Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well I have already said morality is determined by God's eternal nature. I wouldn't include actions in that though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I do not see it as equivalent. One of the main reasons is that the dialogue is in the context of Greek polytheism. There is a world of difference between that and biblical monotheism that does not allow them to be interchangeable. As I see it, the context makes it even less applicable. But if you still believe the dilemma applies to the monotheistic, eternal, unchanging God of the Bible despite the context, I would be happy to hear your reason why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
But that is not how the biblical definition of good works. God's character is ultimately the standard of what is good. God is truth, it is part of His nature, so lying is evil because it presents falsehood as truth. This is why God cannot lie. It violates His character. So the premise that God can cause something to be morally good by simply saying it is does not accurately represents the biblical claim about how morality works. God cannot say something is good if it is not good. But nothing can be good if it violates the character of God. This means that the very concept of "good" is not a value that is external and separate from God - it is entirely dependent upon God.
If the dilemma presents two options that misrepresent the biblical claim, then it is a false dichotomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
"Your comment on death is absurd and incoherent. When someone “saves your life” any rational human being presumes this means preventing death at a given time - rather than preventing their death in general."
My comment on death was not to dispute the use of the phrase "save a life." I was putting the issue in perspective to show that for all the achievements of modern medicine, we have never prevented the eventual death of a single individual. Everyone will die from some cause. Even if you want to leave the door open for some improbable future discovery, the consistent data that we have attests to the fact that nothing can prevent death. So you have not said anything that disputes my statement that your naturalism can at best provide a bit of comfort and delay your inevitable death.
"Modern science, and scientific process works because it excludes supernatural events as part of possible explanations."
Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
Science precludes the supernatural simply because it is a methodology for observing the natural world and nothing more. Science cannot prove or disprove an order of existence beyond the observable universe. You cannot observe the unobservable, and to assert you can is unscientific.
It is impossible to confirm or deny whether a human has a soul via the scientific method. A soul is a non-physical entity so science has no way to test or observe whether a soul exists. At best, you can say that you have no empirical evidence for the existence of a soul.
"And precluding the supernatural and positing only naturalistic explanations is how we determine truth."
Since you determine truth via the scientific method, it is understandable why you would say that the supernatural does not exist. But it is in response to this method of deriving truth where the moral argument is shown not to be a red herring. If truth is derived via the scientific method, and morality cannot be derived via the scientific method, then you have no basis to make any moral claim.
It is not surprising that you did not really dispute what I said about morality being subjective preference. And your rebuttal basically consisted of trying to claim the Bible is just as lacking in terms of a moral foundation as naturalism. But the way that you did it is worth noting.
The only argument that you gave was to say that because God has done so many evil things, the Bible should not be used as a valid objective standard. But that assumes there is an objective standard outside the Bible that can be used as the basis for such a statement. You have not disputed that you cannot objectively determine what evil is. Yet, your entire rebuttal was founded upon the premise that what God did was evil. However, the only thing you can consistently say is that you don't personally like what God has done, but it was not evil.
And if that wasn't enough, you then appealed to the essence of the golden rule - a teaching found all the way back in Leviticus - as a generally valid moral compass. So you know that you should treat people with dignity and respect, but you have no basis to say why. This subjective application of "morality" allows you to seek justice when someone wrongs you, while rejecting any consistent standard for yourself. As I said before, your rejection of God allows you to justify your own evil, while hypocritically judging the "evil" of others.
"Theists can practice science - but they too work as if magic and the supernatural are not factors in effecting the things they study: Methodological naturalism."
Here is a practical example of why theistic morality, as opposed to amoral naturalism, is relevant to one's methodology. We'll continue using our prime example of Nazi Germany. Prisoners at the Dachau concentration camp were subjected to freezing experiments in order to find an effective way to treat hypothermia, particularly for the benefit of those in the German Air Force. Can you prove that this was objectively wrong in a way that is consistent with naturalism?
My undisputed assertion is that you can't. You can only express personal disagreement. And this is why theists don't engage in "methodological naturalism" as you put it. Choosing a test subject for such an experiment is part of one's scientific methodology. A naturalist should have no trouble justifying Nazi freezing experiments, especially when considering the perceived benefit. Consistently holding to a biblical ethic could never allow one to justify such an experiment on the basis of understanding that humans have inherent value which comes from being made in the image of God. And one must reject naturalism to do this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
"whether you like the outcome or not, it’s impossible to deny that the application of naturalism has lead to more objectively true understanding of our reality in 300 years than faith has done in the last 10,000."
To say the "application of naturalism" is somehow the cause of all scientific knowledge and understanding of the physical world is actually a conflation. One does not need to adhere to naturalism in order to understand the physical world or the laws that govern it. Theists (who, by definition, reject naturalism) do not need to reject that the physical world exists and is governed by laws, and they have contributed much to the scientific field.
You still boast about the achievements of science. However, modern medicine has never prevented the death of a single person. That is a factually true statement. A person may be spared death from a particular cause at a particular point in time, which is what I assume you meant by a saved life. But that in no way disputes what I said, that your naturalism can at best provide a bit of comfort and delay your inevitable death.
"That’s the difference here: assuming the way the world works is physical only allows us to explain the world and solve problems - assuming the supernatural exists - has not solved anything (and indeed has stood in the way)"
Again, this is a clear indication of where you are conflating an understanding of how the physical world works, with assuming the way the world works is physical only (i.e. naturalism). Now you have accused me of failing to address the disputes you have raised. But you have also failed to address the many moral aspects of what I have said. And it is this moral aspect where one of the main differences between naturalism and theism (particularly Christianity) lies.
The Bible is often called the "Canon" because it is the revelation from God that acts as the standard by which we measure all things, including what is good and evil. As a naturalist, the only standard you can provide is personal preference. You cannot say Hitler was evil because you have no objective basis to do so. You cannot even objectively determine what evil is outside of disagreement with your personal preference. So all you can consistently say is that you don't personally like Hitler's morally neutral actions.
Science can only take us so far. It is a methodology that can increase our understanding and knowledge about how the physical world works. But it cannot tell us what to do with that knowledge. The only ethic you can derive from the physical world alone is "might makes right," and this is where naturalism fails. You cannot give an objective answer as to why it is acceptable to crush a mosquito but not a human. You cannot give an objective answer as to why it is acceptable to eat oranges but not babies. The term "human" is just a categorization for a clump of cells that is organized in a different way than other clumps of cells. And all these cells are just random patterns in a mass of meaningless, purposeless matter and energy that we call the universe. That is naturalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
At no point have I stated that my intention was to debate certain miraculous events in the Bible. I did not even mention that I intended to debate abiogenesis or evolution. I did state there were certain assumptions that must be made in terms of "proving" them since they have not been observed, but that is different than debating whether they happened. I think you have been assuming motivations that I do not have. I am not expecting to use empirical evidence to convince you that a non-physical being exists.
So it is not dishonest of me to ignore your attempts to debate supernatural events like the flood just because you brought them up. Even if I did engage with that topic and somehow convince you that a global flood happened, where would that leave us? Nowhere. Except that you would then be an atheist who believes that there was a global flood.
But what has naturalism really brought us? You may boast of the claims of technological advancement, and indeed there has been. Though I would hardly attribute them to naturalism so much as individuals who understood the physical world. But that has also made us all the more efficient at killing each other. We have created both nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs.
We have just seen the world brought to a halt in reaction to a tiny virus. And even if we somehow manage to control it with vaccines, think of all the time and money spent trying to cure cancer and other more deadly diseases that kill people. But even if we cured all disease, your naturalism will never stop crime, war, or death because you can't solve the problem of wicked human hearts. Put simply, your naturalism can at best provide a bit of comfort and delay your inevitable death.
You also keep talking about a justified claim. But all that means is a claim that you are convinced by. And what is the need to "justify" my claims in such a way that they seem satisfactory to a meaningless clump of stardust? If something is true, then it is so regardless of what the chemical reactions in our brains feel about it, right? But if you would like full disclosure so there is no confusion or assumption needed, I will tell you my motivation.
Contrary to your naturalistic worldview, you are not a meaningless clump of stardust or a cosmic accident. The amazing complexities of even individual cells show that you were intentionally designed and created. You are also not a beast who is subject to instinct, but a moral agent with an understanding of what is good and evil. But that would mean that you have gone to great lengths to convince yourself that there is no God, that you are the result of a cosmic accident, and that everything is meaningless. And you have done this because you love your sin. Because if you get rid of God then there is no morality, there is no Judge, and everything is permissible.
So you are at least partially right in that I am simply proclaiming what is true. And if your conscience is not absolutely hardened, you know that what I am saying is true - that "everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed" (John 3:20).
So from the beginning, I have had no intention of debating science or the empirical evidence of a non-physical being in this thread. I have indeed asked questions, but my motive from the beginning has been to proclaim what is true. So you can either continue in your hatred of God, storing up wrath for the day of judgment, or you can repent of your sin and believe in the Lord Jesus, whose blood can justify sinners before a holy and righteous God. That is the only justification that matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Well I'm glad I've given you a good laugh. I sometimes am known for my sense of humor.
"if so - then by all means explain exactly why everyone’s interpretation - including your own 20 posts ago - of what faith is, is so fundamentally wrong."
That wasn't so hard, was it? But since you are so eager for me to explain, I suppose I will take the time to do so...
God is the Creator of all things, including mankind (Genesis 1:1). Humans are the pinnacle of creation since they are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). This gives us inherent value, yet also carries moral responsibility. Though humans were originally created upright and pure, we have all gone astray in wickedness. We have all violated God's holy law willingly and knowingly.
- "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulterers, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Matthew 15:19).
- "But the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be" (Romans 8:7).
As Creator, He is also the Lawgiver and Judge of humanity.
- "I, the LORD, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruits of his doings" (Jeremiah 17:10). - "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).
God is righteous and just, so transgression and wickedness deserve just punishment. However, in His mercy and love, God sent His Son Jesus to take on human flesh, live a perfect and sinless life, and offer Himself as a substitutionary sacrifice in our place.
- "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
All humanity is under the wrath of God. Our evil thoughts and actions - our sin - make us guilty before Him and there is no amount of good we can do to cover that guilt up. However, Christ took that wrath upon Himself for those who repent (literally to turn from sin) and believe in Him as the only hope of salvation. And that is the content of the biblical Christian faith.
So that content is a part of what faith is, but not the whole of what it is. There is also a mental affirmation that these things are true, that you are a ruined sinner before a holy God; but while believing something is true may fit the general description of faith, there is another aspect that must be understood for something to be considered faith in the biblical sense. You can believe all these things are true and still not have biblical faith. If I was unclear or misspoke earlier, try not to get hung up on that and understand I am trying to make myself clear here. It is not true saving biblical faith until you actually trust in Christ as the only way to be saved from the judgment of God - that you trust in Him alone to deliver you from your own guilt. So my faith is not technically in a belief, it is in a specific person. The object of faith is a person, and that person is Jesus the Son of God.
- "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ...There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" Romans 5:1, 8:1).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I asked if you wanted an explanation about what the biblical Christian faith is, and you continue your anti-religion diatribe without even bothering to answer the question, let alone hear what I have to say. You wanted to continue the conversation after I offered you victory. So to continue, would you like me to explain the essential truths of the biblical Christian faith so you can accurately represents my position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
"You can consider this a win for yourself then."
This is what I said previously, but you have decided to keep the issue going. If a logical, rational discussion involves the insulting and degrading of those you disagree with, then no I am not involved in a lot of those. At least, not from my end.
The essential beliefs that make up the biblical Christian faith are pretty well settled. Just because some people disagree with the essential beliefs doesn't mean there isn't a clear answer. It typically means that the dissenters don't consider the Bible their authority. Many - if not most - denominations, sects, and cults that refer to themselves as "Christian" do not adhere to the Bible as their sole authority (i.e. Catholics, Mormons, Pentecostals, most mainline evangelicals, etc). The other reason is typically that they haven't followed basic rules of interpretation. If the Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and someone comes along and says that adultery is morally acceptable in the Bible, it should be easy to see who is wrong.
As another example, there is no such thing as a non-Trinitarian Christian because you cannot properly interpret the text of the Bible without coming to that conclusion. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all referred to as God, yet they are also all referred to as distinct persons within the Godhead. You have to consult an authority outside the Bible to contradict the clear reading of the whole text of the Bible.
Now if you're expecting me to debate you on abiogenesis, evolution, a global flood, the authenticity and historicity of the Bible, naturalism, population bottlenecks, the authority of the Bible in Christianity, secondary Christian doctrines, and textual interpretation in addition to what faith is all in a single thread, call me what you will but it's just not going to happen.
"Like I said, what belief you have faith in, is largely irrelevant to the topic of what faith actually is."
No it's not. But you seem content on forcing false ideas about what faith is on me that I don't adhere to. I don't have faith in a belief. But if you're interested in accurately representing my position instead of going on long diatribes about religion, would you like to know what the essential truths of the biblical Christian faith are? I will even provide references to back them up.
If not, it's always interesting to see what insults the tolerant and loving progressive atheists can come up with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I did not respond to much of your last post because you misrepresented what make up the essential truths of the biblical Christian faith. Would you like to know what they are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
How is the content of faith, the essential beliefs that make up that faith, not relevant to a discussion on faith?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
"You can consider this a win for yourself then."
Apparently this wasn't good enough for you. Well you obviously don't approve of the supernatural events found in the Bible. And you love stating things are objectively false. But I am curious, do you know what the essential beliefs of the biblical Christian faith actually are?
Created:
-->
@badger
Yes I did. If the militia is responsible for defense of the state/nation/etc, I would rather have men be the ones exposed to that violence than women. To be explicit, I would reject your suggestion that women be combatants while men stay home. But each woman (not part of any formal combatant force) should also have the right to a firearm for self-defense.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The lack of a specific historical record that you say is the only valid form of evidence is not a valid argument to say that your position is true. It just means that we do not have the specific historical record you are asking for. And if nothing short of a historical record where the founding fathers had to make a specific statement that you determined is the only form of valid evidence, then I already stated we are wasting our time. I also said I would let your argument stand on its own without contesting and let others judge it's merit and that's what I intend to do.
Created:
-->
@badger
I would rather a woman never be exposed to violence or combat that requires her to use a firearm. But since we live in a world of evil people, I think women should also be armed for the purpose of self-defense. A firearm is the best way for a woman to protect herself against a male aggressor.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
There are no gymnastics here required. If you are going to argue that the founding fathers approved of standing armies as the only ones who should have firearms, rather than the general population, I won't even contest. I will let your argument stand on its own and let others judge it's merit.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
If that's your position, then as I said before, we are wasting our time. If you are convinced that the founding fathers approved of standing armies and did not care whether all citizens had a right to own firearms, then we are living in two different worlds. I assumed we were at least operating from some common ground, but I apparently assumed wrong.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
But I asked you to confirm whether my summary of your position was accurate. It seems like you are asserting that the founding fathers only approved of gun ownership for members of a standing army known as the "militia," while no other citizens had the right to own a firearm (outside of common law). Is that an accurate summary?
Created:
-->
@badger
I am not fauxlaw. Do you believe that anyone should have the right to own at least some type of firearm, or do you want them all banned?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It seems like you are asserting that the founding fathers only approved of gun ownership for members of a standing army known as the "militia," while no other citizens had the right to own a firearm. Is that an accurate summary?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If the militia is made up of citizens, and citizens have no right to keep and bear arms, then where will the militia get it's arms from?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Since you are a skeptic, here is a quote taken directly from the source. Out of Federalist No. 28
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
According to this argument, are the citizens supposed to rush to the government officials to get weapons so they can defend themselves against the usurping government officials? Or are the citizens expected to have their own firearms for the purpose of self-defense?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Here's a whole list of quotes that would counter that point:
https://www.concealedcarry.com/gun-quotes-from-our-founding-fathers-2nd-amendment/
https://www.concealedcarry.com/gun-quotes-from-our-founding-fathers-2nd-amendment/
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Well honestly, if you don't think the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with self-defense, we're both probably wasting our time here. I don't think we're ever going to find common ground.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The stats tell us there were 364 homicides using a rifle. Bear in mind, a rifle does not necessarily mean an assault rifle - which I will clarify again is a vague term but we'll use it for the sake of argument. However, handguns accounted for about 6,300 homicides. Why arent you calling for a ban of handguns?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I am not jumping around. You are just rapid-firing "rebuttals" (which basically consist of you just stating things are objectively false) and then accusing me of dishonesty and dodging because I didn't respond with a 10-page paper addressing them all in detail. Do you really think that I haven't ever considered the issues you're raising?
I started by addressing the definition of faith and I don't think getting into a scientific debate about a global flood is necessary to do that. Nor do I feel like taking the time to do so. If you feel that is the only way to resolve that issue, great. You can consider this a win for yourself then.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
my assumption is that it's much more rare for them to be needed for self defense than for murder.
Those two words are where your problem started. How many homicides are committed each year with assault rifles?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
But if a gun is effective and easy to use for a murderer, it is also effective and easy to use for a self-defender. And since "assault rifles" account for an infinitesimal amount of homicides, I'm not sure what the issue is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
as I pointed out that abiogenesis is not believed without question or without reason
Just because you don't like the reason for my faith, or because you don't agree with the reason for my faith, does not mean I don't have a reason. It just means you are not convinced by my reasons. If I don't agree with the reason you have for believing abiogenesis is how life came about, does that mean you don't have a reason? I already stated that the Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents. Whether you think that is a good reason or a bad one, you cannot say it is "without reason."
I don’t bite on obviously loaded rhetorical questions like that, that are not asked for honest reasons.
If you are so confident in your position, you should be able to defend your answer from any false equivalence I may or may not assert. I am just making the point that you have never observed abiogenesis, but I was hoping you would confirm I was not misrepresenting you with a simple yes or no. I would also make the point you have never observed an instance of one kind of animal evolving into another kind. Bacteria may change into different bacteria, sparrows with small beaks into sparrows with large beaks, but never a lizard into a bird. Unless you are aware of an example that I have not seen of course.
You can assume my motives as you will. I don't think it is a ridiculous thing to point out when someone has observed an effect, then made a conclusion about the cause without ever having observed the cause that supposedly produced the effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Well it seems religion is a bit of a sore spot for you. But since I didn't get a clear answer, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you. You have reasons and evidence to believe that life came about through abiogenesis, but you - nor anyone else - has ever actually observed life coming from non-life through natural processes, correct?
You don't have to compare your beliefs to mine. I already understand how silly you think I am. I'm just looking for a simple answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"If you went back 2000 years and asked that question nobody would understand what you were even saying"
There are at least a large number of Jews and Christians who did:
- "Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature" (Genesis 2:7).
- "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being (John 1:3).
- "...and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation," (Acts 17:26)
They clearly understood the implications of understanding the nature of humanity in relation to God, and the distinctness of humans from animals.
"I am not aware of any evidence that it is, and therefore have no reason to believe so."
If you have honestly considered the truthfulness of the claim, I can ask no more of you, and that was the whole point of this thread. Additional discussion was merely optional. However, I must warn you that God is real and judgment is coming. You can reject that for the belief that we are all just meaningless clumps of stardust in a purposeless universe, but I think you understand there is more to your existence than that. And I think you understand that adultery is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, among a great number of other evil things that happen in the world. And no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that we are overall good people, we are all guilty and when we stand before God, He would be right to condemn us for our evil. So think of me as a fool if you like, it means little to me. But the next time you're confronted with your own mortality and fleeting existence on this earth, I hope you consider my question again: is it true?
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." (John 3:16-19).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Just to be clear, you have never observed abiogenesis, nor can you scientifically verify that it is even possible, yet one of the foundational premises you must believe in your worldview is that life came about through the process of abiogenesis. Is this factually incorrect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
My trust in a collection of historically reliable documents about the historical person Jesus is far less ridiculous than the trust of some who claim the universe exists because something came from nothing. And then there are a whole bunch of people that believe life can come from non-life. We also can't forget the individuals who think that the great number of precise conditions that allow for life on earth just happened by chance. And if these claims about the physical world weren't enough, there are great number of people who try to claim moral absolutes while rejecting a moral lawgiver or judge that is higher than humans; in addition to rejecting the lawgiver, they claim that humans are nothing more than meaningless clumps of stardust bumping into other meaningless clumps of stardust in a meaningless universe, then proceed to try and justify some form of ethics.
I find my trust to be more well-placed than these other individuals who think they're operating on what is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"Therefore the ones who decide what is human are humans themselves."
I was making my point before you told me I was going on a tangent. This is one area where you have to appeal to circular reasoning in order to avoid serious moral dilemmas. If "humans" get to decide what a human is, who or what gets to decide what "humans" are?
Of course, discussing circular reasoning wasn't mentioned in the OP, so perhaps I shouldn't discuss anything but that without being accused of going on tangents. After carefully reading my reiteration and summary of Paul's message in Acts 17:34-31, which I know you read carefully and thoughtfully without just skimming through, is it true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Just as I don't trust some dude whose only credentials are "crazy Jewish carpenter." That gives me confidence and trust to board the plane, so to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Right, you have all sorts of reasons to believe those things happened. And even though there are skeptics who would never set foot on a plane who aren't convinced by all that evidence you have, you know that they either haven't done the research or they just refuse to believe what is obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Would you travel on a plane built by engineers working based on faith?
Do you check the credentials of the engineers before boarding a plane, that is after you personally observe all of the safety checks and inspections done before the flight? Or do you just board the plane, trusting that you will arrive safely at your destination?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
So just to be clear, assault rifles (vague term) should be banned because of their effectiveness and ease of use for the shooter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It seems that from the beginning, your main contention has been that I am engaged in circular reasoning. I am making the point that everyone has to appeal to circular reasoning eventually because everyone has an ultimate authority they appeal to in order to validate or know what is true. My authority is the Bible because it is the revealed will of God. Your authority is yourself, which we have seen has allowed you to justify adultery as a morally neutral, or even good, action.
But if you would like me to go back the point of the thread, I can do that. Here is Paul's message that you may want to read carefully:
"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."-- Acts 17:24-31
Here is my summary of Paul's message:
God is Creator of all things and is Lord over all (Acts 17:24). He created mankind and is sovereign over kings and nations (v. 26). God is completely distinct and separate from creation (v. 29). God is not only Creator of mankind, but also Judge (v. 31). Since all are guilty of transgressing God's law - or guilty of sin - all must repent of their sins to be saved from the coming judgment (v. 30-31). The proof and assurance of salvation for those who repent is the resurrection of the Jesus Christ (v. 31).
Is Paul's message true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I agree that we are the ones who create words and their definitions. However, words in and of themselves do not change the ontological nature of a thing. If I see a horse but I call it a tree, it doesn't change the fact that I am looking at a large four-legged animal. But in this case, my deviation from the accepted definition of tree will probably not cause an ethical dilemma.
On the other hand, if I exclude a fetus from the definition of human because it has not exited the birth canal, all of a sudden we have an ethical issue created by a definition. If human rights only apply to humans, then our definition of "human" will have serious ethical implications. So, if those who are communicating cannot agree on what a human is in the abortion debate, how can we ever know whether a fetus is a human?
"Therefore the ones who decide what is human are humans themselves."
So "humans" get to decide what a human is. But who or what gets to decide what "humans" are?
I may not be the only one dabbling in circular reasoning here. Unless the ability to communicate qualifies someone to make a decision about whether or not someone else is a human?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That certainly sounds like it touches on some of the issues related to the question. And perhaps I am missing some context that would give me an answer, but how would you answer the question about who gets to define what a human is? Unless you're saying there is no set definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven"
-Jesus
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
"the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing..."
-the Apostle Paul
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Everyone will answer to God for their irreverence. That includes you, me, and Isaac Asimov. We have all lied, stolen, blasphemed God, among countless other evil acts in violation of God's law. Perhaps you should go back to my OP and simply ask yourself, away from the comment section in this forum, is it true?
"But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." -2 Peter 3:7
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't think so? But I have not read Isaac Asimov so the reference was lost on me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I would not be the least bit surprised if you believed that to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So with reason as your final authority, you have justified adultery as a morally neutral, or possibly even a morally good, action. As long as there is no perceived harm (a moving goalpost), an action can be seen as good.
With the Bible as my final authority, there is no question as to the moral nature of adultery. It doesn't matter what the man and woman agree to, sex outside that marriage is evil. God's Law is explicit: "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14). Jesus was also clear on the issue: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 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" (Matthew 5:27-28).
There is a key difference. With your subjective reasoning as your final authority, you can justify the act of adultery by reasoning that it fits into your subjective standard of morality. If it's reasonable, it's permissable. On the other hand, there is no amount of reasoning I can do to justify adultery. Even a lack of perceived harm would not justify it (though evil always causes harm). The Bible acts as an objective standard that can be appealed to that defines morality and is not subject to changing human opinions.
But I think there is one more clarification to make in your attempt at reasoning your way to morality apart from God. I assume you distinguish between humans and animals in the moral realm, particularly when it comes to determining human rights. So, can you tell me who gets to define what a human is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Not at all. I am not saying it is unreasonable for you to believe there is an ice cream truck because you saw it. I made the point with SkepticalOne that your reasoning seems to take into account empirical evidence and logic, which is the foundation of the scientific method. But just like the scientific method, you can have varied levels of certainty, but you cannot know anything with absolute certainty. This is not particularly problematic when interpreting reality around us (like knowing when the ice cream truck arrives), but it does create problems when you enter other realms of knowledge.
For example, can you tell me why it is objectively wrong - or evil - to commit adultery?
*Adultery being defined as voluntarily having sex with someone besides your spouse
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
"You don't strike me as an honest person who is actually interested in a conversation. So go ahead and count this as another "fundie" destroyed by your towering intellect if you like. If you won't tell me your point after I answered your question, there is no reason to continue. Dialogue is a two way street." #44
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What have I run away from? Even if you disagree with my approach in posting in the forum, I have clearly stated my intentions from the beginning and have clearly and honestly answered your questions.
This is a voluntary discussion so you are not obligated to continue. But out of curiosity, was it your intention not to provide a clear and simple answer ("My final authority is _______."), or are you just unwilling to clarify what the answer was? Because if you provided it, it is not apparent to me and I would prefer not to assume the answer.
Created: