Also,
7. Inductive Argument - an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
Description Definitions I used:
1. agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable
2. Deductive Argument - a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises [are true.] https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
3. 1) Morality - the degree to which an action is right or wrong. Morals often describe one's particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
4. Ethics - 1. the discipline dealing with what is good and (evil) bad and with moral duty and obligation 2a: a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values. Ethics can refer broadly to moral principles, one often sees it applied to questions of correct behavior within a relatively narrow area of activity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic
5. Worldview - the most fundamental (core) philosophical beliefs and assumptions a person holds about the universe and the nature of things. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-worldview
6. Biblical Typology - the aspect of biblical interpretation that treats the significance of Old Testament types for prefiguring corresponding New Testament antitypes or fulfillment. https://www.bibleandtheology.net/what-is-typology-definition-and-its-relationship-to-biblical-theology/
I want to say that I find it strange that TradeSecret has not been online for 12 days. Since I have noticed his comments on many a thread, I hope that he is okay.
Intell, your opponent in the debate treated the first round as though you were a Christian. I perused your profile. You claim to be an atheist. Thus I did not think you would have any interest in answering those questions about God since they would not apply to your circumstance. I also wanted to test your opponent's (Undefeatable's) 1R in regards to the reasonableness of his truth claims. I want to add my thoughts after the debate vote has concluded. Do you have an objection?
YOU: "[a] also... why do you trust the bible more than scientific experiments? [b] Can you sufficiently reproduce the miracles supposedly performed? [c] Can you actually verify the veracity of the person's statement and the history, [d] like Undefeatable claimed he could prove beyond the LEGAL requirement, [e] as if earth being older than 10,000 was a pedophilia/murder case?"
***
[a] It is a matter of authority. Why do you (supposedly) trust scientific experiments that no one was there to witness, cannot be repeated, that work on models of the most likelihood? You bank on your "authorities" being right. You (possibly/probably) look to exclusively naturalistic explanations. I do not, because, without a God or gods, you run into a completely different problem, as identified by Thomas Aquinas and later added to by Cornelius Van Til, John Frame, and others. That problem is with your presuppositions starting point and what it rests upon. You build upon a more unlikely beginning that deals with no agency, no intent, just pure random chance happenstance. How likely is that? I say very unlikely, more likely impossible.
[b] No, I'm not God. I can't work against the natural order. HE, as a SUPERNATURAL Being, can.
[c] Your statement is vague to me. I'm not following. Which "person" are you speaking of? Do you mean God's words in history? I can do that to a reasonable degree of proof, but it depends on what you will accept with proof. I have learned that a person cannot be convinced against their will. It is like talking to a wall.
[d] 1. With legality, it may be legal but is it right/true to what is real? For instance, abortion is legal but is it right?
2. With legality, the same standard used by a court of law can be used of the eyewitness accounts of the Bible, as demonstrated by Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, and who also wrote an authoritative three-volume work on the law called, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which set the bar for eyewitness testimony in a court of law. So, if Undefeatable wants to cite a legal standard "beyond doubt," I would note that one as a starter for my case.
[e] What? I do not follow your analogy or whatever it is you are trying to convey.
Amendment: "Origins are not one of those things" [that can be repeated].
What scientists measure are scientific models that we believe best correspond to what happened. Thomas Kuhn explains that models can experience paradigm shifts once the anomalies build-up and a better explanation is found.
YOU: "The bible tells nothing about the age of earth. https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~bodla101/religion/ageoftheworld.html"
***
Yes, the Bible does through logical inference. Adam was created at the beginning of creation, per Jesus, who should know.
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature because he is a liar and the father of lies.
The devil deceived Eve in the Garden.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “[ai]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness;...” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them...; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
The man and woman were created on the sixth day of creation. Jesus speaks of Adam as a literal person, not some figurative idea. The genealogies in Luke 3 treat Adam as a literal person and with others in that lineage; we have facts regarding their literal existence. Sin is attributed to an actual person, Adam, and with his sin, death upon humanity.
As for the genealogies, they go back in time only so far, to the beginning of creation. Jesus' lineage is traced back to Adam.
YOU: "And also... mere *bias* to negate geologists? I haven't seen another topic where 97% of experts are slanted towards the wrong way."
***
Science is concerned with the natural realm, with things that are measurable and can be repeated. Origins are not one of those things. Scientists work from a naturalistic perspective. They use quantitative measurements, sensory measurements. They come short on the question of why in many areas of investigation. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why the BB? What agency caused it? Is there something more than the physical realm? How does something devoid of consciousness become conscious?
As for geology, I believe what the science was built upon, uniformitarianism, is wrong. I believe catastrophism offers a better explanation of the fossil record. There are many anomalies with uniformitarianism and a problem with its basic tenant that the present is the key to the past. As for the uniformity of nature, why if there is no God or agency and intention directing the natural world? Things just happen. Why should they be uniform? Why the laws of nature?
YOU SAID: "[a] you just directly contradicted yourself. You arbitrarily picked out earth created in six days as literal and a ton of other stuff as figurative.
"No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document."
***
[a] No, basically I said that there is both literal and figurative language used in the Bible, and a person must determine which kind is used when reading a passage. Genesis 1-11 is mostly narrative. Here is the question again. You quoted my answer above:
Q: Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
Exodus 20:8-11 (NASB)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your [a]resident who [b]stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
1. If God's days are not the same as His people's days, how long is a Sabbath rest for them?
2. What use does an eternal being have of time? Time is for us, as are days and seasons. They serve as signs in prophecy and a warning that we only have so long on this earth.
Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall [u]serve as signs and for seasons, and days and years; 15 and they [v]shall serve as lights in the [w]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
Many proofs. The Bible claims to be a revelation from God. It deals with many historic people, places and events, and prophecies about future events that ring true to the prediction.
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
He did not fool you. The Bible does not state or infer any such thing. It says plainly that He created the heavens and earth, and He created in six days. He made a human being Adam, fully formed, not as a fetus. He created a "garden" with fully formed trees just by speaking these things into existence.
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
It means there is no such thing as macro-evolution (or Darwinian evolution), where we evolve from a common ancestor. We believe we were made as beings who can change within our kind to adapt to our environments through our diets and environmental conditioning (skin pigmentation does not mean we are less human or our different shapes of faces or bodies). We believe as Christians that we are all equally human. Darwinian social evolution creates class divisions. It creates some beings who are "More" human than others.
- If Noah's Ark occurred, why can't we find this Ark? The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
There are lots of things we can't find from antiquity. Just because we can't find it does not necessarily equate to its non-existence.
- What would it take to change your mind (or if you are playing devil's advocate, overcome your argument)?
Proving the Bible does not teach a relatively young universe.
- How old is the universe?
I don't know, yet I believe it is very young. Like you, I was not there for its beginning. I look at the evidence in the present from the past. Unlike you, I do not necessarily believe that the present (what we view the distant past from) is the key to the past. Like you, I realize the evidence is interpreted, and usually from a strictly naturalistic perspective. I do not work from such a view.
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document.
- Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?
The Bible states that death came or entered the world from the sin of Adam. Before Adam sinned, the Genesis 1 account records God calling what He made as "very good." I don't know about you, but I do not see death as a good thing. I see life as good.
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
Presuppositional bias. With the Age of Reason, humanity became the measure of all things. There was a significant shift from God to society. Darwin sealed the verdict with the Theory of Evolution. Now humanity could rationalize away God.
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
From the earth and heavens.
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
I question whether the past and the conditions back then are the same as the present. I question uniformitarianism and the geological table. I point to various anomalies around the world that do not fit the dating process and the presuppositional starting points. The focus of science has been in confirming their naturalistic models and theories. I grant that scientists have an abundance of "evidence" that still requires interpretation. It does not come stamped "4.5 billion years old. I also noticed personification presuppositions built into your first round argument when speaking about evolution. As if evolution has human qualities.
While I do not necessarily agree with the 10,000-year-old time frame (too wooden and specific for what I believe the Bible infers), I do find the YEC belief more compelling than the OEC belief, as and for a Christian. Since science looks strictly at the naturalistic perspective, there are many questions that is cannot answer with any more clarity than the basis of a presupposition. After the debate voting is over, I would like to take a stab at your first round of evidence by breaking it down and showing that what you cite as "the facts" (just the facts, ma'am) is not as conclusive as you think it is.
As agreed upon in the Description, CON is allowing me to post additional definitions that I think will be needed for my argument that was not included in the Description. Here they are:
Definitions:
Scientism
1: methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism
Exegesis - "a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible. In modern usage, biblical exegesis is used to distinguish it from other critical text explanation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
Eisegesis - "the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
The Laws of Logic - (1) the law of noncontradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle, and (3) the principle of identity.
https://arcapologetics.org/three-laws-logic/
Self-evident truths - "containing its own evidence or proof without need of further demonstration; Requiring no proof or explanation."
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident
***
"clear or obvious without needing any proof or explanation"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/self-evident
Necessary being - "a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist."
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
Efficient Cause - "the immediate agent in the production of an effect." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/efficient%20cause or "that which produces an effect by a causal process."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/efficient-cause
Sum, I thought it was an interesting and well-fought debate since the subject does interest me. I am still interested in your views; now the debate is over. How do you justify not use an exclusively natural as opposed to a supernatural view (thus, the presuppositions nature of your argument) in interpreting the evidence? What was faulty thinking on either Wesley's or my part regarding the speed of light argument, and I am interested in your view on how the expansion (fast or slow) of the Universe could adversely affect its age. I am also interested in how you would answer the Thomas Aquinas issue?
SUM: "I made it very clear that I am not advocating a worldview. I even allowed deism because that's all my opponent's arguments indicate. But even under deism there was [no] real refutation of my core argument. It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data."
***
Sure, I understand. You may not advocate one, but you hold one. You view the world in a particular way. That way examines the world through a mixture of science and scientism, in the case of origins. Models (theories) are built and tested as to their plausibility, and the ones that most fit or are most plausible are generally accepted. You expressed what you think is the reasonableness of such a model in discussing the universe's age. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out when too many anomalies are found, the paradigm shifts to a new model that better explains the occurrence.
BUT, during the debate, you exclusively used a naturalistic explanation. Wesley pointed out some of the hidden assumptions of that framework. The key (to my mind) was the presuppositional nature of the argument since no human being was there to witness the birth of the Universe. Thus, an interpretation of the evidence is needed. The Universe does not come stamped 13.8 billion years old. The scientific interpretation is solely naturalistic. This adds a problem to its explainability, as the Thomas Aquinas R3 argument laid out. From what we witness, every motion is preceded by another motion within a closed system. But what caused the BB, if that is the explanation? Then there is the problem of why? That cannot be answered from within a naturalist's worldview, IMO. What is the intent or agency behind the Universe? According to naturalists, there is none. Things happen for no REASON. Naturalists keep finding reasons in the Universe for the way things are, but cannot find meaning for the Universe itself, just any number of speculations. If there is no mind behind the Universe, why would we find meaning for it? It is a mindless, meaningless entity with no agency behind it. Things happen. Chance happenstance. What does chance have the ability to do? I like giving the analogy of rolling dice. The dice do not roll themselves. There is an agency behind them. You, a mindful being are that agency. A personal being designed them. Expecting six repeatedly (the uniformity of Nature, or the laws of Nature) are thinkable in theory but undemonstrable in practice. Try rolling a six indefinitely (the sustainability of the Universe or natural laws that we DISCOVER, not invent). It is only a matter of time (probably the first roll) before another number comes up besides six. So what you can theorize in your mind cannot be demonstrated in practice without agency, without intent, without first fixing the dice to make the constant six appear every roll.
The same with an infinity. That cannot be demonstrated in practice or from within the confines of time (timeless). You could never count to infinity. So, logically, there is an explanation in theory, but not practically once God is eliminated; it cannot be lived or demonstrated. The Thomas Aquinas part of the argument sealed it for me. It laid bare the presuppositional nature of your natural argument. I would have liked you to have addressed those three points. Not only that, there are alternative explanations to the current natural beliefs that raise questions as to the plausibility of other aspects of your argument, such as the speed of light and expansion of the Universe. The balloon analogy is the example I used. How fast you blow the balloon determines how quickly the distance between the two dots separate. Can we be sure the Universe has always expanded at the rate it is now? We live in the present, looking back on the past. Taking these and many more factors, I believe God is the better or most plausible explanation.
When you say, "It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data." Well, what are you OBSERVING? Are you observing the natural world, the natural universe? Second, are you bringing the supernatural into the argument in any way or excluding it?
What is more, I do not believe there is such a thing as complete objective neutrality by subjective human beings on such a philosophical position as the one you are debating - the age of the Universe. We come with a bias. A naturalist, atheist, or secularist is not objective in the way they look at the evidence on such a subject, neither is Christian, theist, or pantheist. We all bring baggage to any discussion. We all build on our core presuppositions, the ones everything else rests upon, and both sides of the debate tend to look for things that confirm these most basic presuppositions. I have noted that with all of the voters to date. They, and I, have biases. There are great thinkers on both sides of the aisle. The question is, which is more REASONABLE and logical?
The fascinating thing is how ideas and worldviews influence the way we think. Ideas build, each concept upon another concept, precept upon precept, from the core on up. We usually build on where we start, but sometimes we cheat and borrow from opposing worldviews on some issues. Are our worldviews regarding specific positions justifiable? The accepted paradigm is usually the way that the majority look at the information available. Ideas have consequences. The Age of Reason shifted the paradigm for the majority in the West with humanity becoming the measure of all things, away from God. Thus, for most Westerners, the information is funnelled through the acceptable paradigm. Revolutionary thinkers challenge the accepted paradigm and norm. In my opinion, truth should be the aim for all of us, but that is very difficult to discern. This is one of those areas, IMO. More often a debate is about winning which can detract from the truth.
YOU: "While I do not think your vote is grounded in good reasons, I do not consider it unfair because you were persuaded by my opponent arguments. Caleber's vote awarded both conduct and sources which I think is unfair."
I think it makes for an interesting discussion because I think the opposite of your view. That is, my vote is grounded in good reason, especially when it is grounded in a knowable necessary being, not a contingent being. Not only this, what does a naturalist ground their core beliefs upon, a blind, indifferent random chance happenstance Universe. How naturalists get to reasoning beings leaves a lot in the imagination. Thus, the nature of our presuppositions is very different.
YOU: "While there's a lot wrong with what you said, I suppose I shouldn't argue with you in the comments about it. Thank you for voting."
I'm okay with it because these are weighty issues that need to be understood, plus the debate is over, not in progress. But because the vote is still ongoing you might want to wait, depending on how strongly you feel about the issue? If you have concerns my feeling is that they should be expressed at some point. I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with a vote or an issue. I don't know how Wesley thinks about it, but I would definitely question something I felt was unfair or not true. That is the way I am. If you feel this is awkward discussing here then a personal correspondence is okay with me also. The point of expressing yourself here is that others get to hear both sides of the issue on the relevant point, as it relates to the debate. Is that unkosher? Of course, a thread could be used to further the discussion. I am swamped with one I initiated, however. I am just taking a break from it.
Sum: Thank you for voting. But the speed of light is not assumed, I referenced an experiment that demonstrated it, and it is consistently measured at that speed in every single experiment ever. My opponent agreed to the speed of light being constant, which necessarily means the distance is the light-year distance.
***
He agreed it was, but it is measured from two directions. He made that point, I believe. We 1) see the stars out there and 2) measure the speed of light to and back from the stars for accuracy. You can't measure it accurately from one direction is the point here.
Two things:
1.
"Since lengths and time-durations are not absolute but are relative to velocity, Einstein’s physics is often referred to as “relativity.”
2.
"A less-well-known aspect of Einstein’s physics is that the speed of light in one direction cannot be objectively measured, and so it must be stipulated (agreed upon by convention). This stands in contrast to the round-trip speed of light, which is always constant.
For example, if light travels from A to B and then back to A, it will always take the same amount of time to make the trip (because its speed is always the same), and that time is objectively measurable. However, the time it takes to go just from A to B or from B to A is not objectively measurable. So the speed of light in one direction must be stipulated."
This site also takes into account your P4 argument.
On top of that, it is assumed that the speed of light we witness now from an expanding Universe (matter in motion) is the same it was at the beginning of the Universe, or at least calculable (always the same constant - no miracles allowed, which creation week was said to be), AND that the current supposed rate accurately calculates the rate of/from expansion at the BB. Thus, the distance between a star and planet Earth could have increased far more than we suppose it did if the expansion happened faster than we calculate it did. That would reflect in the Universe/balloon analogy by how fast we blow the balloon up. We are in the present, looking back at the past. Thus, the relative present/recorded history (the only thing you have as your witness) is the key to the past for your worldview. With the rest, you bring your presuppositionalism to the table, your naturalistic worldview. As observed via the natural realm exclusively, science becomes the god in determining everything if humanity excludes God.
I found the debate entertaining and well-articulated by both sides. The spelling and grammar were good and so was the conduct, in my opinion.
From Cons R1, I think arguing a "Gish gallop" by Pro is unreasonable. Con only included TWO MAIN POINTS or headlined arguments, the Flood, DNA/genetics, and then a rebuttal of Pros first round. He gave those headlined points evidence to back up his claims. In stating an argument, evidence, in the form of premises, needs to be delivered to support it in its validity and soundness, and I see nothing wrong with what Con did.
Pros point about Con reinterpreting the resolution was a good one ("the Universe is older than 10,000 years" to, "the Earth is older than 10,000 years", and the argument by Con did not follow in refuting an old universe except in the rebuttal from later rounds). A more suitable resolution to date would have been, "The Earth is not older than 10,000 years," as Pro points out. But the debate did not end there and Con was able to justify his position to an extent.
Cons point is that the questioning of the dating methods for the Earth brings doubt regarding the dating methods for the age of the Universe. With all the paradigm shifts in thinking will the currently thought of age of the Universe remain what it is now?
Pros point about "the time it takes light to reach us" is fallacious because the logic does not necessarily follow, and these R1 five premises (I thought) should have been developed further). If, as Con supposes, the Universe, like the Earth, was created in a mature form at the same time, or that the speed is measured only from one direction, or the rate of expansion of the Universe is the same as it was in the beginning that undermines the premise. Thus, there are variables that counter that argument (P1). Con argued from a biblical worldview in that we earthlings have the illusion of vast eons of time because of where we start as humanity as the measure.
So, it would then depend on which worldview one uses to interpret the age of the Universe and raises the question of which is right?
Pros argument is that bringing the biblical God into the equation now requires proof of such a God over all others. The "I say we should stick with what we can observe to be true" is not necessarily true either. (I may observe a mirage and believe it is true. Just stating something is observable does not necessarily make it real.) The Laws of Logic are not observable, but without these laws, nothing could be made sense of. No human being was there to witness/observe the universe coming into existence, or when. That is interpreted by a multitude of factors, on how the data or evidence is understood. With origins, both sides bring presuppositions to the table since neither were here. One such question is, without a necessary intentional agency, why we would even have a universe. Without such a necessary being, why is not answerable.
These are just some of the contentions I thought of in reading the debate. I have many more.
That is the first occurrence I had with you regarding morality. The topic was designed to test which system of belief is more reasonable to believe. Thus I would encourage you to go there. Do you want me to post my conversation in regards to your debate there?
YOU: "Either challenge me to a debate or go to my actual forum about moral subjectivity, don't flood a place that's inconvenient to type on:
Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.
What I mean is that objective morality is something that is true as a law (like the laws of physics) regardless of a mind or anything else. That is the literal definition. Your argument is literally proving my point, morality, as is defined, can literally not be objective. That's how morality works, and that was my argument."
***
First, common sense tells me your definition of "Objective morality" does not stand the logic test. That gives me the right to question it. Next, I am willing to take this to the forum, "Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"
The fact is that you mentioned your two debates as a badge of honour. Thus, I brought the subject up here. Do you want me to cut and paste this to the forum? If you want a formal debate on the subject, I am willing. As I said in my first post here, you would need to change the challenge's wording. I said:
ME (Post 22): "I would have argued that objective morality is necessary for there to be such a thing as morality, rather than just subjective opinion and preference resulting in 'might makes right.' If there is nothing objectively moral, then there is no 'good' or 'right.'"
So, I do not believe objective morality exists unless God exists. If you want to argue along those lines, then we can discuss the details. I.e., We would also have to agree to terms for such a debate - how many characters, how many rounds, voting format, etcetera.
YOU: "I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind. Therefore you can not have objective morality."
YOU: "Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and, therefore not objective."
***
Next, you stated objective morality does not exist as far as you know, and you pointed out the two debates you had to prove this in the forum. This is what you said:
YOU: "I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893-morality-is-atheism-more-reasonable-than-theism?page=28&post_number=677
I am showing that you do not live consistently with your belief system. When that happens(inconsistency), it is usually a good sign that you are deceiving themselves. I believe you believe objective morality exists, or are you telling me that it is EVER right to rape an innocent little child? I pick the most horrendous example to show you that you can't live consistently with your own system of thinking, or do you actually think it is permissible to rape innocent little children, that there is nothing objectively wrong in doing so???
So, stop bluffing yourself. Objective morals do exist. You justify them with God, not your subjective, limited, relative mindset.
YOU: "I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind, therefore you can not have objective morality."
YOU: "Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and therefore not objective."
***
Next, you stated objective morality does not exist as far as you know and you pointed out the two debates you had to prove this in the forum. This is what you said:
YOU: "I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893-morality-is-atheism-more-reasonable-than-theism?page=28&post_number=677
I am showing that you do not live consistently with your belief system. When that happens(inconsistency), it is usually a good sign that you are deceiving themselves. I think that you do believe objective morality does exist or are you telling me that it is EVER right to rape an innocent little child? I pick the most horrendous example to show you that you can't live consistently with your own system of thinking, or do you actually think it is permissible to rape innocent little children, that there is nothing objectively wrong in doing so???
So, stop bluffing yourself. Objective morals do exist. You justify them with God, not your subjective, limited, relative mindset.
Once again, I have shown that you can live with 'no objective morality' in theory but not in practice or experientially just like in the empirical system of values you can, in theory, express infinity, but you can't in practice or experientially. One of the main systems of proof is the livability of that system and you can't live with your views, only express them. They don't work in practice unless you have no conscience, which is a very small percentage of actual people.
YOU: "Objective Morality - A moral system true independent from the mind."
I do not accept this definition. I would argue that 'objective morality' is what actually is rather than what is dependent on a contingent mindset. A mind is still necessary for morality since values are mindful qualities. If you have no actual what is, regarding moral values, then you can't have morality. All you can have is preference and opinion enforced through charisma or might. That does not make something right. It only makes it possible. "Right" has to conform to the ideal. The ideal is the 'best' that right is compared with. It has to be fixed or else the value can mean anything. If there is no ideal then what are you comparing it to? What did someone like? That makes nothing right or else Hitler's killing of six million Jews was right for him and those who supported him. Are you willing to go there?.
Now, here is the rub, does Thereaderedge live as though there are no fixed or right values, no objective morality? I say no. I say he can't. As soon as someone intentionally injures a loved member of his family for fun he would argue that such an act was wrong, and if wrong is nothing more than subjective preference then it is perfectly acceptable to the other person. So, what is his objection based on?
YOU:
P1: Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind
P2: Values and principals are made by minds
P3: Objective Morality has Values, Principals, etc..
Con: Therefore, these systems would be made by a mind
This would lead you to conclude them not objective. It's a contradictory statement to say that objective morality is made up of concepts only existent in minds.
I question P1 to its validity. The premise is false. Objective morality cannot be independent of mind, since morality is a mindful thing. Morality is not possible without this thing called a mind. I would argue that objective morality is dependent on a necessary Mind (i.e., God), not contingent minds. If God did not exist then morality would be nothing more than preference. Preference is a personal taste or opinion. Thus it describes, not prescribes - "I like ice-cream describes what you like, what tastes yummy to you, not what I SHOULD do (an obligation). You are not obligated to like ice-cream although you may like it if it tastes 'good' to you.
Next, 'good' or 'right' has to be grounded to something for it to be meaningful, a fixed standard. If the standard is not fixed and universal then how can you determine whether it is good or right? Good or right in relation to what? Your personal preference? That makes nothing right. It just makes it doable.
Finally, if there is no objective standard, then life becomes unlivable. You can offer your opinion ("I don't like that") but you can never say it is wrong ("It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun"). Imagine, that would be dependent on who believes it rather than on it being wrong. You can't live by your own system because as soon as someone applies their preferences on you (that harms you) you realize without objective values life becomes unlivable. So it does not pass the experiential test of life, let alone the logically consistent one (i.e., the law of identity, or a thing it what it is --> A=A; Right = Right). So your thinking is false in a number of ways, per above.
So, it is more reasonable to believe in objective moral values than to dismiss them.
I would have argued a different debate. I have only read the Description so far.
If I was formulating the Description (predebate), I would have argued that objective morality is necessary for there to be such a thing as morality, rather than just subjective opinion and preference resulting in 'might makes right.' If there is nothing objectively moral then there is no 'good' or 'right.' Do whatever you want if you have the power to do so, like Kim Jong-Un or President Qi Jiping of China. If there are no objective morals, then how can you criticize someone as wrong? How can you object to what Hitler did to the Jews or five million other undesirables?
Thank you for the clarification! I was not sure of your inference by "related." I did notice the word enemy but I see masks as a valuable tool in countering the spread of the disease, especially for those who don't know they have it yet venture into the public. In my opinion, identifying dehumanization can be used as a valid comparison. It depends on how deep the comparison goes.
Do you think this vilification is wide-scale in your society, especially with the cancel culture movement? I am an outsider (Canadian) looking in but I feel as the USA goes, so goes the rest of the world to a large extent. I also think that the current leadership in China is an existential threat in the future, so is socialism and big government to your society. I'm all for live and let live, yet it needs to be mutual.
YOU: "A related news piece came up:
https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/louisiana-lawmaker-equates-mask-mandates-with-nazi-germany/"
How is this NY Post article related to my debate which is focused on a specific case - dehumanization? Are you associating the two just because the Nazis are cited in both? I already agreed that Reductio ad Hitlerum does take place in many examples.
YOU: "If your willing to put a woman through 9 months of pain to prevent an abortion, would you be willing to put a male through a few hours of vasectomy pain to prevent an abortion?"
It is not something I have put much thought into. To my mind, what would be the result? The end of humanity if this was universal, and who am I to play God? A man and woman unusually consent to have sex. How these two choose to practice birth control is their business as long as that does not involve the taking of existing human life (i.e., abortion as the method). That is the difference between abortion and other means of birth control, such as condoms or vasectomy. I am objecting to a moral wrong/unequal justice taking place, and what it may lead to when the floodgates are opened and this type of discrimination and dehumanization is turned to other groups.
This type of unjust thinking has a chain effect, as I believe is the case with BLM. I agree that black lives do matter, but so do the lives of those who protect the communities we live in who are largely forgotten and discriminated against because of the actions of a very few bad cops. Defunding the police is Democrat idiocy that the mainstream media, as their bedmates, has picked up upon. Your mainstream media is a propaganda and indoctrination machine. BLM, IMO, has a Marxist undertone in which they fuel hatred towards law enforcement, painting the indoctrinating picture that all police officers are racist and evil and that all Caucasians are the same. BLM are fueling riots, not peaceful protests, IMO. Justice was forgotten over a month ago and another agenda was adopted sponsored by the Democrat side of corporate America who pour in multimillion into this organization and movement. We are living in a "cancel culture" where everything that does not meet the Democrat left-wing approval is demonized. The funny thing is America seems to be buying yet more lunacy. These stupid liberal mayors who operate these liberal Democrat-run cities have totally lost it, driven by such braindead politicians as AOC and Nancy Pelosi who promote more anarchy and violence. These cities are collapsing in lawlessness.
I'm Canadian, but my opinion is that any American who votes Democrat is not thinking well but foolishly. Your country is at stake. I think this is a pivotal election. It might be too late to turn back now. Do you have a clue of what your media and Democrat Party is doing? Even the Supreme Court is partisan. There is a block of four that usually vote the same, especially over critical issues. Justice John Roberts is no friend of justice, either, IMO, providing the tiebreaker to poor thinking and ignoring your Constitution. Heaven help America!
You seem to be missing the significance of or turning a blind eye to what is being killed when an abortion takes place. Does it matter to you? This thinking is common with those who support pro-choice. They gloss over equal justice and the intrinsic value of being human. Once that is done, your culture is in danger of being lost to extremists, where their unjust rules are practiced more and more, IMO.
"We believe Christ Jesus and our faith is credited to us, just as Abraham believed God and God's righteousness (in Jesus Christ) was credited to Abraham. Hebrews explains this further:"
Should have been,
"We believe Christ Jesus and our faith is credited to us as righteousness, just as Abraham believed God and God's righteousness (in Jesus Christ) was credited to Abraham. Hebrews explains this further:"
Is incest chill?
No - Deuteronomy 27:22 - "Cursed [is] he who is lying with his sister, daughter of his father, or daughter of his mother, -- and all the people have said, Amen."
Yes, at least sometimes - Genesis 17:15-16 - "And God saith unto Abraham, `Sarai thy wife -- thou dost not call her name Sarai, for Sarah [is] her name; and I have blessed her, and have also given to thee a son from her; and I have blessed her, and she hath become nations -- kings of peoples are from her.'"
In the first passage, it is said those who lay with their relatives are cursed, and no qualifications or exceptions are mentioned. It is a blanket condemnation. In the second passage, god says he blesses Sarah, who is the blood sister of Abraham. It seems god's blessing contradicts Deuteronomy's blanket condemnation.
***
Jesus Christ (the New Covenant) became the curse for those who believe. He redeemed OT people from the curses of Adam and of the Old Testament, as He does us from the curse of death and not having fellowship with God.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—
God made a covenant with Adam. God made a covenant with Noah. God made a covenant with Moses. God made a covenant with Abraham. God makes a covenant with us in Jesus Christ. You have to understand the nature of the covenants. Abraham was before the Mosaic Covenant which is what Deuteronomy largely concerns itself.
In order for humanity to multiply the sons and daughters of Adam would have to mate. I believe the genetic strand was purer closer to the Fall (my opinion, but the reason is not so important, just that there is a reason). In the Adamic Covenant, God gave the command to go forth and multiply. In the Mosaic Covenant, God forbids this incestuous kind of relationship from that time onwards (IMO a reason could be that the genetic pool is now more corrupted). That is just one of the possibilities we can speculate on that explains the difference. Another is the Abraham was counted righteous before God just like the believer is counted righteous before God in the works of another (Jesus Christ). Hebrews said that Abraham was looking forward to in Jesus Christ.
John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
Galatians 3:6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
We believe Christ Jesus and our faith is credited to us, just as Abraham believed God and God's righteousness (in Jesus Christ) was credited to Abraham. Hebrews explains this further:
Hebrews 11:8-9 (NASB)
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise;
Hebrews 11:13-16
13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been [a]thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not [b]ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
Galatians 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.”
Must we keep holy the Sabbath?
Yes - Exodus 20:8-11 - "Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it; six days thou dost labour, and hast done all thy work, and the seventh day [is] a Sabbath to Jehovah thy God; thou dost not do any work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy handmaid, and thy cattle, and thy sojourner who is within thy gates, for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.
No - Romans 14:5-6 - "One doth judge one day above another, and another doth judge every day [alike]; let each in his own mind be fully assured. He who is regarding the day, to the Lord he doth regard [it], and he who is not regarding the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He who is eating, to the Lord he doth eat, for he doth give thanks to God; and he who is not eating, to the Lord he doth not eat, and doth give thanks to God.
In one case we have a command provided in the context of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and in the other we essentially have Romans 14 saying "to each their own." The two are not compatible.
***
The nature of the two covenants is different. In the one, the old, we have a covenant of works. In the other, the new, we have a covenant of grace in which the Son of Man (Jesus) has met the righteous requirements of humanity (for those who believe in Him). He has been obedient to God with all His commands. He has become the new sacrificial lamb, the new offering. His bloodshed initiated the New Covenant. We do not have to do ritualize offerings and sacrifices before God because they have been done in Jesus Christ. His death was acceptable to God, for those who believe.
Matthew 12:8[ Lord of the Sabbath ] For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Mark 2:27-28 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
Hebrews 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
That Sabbath rest is found IN Christ Jesus - resting in Him. For the believers, the new people of God, the new Israel, they are said to be IN Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:21-23
Justification by Faith
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith IN Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Apart from the Law of Moses those in Jesus Christ have been reconciled to God through the gift of God, His Son, Jesus Christ. He is our Sabbath rest. We can rest from al our works by relying on His works.
Romans 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult IN God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Romans 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God IN Christ Jesus.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:1 [ Deliverance from Bondage ] Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus.
Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith IN Christ Jesus, even we have believed IN Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith IN Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Ephesians 1:1 7 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation IN the knowledge of Him.
Ephesians 2:13 But now IN Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Philippians 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory IN Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
Philippians 4:19 And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory IN Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 2:1 [ Be Strong ] You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is IN Christ Jesus.
It is by faith IN Jesus Christ, in what He has done, in His grace and mercy, that the New Covenant believer is reconciled to God.
Has anyone seen god?
Yes - Genesis 32:30 - "And Jacob calleth the name of the place Peniel: for `I have seen God face unto face, and my life is delivered"
No - John 1:18 - "God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare."
Which is it? Did Jacob see god face to face, or has no one ever seen god? See also Exodus 33:11, in which God apparently speaks to Moses face to face, as one would with a friend.
***
God as Spirit cannot be seen. You can't see Spirit. Spirit is not physical. God, when stepping into human history in the form of a man (Jesus) or theophany (the angle of the Lord) can be seen. To see the face of the incarnate Jesus is to see what God is like. Jesus said,
John 14:7[ Oneness with the Father ] "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
In Jesus, the disciples and those who looked upon Him saw what God is like.
John 1:14 (NASB)
The Word Made Flesh
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Looking upon the risen Jesus was looking at the glory of God.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
Matthew 25:31 [ The Judgment ] “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
Mark 8:38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”
God never gave His glory to another yet Jesus shares in that glory. Thus, Jesus is equated to God.
Isaiah 40:5 Then the glory of the Lord will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Paradox Definition: The term paradox is from the Greek word paradoxon, which means “contrary to expectations, existing belief, or perceived opinion.” It is a statement that appears to be self-contradictory or silly, but which may include a latent truth.
https://literarydevices.net/paradox/
Ragnar, I believe you entirely missed the mark, misinterpreted what I said, and I will argue your points of contention after the vote is complete. It should be an interesting discussion. However, nothing less was expected.
The link for audience relevance should be:
http://christeternalchristianchurch.com/position-papers/position-paper-1/
The source for "word of the Lord" is wrong. It should be:
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=word+of+the+Lord&version=NASB
Also,
7. Inductive Argument - an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
Per Post 2:
Description Definitions I used:
1. agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable
2. Deductive Argument - a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises [are true.] https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
3. 1) Morality - the degree to which an action is right or wrong. Morals often describe one's particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
4. Ethics - 1. the discipline dealing with what is good and (evil) bad and with moral duty and obligation 2a: a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values. Ethics can refer broadly to moral principles, one often sees it applied to questions of correct behavior within a relatively narrow area of activity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic
5. Worldview - the most fundamental (core) philosophical beliefs and assumptions a person holds about the universe and the nature of things. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-worldview
6. Biblical Typology - the aspect of biblical interpretation that treats the significance of Old Testament types for prefiguring corresponding New Testament antitypes or fulfillment. https://www.bibleandtheology.net/what-is-typology-definition-and-its-relationship-to-biblical-theology/
Okay, thank you!
Request: Please allow me to cite my definitions via footnote or hyperlink in the comments section. They were not included in the Description.
Thank you for the debate! If you are interested in another in eschatology I am interested.
Thank you for voting!
It's your dime. (^8
I want to say that I find it strange that TradeSecret has not been online for 12 days. Since I have noticed his comments on many a thread, I hope that he is okay.
Intell, your opponent in the debate treated the first round as though you were a Christian. I perused your profile. You claim to be an atheist. Thus I did not think you would have any interest in answering those questions about God since they would not apply to your circumstance. I also wanted to test your opponent's (Undefeatable's) 1R in regards to the reasonableness of his truth claims. I want to add my thoughts after the debate vote has concluded. Do you have an objection?
I'm not sure who you are addressing?
YOU: "[a] also... why do you trust the bible more than scientific experiments? [b] Can you sufficiently reproduce the miracles supposedly performed? [c] Can you actually verify the veracity of the person's statement and the history, [d] like Undefeatable claimed he could prove beyond the LEGAL requirement, [e] as if earth being older than 10,000 was a pedophilia/murder case?"
***
[a] It is a matter of authority. Why do you (supposedly) trust scientific experiments that no one was there to witness, cannot be repeated, that work on models of the most likelihood? You bank on your "authorities" being right. You (possibly/probably) look to exclusively naturalistic explanations. I do not, because, without a God or gods, you run into a completely different problem, as identified by Thomas Aquinas and later added to by Cornelius Van Til, John Frame, and others. That problem is with your presuppositions starting point and what it rests upon. You build upon a more unlikely beginning that deals with no agency, no intent, just pure random chance happenstance. How likely is that? I say very unlikely, more likely impossible.
[b] No, I'm not God. I can't work against the natural order. HE, as a SUPERNATURAL Being, can.
[c] Your statement is vague to me. I'm not following. Which "person" are you speaking of? Do you mean God's words in history? I can do that to a reasonable degree of proof, but it depends on what you will accept with proof. I have learned that a person cannot be convinced against their will. It is like talking to a wall.
[d] 1. With legality, it may be legal but is it right/true to what is real? For instance, abortion is legal but is it right?
2. With legality, the same standard used by a court of law can be used of the eyewitness accounts of the Bible, as demonstrated by Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, and who also wrote an authoritative three-volume work on the law called, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which set the bar for eyewitness testimony in a court of law. So, if Undefeatable wants to cite a legal standard "beyond doubt," I would note that one as a starter for my case.
[e] What? I do not follow your analogy or whatever it is you are trying to convey.
https://folk.ntnu.no/krill/bioko-references/Kuhn%201962.pdf
Amendment: "Origins are not one of those things" [that can be repeated].
What scientists measure are scientific models that we believe best correspond to what happened. Thomas Kuhn explains that models can experience paradigm shifts once the anomalies build-up and a better explanation is found.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thomas+kuhn+you+tube&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3cp6pEzx3uw
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thomas+kuhn+you+tube&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DL70T4pQv7P8
YOU: "The bible tells nothing about the age of earth. https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~bodla101/religion/ageoftheworld.html"
***
Yes, the Bible does through logical inference. Adam was created at the beginning of creation, per Jesus, who should know.
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature because he is a liar and the father of lies.
The devil deceived Eve in the Garden.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “[ai]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness;...” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them...; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
The man and woman were created on the sixth day of creation. Jesus speaks of Adam as a literal person, not some figurative idea. The genealogies in Luke 3 treat Adam as a literal person and with others in that lineage; we have facts regarding their literal existence. Sin is attributed to an actual person, Adam, and with his sin, death upon humanity.
As for the genealogies, they go back in time only so far, to the beginning of creation. Jesus' lineage is traced back to Adam.
YOU: "And also... mere *bias* to negate geologists? I haven't seen another topic where 97% of experts are slanted towards the wrong way."
***
Science is concerned with the natural realm, with things that are measurable and can be repeated. Origins are not one of those things. Scientists work from a naturalistic perspective. They use quantitative measurements, sensory measurements. They come short on the question of why in many areas of investigation. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why the BB? What agency caused it? Is there something more than the physical realm? How does something devoid of consciousness become conscious?
As for geology, I believe what the science was built upon, uniformitarianism, is wrong. I believe catastrophism offers a better explanation of the fossil record. There are many anomalies with uniformitarianism and a problem with its basic tenant that the present is the key to the past. As for the uniformity of nature, why if there is no God or agency and intention directing the natural world? Things just happen. Why should they be uniform? Why the laws of nature?
https://www.britannica.com/science/uniformitarianism
YOU SAID: "[a] you just directly contradicted yourself. You arbitrarily picked out earth created in six days as literal and a ton of other stuff as figurative.
"No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document."
***
[a] No, basically I said that there is both literal and figurative language used in the Bible, and a person must determine which kind is used when reading a passage. Genesis 1-11 is mostly narrative. Here is the question again. You quoted my answer above:
Q: Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
Exodus 20:8-11 (NASB)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your [a]resident who [b]stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
1. If God's days are not the same as His people's days, how long is a Sabbath rest for them?
2. What use does an eternal being have of time? Time is for us, as are days and seasons. They serve as signs in prophecy and a warning that we only have so long on this earth.
Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall [u]serve as signs and for seasons, and days and years; 15 and they [v]shall serve as lights in the [w]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
***
As for your questions about God -
"Question For Con"
- Is there any proof of God?
Many proofs. The Bible claims to be a revelation from God. It deals with many historic people, places and events, and prophecies about future events that ring true to the prediction.
- If God exists, why would he fool us to make the world appear much older than they really are?
He did not fool you. The Bible does not state or infer any such thing. It says plainly that He created the heavens and earth, and He created in six days. He made a human being Adam, fully formed, not as a fetus. He created a "garden" with fully formed trees just by speaking these things into existence.
- If Creationism is true, how does Evolution actually work?
It means there is no such thing as macro-evolution (or Darwinian evolution), where we evolve from a common ancestor. We believe we were made as beings who can change within our kind to adapt to our environments through our diets and environmental conditioning (skin pigmentation does not mean we are less human or our different shapes of faces or bodies). We believe as Christians that we are all equally human. Darwinian social evolution creates class divisions. It creates some beings who are "More" human than others.
- If Noah's Ark occurred, why can't we find this Ark? The size must match at least one of our largest ships ever created.
There are lots of things we can't find from antiquity. Just because we can't find it does not necessarily equate to its non-existence.
- What would it take to change your mind (or if you are playing devil's advocate, overcome your argument)?
Proving the Bible does not teach a relatively young universe.
- How old is the universe?
I don't know, yet I believe it is very young. Like you, I was not there for its beginning. I look at the evidence in the present from the past. Unlike you, I do not necessarily believe that the present (what we view the distant past from) is the key to the past. Like you, I realize the evidence is interpreted, and usually from a strictly naturalistic perspective. I do not work from such a view.
- Does the Bible always speak in a direct literal way?
No, it is up to the reader to determine where a figurative and historical narrative is being used, as they would with any other document.
- Why do you assume that animal death only began to happen after Adam ate the fruit?
The Bible states that death came or entered the world from the sin of Adam. Before Adam sinned, the Genesis 1 account records God calling what He made as "very good." I don't know about you, but I do not see death as a good thing. I see life as good.
- Why/How do you think that so many geologists in the last 350 years got their geology wrong?
Presuppositional bias. With the Age of Reason, humanity became the measure of all things. There was a significant shift from God to society. Darwin sealed the verdict with the Theory of Evolution. Now humanity could rationalize away God.
- The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?
From the earth and heavens.
- How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?
I question whether the past and the conditions back then are the same as the present. I question uniformitarianism and the geological table. I point to various anomalies around the world that do not fit the dating process and the presuppositional starting points. The focus of science has been in confirming their naturalistic models and theories. I grant that scientists have an abundance of "evidence" that still requires interpretation. It does not come stamped "4.5 billion years old. I also noticed personification presuppositions built into your first round argument when speaking about evolution. As if evolution has human qualities.
While I do not necessarily agree with the 10,000-year-old time frame (too wooden and specific for what I believe the Bible infers), I do find the YEC belief more compelling than the OEC belief, as and for a Christian. Since science looks strictly at the naturalistic perspective, there are many questions that is cannot answer with any more clarity than the basis of a presupposition. After the debate voting is over, I would like to take a stab at your first round of evidence by breaking it down and showing that what you cite as "the facts" (just the facts, ma'am) is not as conclusive as you think it is.
But I favour the YEC position.
I think it is very reasonable to believe. I have not made up my mind completely on the issue.
As agreed upon in the Description, CON is allowing me to post additional definitions that I think will be needed for my argument that was not included in the Description. Here they are:
Definitions:
Scientism
1: methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2: an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism
Exegesis - "a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible. In modern usage, biblical exegesis is used to distinguish it from other critical text explanation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
Eisegesis - "the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.[1] It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
The Laws of Logic - (1) the law of noncontradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle, and (3) the principle of identity.
https://arcapologetics.org/three-laws-logic/
Self-evident truths - "containing its own evidence or proof without need of further demonstration; Requiring no proof or explanation."
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-evident
***
"clear or obvious without needing any proof or explanation"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/self-evident
Necessary being - "a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist."
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
Efficient Cause - "the immediate agent in the production of an effect." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/efficient%20cause or "that which produces an effect by a causal process."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/efficient-cause
Thank you, CON for agreeing to this!
Okay, thanks!
Sum, I thought it was an interesting and well-fought debate since the subject does interest me. I am still interested in your views; now the debate is over. How do you justify not use an exclusively natural as opposed to a supernatural view (thus, the presuppositions nature of your argument) in interpreting the evidence? What was faulty thinking on either Wesley's or my part regarding the speed of light argument, and I am interested in your view on how the expansion (fast or slow) of the Universe could adversely affect its age. I am also interested in how you would answer the Thomas Aquinas issue?
SUM: "I made it very clear that I am not advocating a worldview. I even allowed deism because that's all my opponent's arguments indicate. But even under deism there was [no] real refutation of my core argument. It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data."
***
Sure, I understand. You may not advocate one, but you hold one. You view the world in a particular way. That way examines the world through a mixture of science and scientism, in the case of origins. Models (theories) are built and tested as to their plausibility, and the ones that most fit or are most plausible are generally accepted. You expressed what you think is the reasonableness of such a model in discussing the universe's age. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out when too many anomalies are found, the paradigm shifts to a new model that better explains the occurrence.
BUT, during the debate, you exclusively used a naturalistic explanation. Wesley pointed out some of the hidden assumptions of that framework. The key (to my mind) was the presuppositional nature of the argument since no human being was there to witness the birth of the Universe. Thus, an interpretation of the evidence is needed. The Universe does not come stamped 13.8 billion years old. The scientific interpretation is solely naturalistic. This adds a problem to its explainability, as the Thomas Aquinas R3 argument laid out. From what we witness, every motion is preceded by another motion within a closed system. But what caused the BB, if that is the explanation? Then there is the problem of why? That cannot be answered from within a naturalist's worldview, IMO. What is the intent or agency behind the Universe? According to naturalists, there is none. Things happen for no REASON. Naturalists keep finding reasons in the Universe for the way things are, but cannot find meaning for the Universe itself, just any number of speculations. If there is no mind behind the Universe, why would we find meaning for it? It is a mindless, meaningless entity with no agency behind it. Things happen. Chance happenstance. What does chance have the ability to do? I like giving the analogy of rolling dice. The dice do not roll themselves. There is an agency behind them. You, a mindful being are that agency. A personal being designed them. Expecting six repeatedly (the uniformity of Nature, or the laws of Nature) are thinkable in theory but undemonstrable in practice. Try rolling a six indefinitely (the sustainability of the Universe or natural laws that we DISCOVER, not invent). It is only a matter of time (probably the first roll) before another number comes up besides six. So what you can theorize in your mind cannot be demonstrated in practice without agency, without intent, without first fixing the dice to make the constant six appear every roll.
The same with an infinity. That cannot be demonstrated in practice or from within the confines of time (timeless). You could never count to infinity. So, logically, there is an explanation in theory, but not practically once God is eliminated; it cannot be lived or demonstrated. The Thomas Aquinas part of the argument sealed it for me. It laid bare the presuppositional nature of your natural argument. I would have liked you to have addressed those three points. Not only that, there are alternative explanations to the current natural beliefs that raise questions as to the plausibility of other aspects of your argument, such as the speed of light and expansion of the Universe. The balloon analogy is the example I used. How fast you blow the balloon determines how quickly the distance between the two dots separate. Can we be sure the Universe has always expanded at the rate it is now? We live in the present, looking back on the past. Taking these and many more factors, I believe God is the better or most plausible explanation.
When you say, "It feels disingenuous to continuously label my position as naturalism rather than simply contingent on observable data." Well, what are you OBSERVING? Are you observing the natural world, the natural universe? Second, are you bringing the supernatural into the argument in any way or excluding it?
What is more, I do not believe there is such a thing as complete objective neutrality by subjective human beings on such a philosophical position as the one you are debating - the age of the Universe. We come with a bias. A naturalist, atheist, or secularist is not objective in the way they look at the evidence on such a subject, neither is Christian, theist, or pantheist. We all bring baggage to any discussion. We all build on our core presuppositions, the ones everything else rests upon, and both sides of the debate tend to look for things that confirm these most basic presuppositions. I have noted that with all of the voters to date. They, and I, have biases. There are great thinkers on both sides of the aisle. The question is, which is more REASONABLE and logical?
The fascinating thing is how ideas and worldviews influence the way we think. Ideas build, each concept upon another concept, precept upon precept, from the core on up. We usually build on where we start, but sometimes we cheat and borrow from opposing worldviews on some issues. Are our worldviews regarding specific positions justifiable? The accepted paradigm is usually the way that the majority look at the information available. Ideas have consequences. The Age of Reason shifted the paradigm for the majority in the West with humanity becoming the measure of all things, away from God. Thus, for most Westerners, the information is funnelled through the acceptable paradigm. Revolutionary thinkers challenge the accepted paradigm and norm. In my opinion, truth should be the aim for all of us, but that is very difficult to discern. This is one of those areas, IMO. More often a debate is about winning which can detract from the truth.
YOU: "While I do not think your vote is grounded in good reasons, I do not consider it unfair because you were persuaded by my opponent arguments. Caleber's vote awarded both conduct and sources which I think is unfair."
I think it makes for an interesting discussion because I think the opposite of your view. That is, my vote is grounded in good reason, especially when it is grounded in a knowable necessary being, not a contingent being. Not only this, what does a naturalist ground their core beliefs upon, a blind, indifferent random chance happenstance Universe. How naturalists get to reasoning beings leaves a lot in the imagination. Thus, the nature of our presuppositions is very different.
YOU: "While there's a lot wrong with what you said, I suppose I shouldn't argue with you in the comments about it. Thank you for voting."
I'm okay with it because these are weighty issues that need to be understood, plus the debate is over, not in progress. But because the vote is still ongoing you might want to wait, depending on how strongly you feel about the issue? If you have concerns my feeling is that they should be expressed at some point. I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with a vote or an issue. I don't know how Wesley thinks about it, but I would definitely question something I felt was unfair or not true. That is the way I am. If you feel this is awkward discussing here then a personal correspondence is okay with me also. The point of expressing yourself here is that others get to hear both sides of the issue on the relevant point, as it relates to the debate. Is that unkosher? Of course, a thread could be used to further the discussion. I am swamped with one I initiated, however. I am just taking a break from it.
Sum: Thank you for voting. But the speed of light is not assumed, I referenced an experiment that demonstrated it, and it is consistently measured at that speed in every single experiment ever. My opponent agreed to the speed of light being constant, which necessarily means the distance is the light-year distance.
***
He agreed it was, but it is measured from two directions. He made that point, I believe. We 1) see the stars out there and 2) measure the speed of light to and back from the stars for accuracy. You can't measure it accurately from one direction is the point here.
Two things:
1.
"Since lengths and time-durations are not absolute but are relative to velocity, Einstein’s physics is often referred to as “relativity.”
2.
"A less-well-known aspect of Einstein’s physics is that the speed of light in one direction cannot be objectively measured, and so it must be stipulated (agreed upon by convention). This stands in contrast to the round-trip speed of light, which is always constant.
For example, if light travels from A to B and then back to A, it will always take the same amount of time to make the trip (because its speed is always the same), and that time is objectively measurable. However, the time it takes to go just from A to B or from B to A is not objectively measurable. So the speed of light in one direction must be stipulated."
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/distant-starlight-thesis/
This site also takes into account your P4 argument.
On top of that, it is assumed that the speed of light we witness now from an expanding Universe (matter in motion) is the same it was at the beginning of the Universe, or at least calculable (always the same constant - no miracles allowed, which creation week was said to be), AND that the current supposed rate accurately calculates the rate of/from expansion at the BB. Thus, the distance between a star and planet Earth could have increased far more than we suppose it did if the expansion happened faster than we calculate it did. That would reflect in the Universe/balloon analogy by how fast we blow the balloon up. We are in the present, looking back at the past. Thus, the relative present/recorded history (the only thing you have as your witness) is the key to the past for your worldview. With the rest, you bring your presuppositionalism to the table, your naturalistic worldview. As observed via the natural realm exclusively, science becomes the god in determining everything if humanity excludes God.
I found the debate entertaining and well-articulated by both sides. The spelling and grammar were good and so was the conduct, in my opinion.
From Cons R1, I think arguing a "Gish gallop" by Pro is unreasonable. Con only included TWO MAIN POINTS or headlined arguments, the Flood, DNA/genetics, and then a rebuttal of Pros first round. He gave those headlined points evidence to back up his claims. In stating an argument, evidence, in the form of premises, needs to be delivered to support it in its validity and soundness, and I see nothing wrong with what Con did.
Pros point about Con reinterpreting the resolution was a good one ("the Universe is older than 10,000 years" to, "the Earth is older than 10,000 years", and the argument by Con did not follow in refuting an old universe except in the rebuttal from later rounds). A more suitable resolution to date would have been, "The Earth is not older than 10,000 years," as Pro points out. But the debate did not end there and Con was able to justify his position to an extent.
Cons point is that the questioning of the dating methods for the Earth brings doubt regarding the dating methods for the age of the Universe. With all the paradigm shifts in thinking will the currently thought of age of the Universe remain what it is now?
Pros point about "the time it takes light to reach us" is fallacious because the logic does not necessarily follow, and these R1 five premises (I thought) should have been developed further). If, as Con supposes, the Universe, like the Earth, was created in a mature form at the same time, or that the speed is measured only from one direction, or the rate of expansion of the Universe is the same as it was in the beginning that undermines the premise. Thus, there are variables that counter that argument (P1). Con argued from a biblical worldview in that we earthlings have the illusion of vast eons of time because of where we start as humanity as the measure.
So, it would then depend on which worldview one uses to interpret the age of the Universe and raises the question of which is right?
Pros argument is that bringing the biblical God into the equation now requires proof of such a God over all others. The "I say we should stick with what we can observe to be true" is not necessarily true either. (I may observe a mirage and believe it is true. Just stating something is observable does not necessarily make it real.) The Laws of Logic are not observable, but without these laws, nothing could be made sense of. No human being was there to witness/observe the universe coming into existence, or when. That is interpreted by a multitude of factors, on how the data or evidence is understood. With origins, both sides bring presuppositions to the table since neither were here. One such question is, without a necessary intentional agency, why we would even have a universe. Without such a necessary being, why is not answerable.
These are just some of the contentions I thought of in reading the debate. I have many more.
YOU: "I will not respond to anything here. Full stop. I will be more than happy to address your points. Just go to my morality subjectivism ama."
Send me the link or go to my page,
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893-morality-is-atheism-more-reasonable-than-theism?page=28&post_number=677
That is the first occurrence I had with you regarding morality. The topic was designed to test which system of belief is more reasonable to believe. Thus I would encourage you to go there. Do you want me to post my conversation in regards to your debate there?
YOU: "Either challenge me to a debate or go to my actual forum about moral subjectivity, don't flood a place that's inconvenient to type on:
Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.
What I mean is that objective morality is something that is true as a law (like the laws of physics) regardless of a mind or anything else. That is the literal definition. Your argument is literally proving my point, morality, as is defined, can literally not be objective. That's how morality works, and that was my argument."
***
First, common sense tells me your definition of "Objective morality" does not stand the logic test. That gives me the right to question it. Next, I am willing to take this to the forum, "Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"
The fact is that you mentioned your two debates as a badge of honour. Thus, I brought the subject up here. Do you want me to cut and paste this to the forum? If you want a formal debate on the subject, I am willing. As I said in my first post here, you would need to change the challenge's wording. I said:
ME (Post 22): "I would have argued that objective morality is necessary for there to be such a thing as morality, rather than just subjective opinion and preference resulting in 'might makes right.' If there is nothing objectively moral, then there is no 'good' or 'right.'"
So, I do not believe objective morality exists unless God exists. If you want to argue along those lines, then we can discuss the details. I.e., We would also have to agree to terms for such a debate - how many characters, how many rounds, voting format, etcetera.
Sorry, I did not think my post was accepted so I posted again.
YOU: "I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind. Therefore you can not have objective morality."
YOU: "Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and, therefore not objective."
***
Next, you stated objective morality does not exist as far as you know, and you pointed out the two debates you had to prove this in the forum. This is what you said:
YOU: "I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893-morality-is-atheism-more-reasonable-than-theism?page=28&post_number=677
I am showing that you do not live consistently with your belief system. When that happens(inconsistency), it is usually a good sign that you are deceiving themselves. I believe you believe objective morality exists, or are you telling me that it is EVER right to rape an innocent little child? I pick the most horrendous example to show you that you can't live consistently with your own system of thinking, or do you actually think it is permissible to rape innocent little children, that there is nothing objectively wrong in doing so???
So, stop bluffing yourself. Objective morals do exist. You justify them with God, not your subjective, limited, relative mindset.
YOU: "I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind, therefore you can not have objective morality."
YOU: "Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and therefore not objective."
***
Next, you stated objective morality does not exist as far as you know and you pointed out the two debates you had to prove this in the forum. This is what you said:
YOU: "I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893-morality-is-atheism-more-reasonable-than-theism?page=28&post_number=677
I am showing that you do not live consistently with your belief system. When that happens(inconsistency), it is usually a good sign that you are deceiving themselves. I think that you do believe objective morality does exist or are you telling me that it is EVER right to rape an innocent little child? I pick the most horrendous example to show you that you can't live consistently with your own system of thinking, or do you actually think it is permissible to rape innocent little children, that there is nothing objectively wrong in doing so???
So, stop bluffing yourself. Objective morals do exist. You justify them with God, not your subjective, limited, relative mindset.
Again, you challenged me in
Once again, I have shown that you can live with 'no objective morality' in theory but not in practice or experientially just like in the empirical system of values you can, in theory, express infinity, but you can't in practice or experientially. One of the main systems of proof is the livability of that system and you can't live with your views, only express them. They don't work in practice unless you have no conscience, which is a very small percentage of actual people.
R3:
I came to my first stoppage here:
YOU: "Objective Morality - A moral system true independent from the mind."
I do not accept this definition. I would argue that 'objective morality' is what actually is rather than what is dependent on a contingent mindset. A mind is still necessary for morality since values are mindful qualities. If you have no actual what is, regarding moral values, then you can't have morality. All you can have is preference and opinion enforced through charisma or might. That does not make something right. It only makes it possible. "Right" has to conform to the ideal. The ideal is the 'best' that right is compared with. It has to be fixed or else the value can mean anything. If there is no ideal then what are you comparing it to? What did someone like? That makes nothing right or else Hitler's killing of six million Jews was right for him and those who supported him. Are you willing to go there?.
Now, here is the rub, does Thereaderedge live as though there are no fixed or right values, no objective morality? I say no. I say he can't. As soon as someone intentionally injures a loved member of his family for fun he would argue that such an act was wrong, and if wrong is nothing more than subjective preference then it is perfectly acceptable to the other person. So, what is his objection based on?
Sorry, that was R2 I was quoting your syllogism from, not R1.
Your syllogism from Round 1:
YOU:
P1: Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind
P2: Values and principals are made by minds
P3: Objective Morality has Values, Principals, etc..
Con: Therefore, these systems would be made by a mind
This would lead you to conclude them not objective. It's a contradictory statement to say that objective morality is made up of concepts only existent in minds.
I question P1 to its validity. The premise is false. Objective morality cannot be independent of mind, since morality is a mindful thing. Morality is not possible without this thing called a mind. I would argue that objective morality is dependent on a necessary Mind (i.e., God), not contingent minds. If God did not exist then morality would be nothing more than preference. Preference is a personal taste or opinion. Thus it describes, not prescribes - "I like ice-cream describes what you like, what tastes yummy to you, not what I SHOULD do (an obligation). You are not obligated to like ice-cream although you may like it if it tastes 'good' to you.
Next, 'good' or 'right' has to be grounded to something for it to be meaningful, a fixed standard. If the standard is not fixed and universal then how can you determine whether it is good or right? Good or right in relation to what? Your personal preference? That makes nothing right. It just makes it doable.
Finally, if there is no objective standard, then life becomes unlivable. You can offer your opinion ("I don't like that") but you can never say it is wrong ("It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun"). Imagine, that would be dependent on who believes it rather than on it being wrong. You can't live by your own system because as soon as someone applies their preferences on you (that harms you) you realize without objective values life becomes unlivable. So it does not pass the experiential test of life, let alone the logically consistent one (i.e., the law of identity, or a thing it what it is --> A=A; Right = Right). So your thinking is false in a number of ways, per above.
So, it is more reasonable to believe in objective moral values than to dismiss them.
I would have argued a different debate. I have only read the Description so far.
If I was formulating the Description (predebate), I would have argued that objective morality is necessary for there to be such a thing as morality, rather than just subjective opinion and preference resulting in 'might makes right.' If there is nothing objectively moral then there is no 'good' or 'right.' Do whatever you want if you have the power to do so, like Kim Jong-Un or President Qi Jiping of China. If there are no objective morals, then how can you criticize someone as wrong? How can you object to what Hitler did to the Jews or five million other undesirables?
Okay, on to the rest of your debate.
Thank you for the clarification! I was not sure of your inference by "related." I did notice the word enemy but I see masks as a valuable tool in countering the spread of the disease, especially for those who don't know they have it yet venture into the public. In my opinion, identifying dehumanization can be used as a valid comparison. It depends on how deep the comparison goes.
Do you think this vilification is wide-scale in your society, especially with the cancel culture movement? I am an outsider (Canadian) looking in but I feel as the USA goes, so goes the rest of the world to a large extent. I also think that the current leadership in China is an existential threat in the future, so is socialism and big government to your society. I'm all for live and let live, yet it needs to be mutual.
YOU: "A related news piece came up:
https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/louisiana-lawmaker-equates-mask-mandates-with-nazi-germany/"
How is this NY Post article related to my debate which is focused on a specific case - dehumanization? Are you associating the two just because the Nazis are cited in both? I already agreed that Reductio ad Hitlerum does take place in many examples.
YOU: "If your willing to put a woman through 9 months of pain to prevent an abortion, would you be willing to put a male through a few hours of vasectomy pain to prevent an abortion?"
It is not something I have put much thought into. To my mind, what would be the result? The end of humanity if this was universal, and who am I to play God? A man and woman unusually consent to have sex. How these two choose to practice birth control is their business as long as that does not involve the taking of existing human life (i.e., abortion as the method). That is the difference between abortion and other means of birth control, such as condoms or vasectomy. I am objecting to a moral wrong/unequal justice taking place, and what it may lead to when the floodgates are opened and this type of discrimination and dehumanization is turned to other groups.
This type of unjust thinking has a chain effect, as I believe is the case with BLM. I agree that black lives do matter, but so do the lives of those who protect the communities we live in who are largely forgotten and discriminated against because of the actions of a very few bad cops. Defunding the police is Democrat idiocy that the mainstream media, as their bedmates, has picked up upon. Your mainstream media is a propaganda and indoctrination machine. BLM, IMO, has a Marxist undertone in which they fuel hatred towards law enforcement, painting the indoctrinating picture that all police officers are racist and evil and that all Caucasians are the same. BLM are fueling riots, not peaceful protests, IMO. Justice was forgotten over a month ago and another agenda was adopted sponsored by the Democrat side of corporate America who pour in multimillion into this organization and movement. We are living in a "cancel culture" where everything that does not meet the Democrat left-wing approval is demonized. The funny thing is America seems to be buying yet more lunacy. These stupid liberal mayors who operate these liberal Democrat-run cities have totally lost it, driven by such braindead politicians as AOC and Nancy Pelosi who promote more anarchy and violence. These cities are collapsing in lawlessness.
I'm Canadian, but my opinion is that any American who votes Democrat is not thinking well but foolishly. Your country is at stake. I think this is a pivotal election. It might be too late to turn back now. Do you have a clue of what your media and Democrat Party is doing? Even the Supreme Court is partisan. There is a block of four that usually vote the same, especially over critical issues. Justice John Roberts is no friend of justice, either, IMO, providing the tiebreaker to poor thinking and ignoring your Constitution. Heaven help America!
You seem to be missing the significance of or turning a blind eye to what is being killed when an abortion takes place. Does it matter to you? This thinking is common with those who support pro-choice. They gloss over equal justice and the intrinsic value of being human. Once that is done, your culture is in danger of being lost to extremists, where their unjust rules are practiced more and more, IMO.
"We believe Christ Jesus and our faith is credited to us, just as Abraham believed God and God's righteousness (in Jesus Christ) was credited to Abraham. Hebrews explains this further:"
Should have been,
"We believe Christ Jesus and our faith is credited to us as righteousness, just as Abraham believed God and God's righteousness (in Jesus Christ) was credited to Abraham. Hebrews explains this further:"
Is incest chill?
No - Deuteronomy 27:22 - "Cursed [is] he who is lying with his sister, daughter of his father, or daughter of his mother, -- and all the people have said, Amen."
Yes, at least sometimes - Genesis 17:15-16 - "And God saith unto Abraham, `Sarai thy wife -- thou dost not call her name Sarai, for Sarah [is] her name; and I have blessed her, and have also given to thee a son from her; and I have blessed her, and she hath become nations -- kings of peoples are from her.'"
In the first passage, it is said those who lay with their relatives are cursed, and no qualifications or exceptions are mentioned. It is a blanket condemnation. In the second passage, god says he blesses Sarah, who is the blood sister of Abraham. It seems god's blessing contradicts Deuteronomy's blanket condemnation.
***
Jesus Christ (the New Covenant) became the curse for those who believe. He redeemed OT people from the curses of Adam and of the Old Testament, as He does us from the curse of death and not having fellowship with God.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—
God made a covenant with Adam. God made a covenant with Noah. God made a covenant with Moses. God made a covenant with Abraham. God makes a covenant with us in Jesus Christ. You have to understand the nature of the covenants. Abraham was before the Mosaic Covenant which is what Deuteronomy largely concerns itself.
In order for humanity to multiply the sons and daughters of Adam would have to mate. I believe the genetic strand was purer closer to the Fall (my opinion, but the reason is not so important, just that there is a reason). In the Adamic Covenant, God gave the command to go forth and multiply. In the Mosaic Covenant, God forbids this incestuous kind of relationship from that time onwards (IMO a reason could be that the genetic pool is now more corrupted). That is just one of the possibilities we can speculate on that explains the difference. Another is the Abraham was counted righteous before God just like the believer is counted righteous before God in the works of another (Jesus Christ). Hebrews said that Abraham was looking forward to in Jesus Christ.
John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
Galatians 3:6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
We believe Christ Jesus and our faith is credited to us, just as Abraham believed God and God's righteousness (in Jesus Christ) was credited to Abraham. Hebrews explains this further:
Hebrews 11:8-9 (NASB)
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise;
Hebrews 11:13-16
13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been [a]thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not [b]ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.
Galatians 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.”
Must we keep holy the Sabbath?
Yes - Exodus 20:8-11 - "Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it; six days thou dost labour, and hast done all thy work, and the seventh day [is] a Sabbath to Jehovah thy God; thou dost not do any work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy handmaid, and thy cattle, and thy sojourner who is within thy gates, for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.
No - Romans 14:5-6 - "One doth judge one day above another, and another doth judge every day [alike]; let each in his own mind be fully assured. He who is regarding the day, to the Lord he doth regard [it], and he who is not regarding the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He who is eating, to the Lord he doth eat, for he doth give thanks to God; and he who is not eating, to the Lord he doth not eat, and doth give thanks to God.
In one case we have a command provided in the context of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and in the other we essentially have Romans 14 saying "to each their own." The two are not compatible.
***
The nature of the two covenants is different. In the one, the old, we have a covenant of works. In the other, the new, we have a covenant of grace in which the Son of Man (Jesus) has met the righteous requirements of humanity (for those who believe in Him). He has been obedient to God with all His commands. He has become the new sacrificial lamb, the new offering. His bloodshed initiated the New Covenant. We do not have to do ritualize offerings and sacrifices before God because they have been done in Jesus Christ. His death was acceptable to God, for those who believe.
Matthew 12:8[ Lord of the Sabbath ] For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Mark 2:27-28 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
Hebrews 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
That Sabbath rest is found IN Christ Jesus - resting in Him. For the believers, the new people of God, the new Israel, they are said to be IN Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:21-23
Justification by Faith
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith IN Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Apart from the Law of Moses those in Jesus Christ have been reconciled to God through the gift of God, His Son, Jesus Christ. He is our Sabbath rest. We can rest from al our works by relying on His works.
Romans 5:11 And not only this, but we also exult IN God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
Romans 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God IN Christ Jesus.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:1 [ Deliverance from Bondage ] Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus.
Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith IN Christ Jesus, even we have believed IN Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith IN Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Ephesians 1:1 7 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation IN the knowledge of Him.
Ephesians 2:13 But now IN Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Philippians 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory IN Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
Philippians 4:19 And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory IN Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 2:1 [ Be Strong ] You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is IN Christ Jesus.
It is by faith IN Jesus Christ, in what He has done, in His grace and mercy, that the New Covenant believer is reconciled to God.
Has anyone seen god?
Yes - Genesis 32:30 - "And Jacob calleth the name of the place Peniel: for `I have seen God face unto face, and my life is delivered"
No - John 1:18 - "God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare."
Which is it? Did Jacob see god face to face, or has no one ever seen god? See also Exodus 33:11, in which God apparently speaks to Moses face to face, as one would with a friend.
***
God as Spirit cannot be seen. You can't see Spirit. Spirit is not physical. God, when stepping into human history in the form of a man (Jesus) or theophany (the angle of the Lord) can be seen. To see the face of the incarnate Jesus is to see what God is like. Jesus said,
John 14:7[ Oneness with the Father ] "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
In Jesus, the disciples and those who looked upon Him saw what God is like.
John 1:14 (NASB)
The Word Made Flesh
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Looking upon the risen Jesus was looking at the glory of God.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
Matthew 25:31 [ The Judgment ] “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
Mark 8:38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”
God never gave His glory to another yet Jesus shares in that glory. Thus, Jesus is equated to God.
Isaiah 40:5 Then the glory of the Lord will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Paradox Definition: The term paradox is from the Greek word paradoxon, which means “contrary to expectations, existing belief, or perceived opinion.” It is a statement that appears to be self-contradictory or silly, but which may include a latent truth.
https://literarydevices.net/paradox/
Ragnar, I believe you entirely missed the mark, misinterpreted what I said, and I will argue your points of contention after the vote is complete. It should be an interesting discussion. However, nothing less was expected.
I thought about it and apologize. You win the Conduct category!