[324]
[* ] You had not asked me to explain that yet. You have a habit of complaining about not being explained stuff. In the mean time you have yet to explain several things that you have already been asked several times to demonstrate.
[322] Nice assertion with no proof.

So the issue is that, at least so I claim, that in my worldview an ought can come from an is, while in your worldview it cannot. I'm trying to asses how that could be relevant. I suspect the relevance could be the following :
Oughts exist and the issue is to explain how they come to exist. In your worldview they simply always have existed, as they are part of God who passes them on to other moral beings. In my worldview they needed to come into existence.

So, as counterpart of me demonstrating that oughts came into existence naturally, you would need to demonstrate they are part of God and that God distributes them. Demonstrating the latter should suffice, as the former follows from it.
On the one hand, I cannot demonstrate the process by which oughts appeared : I am not an expert in the field and even brain scientists and neurologists have knowledge gaps in their fields. So you will always be able to ask questions I don't know the answer to.
On the other hand, you cannot demonstrate that God distributes oughts to moral beings, as you cannot demonstrate the existence of a god, even less so one with the laundry list of attributes you would like yours to have.

A problem is that an ought is poorly defined. All we have is rephrasals, like “what one should do”, which are just as subjective. An objective definition, like particular structures and flow of information (like in a neural network) would be in my advantage.

If you want to take a stab at proving that God distributes oughts, then go ahead. After you have succeeded, I will build the case that they have arrived naturally.

[To be continued]
#1128
Jasmine
Jasmine's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 126
0
3
6
Jasmine's avatar
Jasmine
0
3
6
idk
#1129
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
We constantly state our moral and ethical position with nots. I am not a murder. I am not a child molester. I am not a thief. Atheism is not different. 
Topic's author
#1130
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
a revealed Being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal
The universe is 13.6 billions years old. If we use a day (24 hrs) as a comparison, the life of a human (90 years) is .0006 seconds. It looks like God doesn't have much time for humans.
Given that the universe is 13.6 billion years old, that .00006 seconds would be true, provided the math is right (I did not check). That age of the universe you list is your presupposition, not mine.  It works on the assumption of how fast the universe is expanding with Hubble's constant (Hubble's Law) plus other age determining factors. It works on the assumption that the present (what we are in) is the key to the past. It works on the assumption that humanity is the measure of all things, rather than God. There was a paradigm shift in how humanity viewed the universe with the Age of Reason and The Enlightenment.

Even now, your 13.6 billion years is an estimate, and the age varies depending upon which site you visit. 

"From stellar evolution, we have estimated the ages of the oldest globular clusters to be approximately 12-13 billion years old...our estimates...the estimated age of the Universe...a controversy over the age of the universe derived from Hubble's Constant. The best theories available at the time were estimating that the stars...many globular clusters had ages of 15 billion years old or more. This creates a problem. How can the universe contain an object older than itself? ...we now estimate them to be about 13 billion years old...."

"...a research team led by a University of Oregon astronomer estimates the age of the universe at 12.6 billion years..."

"...According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old..."

"...The expansion of the universe gives an age for the universe as a whole: 13.8 billion years old..."

"...we can estimate the age of the universe to about 0.4%: 13.77 ± 0.059 billion years!"

"...The universe is looking younger every day, it seems.
New calculations suggest the  could be a couple billion years younger than scientists now estimate, and even younger than suggested by two other calculations published this year that trimmed hundreds of millions of years from the age of the cosmos...
Jee's team came up with a Hubble Constant of 82.4, which would put the age of the universe at around 11.4 billion years."

Who should I trust? You? Your data? The language above is unsure. 
Topic's author
#1131
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
[a] You cannot add something completely undemonstrated and magical ("God breathed us into existence!) and [b] then say "occum's razor!" because you think that somehow that's the SIMPLEST explanation.
[a] The argument was, which is the more simple explanation. But since you raise the assertion that the biblical God is undemonstrable, I totally disagree. The evidence is reasonable for His existence. 

Fact: There are 66 different writings by over 40 different authors who claim to be receiving a revelation from God. 

Fact: The manuscripts can be traced back to antiquity. 

Fact: The Bible describes our condition and why humanity is in the current situation, why evil exists, and the solution. 

Fact: The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies that are reasonable to believe were written before the event they describe.

Fact: The Bible describes a relationship with Israel, a people the Bible reveals God chose (and they agreed to) to make Himself known to the world through whom the Messiah would trace His human lineage.

Fact: The Bible contains prophecies about a judgment upon a covenant people and the replacement by God of the covenant with a better one. 

Fact: Jerusalem was conquered by the Romans as prophesied, which brought to an end the Old Covenant. 

Fact: A Messiah figure as spoken of in the Gospels and epistles of the NT was crucified and said by these purported eyewitnesses to have risen from the dead.

Fact: Many eternal writings from the time period also speak of this Messiah figure and confirm the biblical accounts. 

These are just a few of the many facts that confirm the biblical narrative and a belief in God. I could get into a lot more depth and show the intricately connected and unified nature of every biblical writing. I could show you from history the reasonableness of these writings happening before the events prophecies. I have contended many times that the evidence for is far more reasonable than the evidence against, and if you want to get into it, I am willing. So, don't tell me there is no evidence, or it is reasonable to believe this God is mythical or magical.  

[b] Which is more simple...God spoke, and it was so. He said, "Let there be light, and it was so"..., or somehow nothing came into existence via a Big Bang for no reason that resulted in the complexity and diversity of the universe as it evolved from the simple to the complex, also for no reason?

What is more simple, God created us as reasoning beings made in His image and likeness with the ability to reason and love, or...non-living inorganic chemical matter mixed forming molecular bonds and more and more complex molecular structures, eventually acquired consciousness (how we don't know), thus, becoming living organisms in a most basic form - one-celled organisms with complex engineered systems that move, feed, expel wastes, reproduce, and eventually die. From these common ancestors, transitions took place over billions of years of evolution through mutations and genetic engineering partly governed or influenced by the environment. The most adaptable survived, and the weak were eliminated. These mutating organisms became more and more complex, eventually resulting in us humans.   

A supernatural, invisible, undemonstrated being using its breath to make a universe is indeed a simple explanation, but (a) you haven't demonstrated the existence of that creature, therefore we can't infer that's the cause according to the razor because you're [a] ADDING that element without merit. And then you're also ignoring bridging the gap between this faceless power of creativity to your version of it is also, as it stands currently, totally meritless. 
[a] There are plenty of merits. I have created threads on the merits of the Christian faith; this one is one of them. It deals with one element - morality, and it poses, which is more reasonable to believe, the Christian take or the atheistic take. 

I won't comment on the rest of your post. I found it rude and vulgar.
#1132
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
There is no need to disprove that which has not been proven. 
An unfalsifiable claim is not a valid claim.
#1133
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How I protect myself, my family, my property, or determine that I need to protect myself, family, or property may have a detrimental effect on those who have done nothing wrong or even on what is right and wrong. It is not based upon my feelings or perceptions but upon what is right and wrong.
What part of your holy scriptures asks you to contravene your instinct to protect yourself, your family, and your property?
Topic's author
#1134
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
An ought can only come from a personal, intelligent, mindful being.
Like NANABOZHO.
What evidence backs up such a god?

PS. I object to your use of "thumbs up" as a bookmark. That is not how this tool at the bottom of the post should be used. 

Topic's author
#1135
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
A being is necessary for ought, and a necessary being for fixing that ought as a moral right. Or wrong. You are not that being. Why should I believe what you are selling? It does not exist.  
Look,

I'm perfectly willing to accept your AXIOM of "YHWH".

What I'm asking for is HOW I CAN KNOW WHAT IS "RIGHT" AND "WRONG" ("OBJECTIVELY").

The "ten commandments" + "love thy neighbor" leaves a lot to the imagination.
From those commandments and biblical examples, we can discern how people should conduct themselves because our actions stem from such things as these Ten Commandments. Murder is a malicious taking of a life, and it begins with hate and/or anger, as pointed out in the NT. Or take a look at the commandment, “You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14), where Jesus likened lust for a woman and impure motives as committing adultery.

Matthew 5:21-26 (NASB)
Personal Relationships
21 “You have heard that [a]the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[b]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to [c]the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the [d]fiery hell. 23 Therefore, if you are presenting your [e]offering at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your [f]offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your [g]offering. 25 [h]Come to good terms with your accuser quickly, while you are with him on the way to court, so that your accuser will not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will not be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last [i]quadrans.

Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The same applies to lies against others, slander, and malicious gossip,  which fall under the same commandment, "16 “You shall not [i]give false testimony against your neighbor." False testimony harms another individual or group because it tells lies and makes up falsity. 

Love, on the other hand, tries to protect others and uplift them in kindness and respect. 
Topic's author
#1136
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists  believe in atheism .....That is a contradiction in terms.... Atheists lack belief in concepts.

 Atheists might accept logical concepts as worthy of consideration....But they do not believe in them.

The GOD principle is a logical concept and worthy of consideration....But theistic belief in an unproven, specific deity, is illogical.
Please provide the context and proof. I hate being quoted or paraphrased out of context. I have no idea of whether you are declaring something here that you believe or whether you are saying I have said these things. 

"Atheists believe in atheism"???

Atheists lack belief in concepts???

Atheists might accept logical concepts...???

#1137
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
"Atheists believe in atheism"???
ATHEISM is NOT a belief.

Atheists lack belief in concepts???
Specifically they lack belief in at least one or more concepts of "god".

Atheists might accept logical concepts...???
Sure, an ATHEIST might accept the concept of "Spinoza's god", for example.
#1138
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Murder is a malicious taking of a life, and it begins with hate and/or anger, as pointed out in the NT.
So you're anti-war?
#1139
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
PS. I object to your use of "thumbs up" as a bookmark. That is not how this tool at the bottom of the post should be used. 
I find your posts interesting enough to read and I like to show my appreciation.
Topic's author
#1140
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@FLRW
[a] Science says a world wide flood never happened. Let’s say Noah’s Flood really did happen. Using naïve mathematics at the level of junior high school, it is possible to account for the present population of the world, because mathematically the population would grow exponentially. However, this is only true with naïve mathematics.
Proper mathematical calculations would have to make allowance for infant deaths (notice how in the Bible, no one ever dies in infancy), deaths from misadventure or disease (the Bible: ditto), plagues and pandemics that obliterate entire populations, famines and wars. Proper mathematical calculations would would also allow for adjustment at those intervals when we have good estimates of the world’s population, and then extrapolate for a higher or lower rate of increase to the next check point rather than assuming a constant growth rate.
We can start, not with a single family just over four thousand years ago, but with one million people thirty thousand years ago. Population growth was slow for thousands of years, sometimes going backwards because of famine or epidemics. It was only with improvements in agricultural productivity and, eventually, medical science, that populations actually began to grow quickly.
I propose you start another thread on such a topic (not that I will engage since I have my hands full right now with this one). It is highly volatile and will give rise to many rabbit trails if pursued here.

The site below discusses and takes on such issues from a young-earth perspective, however much you disagree with it. You are assuming the present is the key to the past, or from the present, the past is determined. You were not there; neither was anyone alive. Thus it depends on how you interpret the evidence, how logically consistent it is, and how much evidence is available to make a good determination. The evidence does not come already interpreted.



***

Again, your terminology suggests a very biased take in which trigger language is used to influence and inflame opinion, IMO.

"Science says..." - Appeal to authority.

Bald assertions - 
"Using naïve mathematics at the level of junior high school..."  
"This is only true with naïve mathematics..." 
"Proper mathematical calculations would..." 
"Proper mathematical calculations would..."  

What naive mathematics? No example was given.

What proper mathematical calculations? None were given.