PGA2.0

-->

@Barney

"What is wrong with that if your evolutionary group wins the day? Nothing"

How many groups were reportedly made extinct in the bible? Stones and glass houses.

You avoid the question. God brought judgment on evil with/through the use of different nations. If an innocent life was lost in the processs God would restore it to a better existence, thus with children and those who had not yet committed sin. God is righteous and just. A righteous and just Judge will not let evil go unpunished. He would not be good if He did so. God is also compassionate and merciful and will not do evil.

"Human history is littered with examples of people deviating from what you consider the 'absolute'"

Same with theology. Did you know some evil people want to baptize slaves? The horror, the horror.

But, I would argue that we have what is necessary for the 'absolute' providing God exists. I would also say that God is essential to make sense of morality.

"Wars are fought over the very question."
Wars have been thought over religion too. Complaining that another value source hasn't lead to perfect results, does not correct the very subjective flaws with your own.

Says you who are also offering your own flawed personal subjective view!

Religions are human-made belief unless one view of God is correct? So, I would argue that the majority of these religious conflicts is humanity worshiping itself and a problem humans create.

I would also argue that your view is no "better" than mine unless you can give reasonable evidence that there is an objective, unchanging source of reference that you can derive objectivity from when it comes to morality and what should be so. God's existence and revelation would grant an objective assessment when correctly interpreted.

V. Forth Post
Apologies that I am replying to less and less, there's a lot of material to cover, and I do have other things to do.

I understand. It is a matter of interest, priorities and principle, IMO.

I was considering a debate so that we both are held accountable by others for what we say (but that just shifts the outcome to others who also hold biases, just like we do), but the energy and time make me hesitate. And do I want to commit and to such an accomplished debater who knows many of the finer points of debating and how to win an argument even if what is believed is not necessarily true? I think I prefer the honest exchange where we can question each other more so.

"unless you have an unchanging measure and reference point,"
How is the Spanish Inquisition going?

Again, you confuse what people do in the name of God and Scripture. Many times that does not match the teaching and rejects obeying and understanding the teaching of Scripture in exchange for personal biases.

China
I showed that under the theories I was using, China's actions were immoral. I do not understand your disagreement.

You initially said that China committed genocide against its women. The fact is that it was a genocide against its people where only ONE birth per woman was permitted, and the male offspring was favoured to carry on the family lineage. Thus abortion was used as a population control method.

More FSM
Relevance of this appeal to tradition? There are religions older than Christianity, if age makes right, why would morals come from that instead of an older one?

It makes it relevant only if God exists, has revealed Himself, and that religious view is the truth of God. That is a long discussion with many arguments and counter-arguments. Logically only one if any can be true since every religion contradicts every other religion.

I would say a correct argument for Christianity would not appeal to tradition or popularity but appeal to the evidence and making sense of life's ultimate questions (the worldview). To say there is no evidence for the Christian worldview is a stupid statement, IMO.

Relevance of the appeal to popularity? The world's most popular religion will likely soon be Islam due to breeding habits, would that suddenly make theirs the correct objective (but yet changing) standard to follow?

Popularity does not make something true/real/right. What makes it correct and valid is if its beliefs are true to what is real, authentic, and accurate.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Barney

PS. I corrected your run together words, punctuation but not your spelling.

III. Third Post
Theocracy
I used religious motivation in the hypothetical murder, to showcase how stupid theocracy is. Sharia Law is a form of it we're familiar with, but if Christians instituted similar systems, it would not be assured to be any better than what we see from Islam.

You are far off if you mistook the values of Isalm with those of Christianity. I will only argue for Christianity since I don't believe in the rest as valid even if they contain truths.

Second, what someone who professes Christ does is not necessarily what Christ commands. Nor do I see Isalm as teaching a similar system to what Christianity teaches. We do not derive our mandate from what those who profess Christ or Islam do but by the words of Scripture.

The murder victim in this case could have committed any number of sins the bible outright demands death for, regardless, I showcased in context that her killer believes God commanded the death, which is the important thing for divine command theory. Christian divine command theory has massive long term subjectivity to it anyway.

Even if there is "massive" subjectivity of interpretation, the Bible authors, inspired by God, make it plain there is a correct interpretation or way of handling God's word. Paul told Timothy to study to show himself approved, a workman who correctly understands God's word. That is taken to mean there is a correct interpretation of Scripture and it is the onus of believers to understand it. God is fully capable of making Himself understood just like you and I are. When we misunderstand each other we clarify. God's word clarifies. No Scripture is a matter of private interpretation. There are four gospels from which to come to a complete understanding. There are numerous epistles that expand on the Gospel message.

"HOW does a non-thinking-process decide why things are moral?"
It doesn't. Human beings have thought, and we apply this ability to better our lives.

The origin of human thought from a view devoid of God/gods is a non-thinking evolutionary process. Somehow there was a jump from that which was not conscious or thinking to that which was, and the question is how this takes place? Morality has its derivation from a non-moral process with such worldviews. So how do they make sense of morality or do they? Can they? I believe that lack what is necessary.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Barney

Got to the point of your over-analysis of the potato... Not sure if you're using Poe's Law for trolling, or if you're just thinking too hard about these things to make connections where none are intended nor needed.

To elaborate on this I would like to say that many of your sentences contained run together words. Your thoughts took me four or five readings to interpret on this subject so I do not feel they were clearly expressed. I was not sure if the potato analogy was something new you were bringing into the conversation or a playoff of some analogy I made since you did not provide a context. (I'm older and don't pick up on things as easy as I did in earlier years)

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

http://www.onlinedebate.net/index.php?page=odnrules

-->

@Barney

Got to the point of your over-analysis of the potato... Not sure if you're using Poe's Law for trolling, or if you're just thinking too hard about these things to make connections where none are intended nor needed.

I'm not following you in your statement on Poe's law of trolling. I initiated this thread because I am interested in morality and I did not feel you have a good justification on how morality can stem from subjective human nature, especially when history is littered with human beings claiming their view of morality should be followed. I pointed out how logically it does not follow, especially when you sited Utilitarianism, Consequentalism, and the greatest benefit argument to bolster your argument. Greatest benefit in whose eyes? Greatest good in whose opinion and why are they the standard for goodness?

If you know me you know that I season into many of my discussions the issue of morality and making sense of it. I favour two approaches above all others in my arguments for God. One is prophecy, the other is morality. I think these are iron-clad and I try to understand and exploit those who do not think these are sound. In fact, I challenge others to make sense of their worldviews, another passion of mine.

One other topic that I very much enjoy discussion on is abortion. I believe it is morally wrong except in the case where a woman's life is threatened and the result will be both the death of the woman and unborn. I base my views on three main principles that have been widely written about on the web and I have looked at hundreds of sites in investigating the subject, plus read four books on the subject from a pro-life position. That is why I expressed interest in your debate with Caleb and expressed my desire to prod further after the debate has been judged.

If the first: Well done! I indeed fell for it.

I tend to be blunt. Please forgive me if what I said offended you.

If the second: Let me know and I'll find some information for you to better teach the theories than I could hope to.

I do not want LINKWARZ. Here is a definition of what that entails if you are not familiar:

Quoting External Sources
You are encouraged to provide support for any claims you make through the use of external sources. However, it is inappropriate to simply provide one or more links or sources (including embedded videos) and proclaim that all one needs to do is review them. Readers should not have to access your sources before they understand your argument. Where possible, you should provide a short summary of the link/video you have posted. Members who fail to observe this rule will be guilty of what is colloquially known as "linkwarz."

The following should be followed for proper citation in threads:

1) Other posters should not need to actually click on the link to read your support. The link is primarily for verification purposes and to allow the reader access to further details on the topic - the relevant material you want to use from it should be contained in your post itself. Depending on the context, any of the following options might be suitable:

Quote the material verbatim. This does not give you license to copy-and-paste large chunks of text and expect other posters to wade through them to find your support. You should be concise and quote only as much as is needed to support your claim.
Paraphrase the material. If you go this route, make sure your paraphrase is accurate and does not misrepresent or exaggerate what the source actually says.
If it is a video, you should describe (or if possible, transcribe) the relevant portions of the video that support your claim. Also, if the video allows, point out the key time frames of the relevant information in the video. Don't expect other members to load and watch the video in its entirety to find your cited evidence.
If your support is a graphic (e.g. a graph) that can fit comfortably in a post, post the graphic using image tags in your post itself. Else, download the image, then attach the image to the post.

2) When quoting material, the quoted text should be clearly set apart from your main text. The best way to do this is to use indents (to prevent confusion, it is better to reserve quote tags for quoting the poster(s) you are responding to). Simply enclosing your quoted text in inverted commas is not acceptable.

3) You should make it easy for other posters to locate the part of your source that supports your claim. So:

If your support is buried in a 5-page article, you should link to the exact page where your support appears (instead of the start of the article).
If your support is another post buried in a multi-page thread, you should link to the specific post and not the entire thread. (In case you didn't know already, the number at the top-right hand corner of each post is the link to that specific post.) If your support is spread over multiple posts, state the relevant post numbers.

4) If it is not self-evident, you should explain how the source supports the exact claim you made. For example, if your claim is "The Iraq War is a failure" and your source talks about the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq, do not think that simply citing the source is sufficient to support your claim. You need to explain why this death toll means that the Iraq War has failed.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Barney

"how do you ever get to good or right if your standard is always shifting and EVOLVING?"
Generally, by caring about the well-being of my fellow human beings. Bare in mind, I served as a combat medic, so my money is where my mouth is.

Caring for others is something I believe you do in spite of your evolutionary beliefs, not because of them. I think you are inconsistent not only with evolutionary teaching but borrow from the Christian worldview.

FSM
Always glad to talk about his noodliness...

First, I should mention that I did not need to prove the FSM exists any more than my opponent needed to prove God exists. The FSM was one possible source of morals, to refute that morals could only come from my opponent's single insisted source.

There is a difference between the two. One has a lot of factual and historical references behind it that I would argue make sense in our understanding of ourselves. The other is just a farce with nothing real to base itself on other than the invention of someone's mind. It seems factless and make-believe.

There are proofs or evidence for the biblical God that I would argue are reasonable. I would also argue that without God there is no grounding for morality.

Second, I do suggest checkingout The Gospel from your local library. It's theory of Unintelligent Design does a far better job predicting things than both Creationism and Intelligent Design combined. For example, it explains where those ancient seeming dinosaur bones come from (the FSM is pranking us, first planting fake bones when we dig, then changing the results of carbon dating to be older than the YAC universe).

Again, to be blunt, I see FSM as a farce with no or very little credibility to it. Someone with a sense of humour or just plain stupid made it up.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Barney

altruists
It's good because it supports the group, creating more good than harm: Utilitarianism.

Within man made morals, Joe can run a strictly potato farm, and if he's not murdering all the other farmers people can get their preferences in the market. Blindly obeying divine command theory, Joe might believe potatoes are the divine and thus only allowed food, and go around inflicting this on everyone else. (within consequentialism, he might still try to inflict potatoes on everyone, but will more likely do so through subtle means, much like diamonds on engagement rings).

Let me try and wrap my head around this. I'm sorry, but again I am having difficulty with your wording, grammar, and its meaning. I'll try and interpret what I think you mean.

I take it potatoes are a metaphor for supposed God-given morals since others can get their cultural moral preferences at the market (the smorgasbord).

I take it that your reference to murdering the locals is the purge God commanded Israel to do when entering the Promised Land otherwise I don't get where you find God ordering killing? The reason He did this was two-fold, IMO. First, these people groups were evil. They practiced immoral acts like child sacrifice and they would not bow down to God's good will. If allowed to live with Israel they would have corrupted the people to the point of turning away from God which is in fact what the Bible tells us they did and I can provide examples of to verify my claim.

So Joe believes "A" is divinely appointed and he goes around "inflicting" this view on everyone else, like a dictator would do. He believes that those who do not obey his view must be murdered. I do not see how this is biblical in any way. Please explain how it is.

Second, I do not see how moral relativism solves the problem of what is right (i.e., people get their preferences in the market). For something to be right, there must be a real plum line to compare values against. In the physical world, we have fixed quantitative standards in which a measurement is compared to the ideal for accuracy. Morals are not physical, thus we need a fixed standard, an ideal from which we compare the qualitative value.

My problem with your Utilitarian standard is how do we arrive at such a standard (ideal)? Who gets to decide what is beneficial to whom?

History
How many of those examples cited divine command theory as justification? Plus the long term cost for this groups, discourages future such groups. Under divine command theory, people in the USA today still try to enslave women (mostly southern states, changing their education systems to try to maximize teen pregnancy, and then preventing them from ending said pregnancies, all with the government officials not paying child support for intentionally knocking those girls up)

Huh, what many people claim as divine justification is no such thing. I do not see how you can justify associating slavery in the South with biblical servitude that God commanded from Israel. It was a totally different servitude than what Israel experienced in Egypt and God forbid such treatment of others.

Please don't confuse what people do in the name of religion with what the Bible teaches by its words. It is possible that you also confuse the two covenants in their scope and mandate.

II. Second Post
No Absolute Value
My burden was to show that morals can exist outside divine command theory (specifically Christian divine command theory), not that they are unchanging.

Morals or preferences?

The absolute I referred to was my opponent's argument that morals "cannot" exist without God, it was not that my counters needed to be absolute universals (I've got another debate which kinda touches on those).

You did say, "This debate is not about mere likelihood, but an absolute. Within that understanding, I shall show two simple ways morals can exist without God (capital G., singular)."

So, my understanding is that you did claim absolutes without God.

Again, I do not think you accomplished your goal. What you showed were moral preferences without an absolute reference to anything fixed as the ideal. You hinted at "long-term self-interest/consequentialism (i.e., personal tastes and personal preferences) but I do not understand how you get a right from that. All you get is the majority (or those in power) pushing their preference and idea of what is beneficial on others. That has been done many times throughout history as I pointed out to you. I also pointed out to you that your system does not appear to work because there are many conflicting ideas of what is "right." They logically can't all be true.

I'll look at that other debate later then.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Barney

The debate in question: https://www.debateart.com/debates/949

First off, thanks for taking the time to read my debate. I of course welcome discussion, and outside the debateI will not be trying to win...

Thank you! It is a subject that interests me. I am curious in your explanation for questions and concerns not necessarily asked or justified by you in the debate.

Before anything else, I should point out that as with the case of stoning people to teach for saying God no longer being a thing, Christian Divine Command Theory is proven to be subjective to the time and place, rather than an objective truth to be obeyed forever.

There are moral principles that are specific to both testaments that Jesus summed up in two - love God and love your neighbour.

The question is what that looks like and the Ten Commandments expand on these two principles to a large degree?

I. First Post
Baby Eating
This point was in challenge to my opponent, who represented people in general as only refraining from truly horrible such actions when/if God directly commands them not to (by making that claim about all people, he is representing his own people as specifically having a hard time with such moral dilemmas). It's the problem with thinking morals can only stem from divine command theory, and directly excluding reason and compassion as a possibility.

To counter this charge I would say that in each and every thinking human being there is a consciousness that suppresses the moral image and likeness of God because of sin. Thus, deep down we know some things are morally reprehensible yet we suppress the knowledge by hardening our hearts and moral compasses to God.

The biblical God never condones such actions.

Outside the debate I would say God strictly condemns such actions. Abraham trying to kill his own son for example, was a lesson that God doesn't want us doing that shit even if we think God does (interpreted this way instead of God changing his mind, this is also a lesson against divine command theory, that we should think for ourselves...).

Abraham and Isaac besides being historical figures were also used as a typology lesson pointing to Jesus Christ and God giving the Son as the sacrifice for sin.

Theft
I would have been delighted were my opponent to raise this criticism.

Skipping a few back-and-forths ahead in this discussion: Groups supports and protects their own, and the making yourself an Other has too many disadvantages to be generally worth it for short term gain. This of course does not protect members of other groups, we still get examples of this today with cases like someone saying people should go riot in the suburbs instead of just not rioting (a rather simplistic review of a complex case).

I'm not following your wording, explanation, or its relevance.

So yeah, the morals we interpret will not always be correct for everyone else.

So how do you know they are correct at all? It defies logic to say two opposites are both true or that they could be.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@keithprosser

What, in your view is the difference between what is moral and what is immoral?

The difference between good and bad. The question is how we decide as subjective beings. My argument is that we need a necessary, omniscient, objective, universal, absolute, unchanging measure and since morals rely on personal thinking beings that measure or reference point would be a personal Being.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Barney

Round 2:

I. Long Term Self Interest
Under this premise, allowing John to go around murdering women at random (even if it’s in the name of God), creates a danger to us (a wrongness if you will), so we band together for mutual defense. We have long ago made a system for this, so just alert the police and let them handle it, in turn allowing us to sleep safely in our beds.

My mother was born in South Africa and we used to vacation there so I am very familiar with Apartheid and what the police-state did. Again, unless you have an unchanging measure and reference point, anything is possible and depends on who is in power as to what happens. In Nazi Germany, those who were the privileged could sleep safely in their beds.

I. Long Term Self Interest
If something done repeatedly would harm the community (in particular regards to our survival), it is immoral. China experienced this when they decided to commit genocide against their women, and their population plummeted.

Harm the community, like in China where aborting the female human takes priority when necessary in its two birth policy? It's like culling animals. As soon as the population of one class is unsustainable then eliminate as many as necessary. Either way, once the two-person limit is reached someone gets aborted. When humanity is not treated as intrinsically valuable any class can be eliminated or subjugated to cruelty and death.

***

II. The Flying Spaghetti Monster
This competing religion disagrees with murder (yes, even if they blasphemy against pasta), so our disdain for the crime more likely stems from the FSM than God (whom outright commands the death of anyone who says God in vain).

How long can this religion be shown to have been around (I'm speaking of factual evidence) and how did this Spaghetti Monster reveal itself to humanity (or is it just the privileged few)?

And the absurdity of it all (blaspheming against pasta).

The biblical penalty for blasphemy was for specific people (Israel) who had agreed to live in a covenant relationship (Mosaic Covenant) with God (Exodus 24:3, 7). The people were being taught by God what His holiness and purity meant along with the realization that a works based system does not create peace with God. Thus, the Mosaic Covenant was always pointing to a better covenant, the one to come. There was a reason God allowed it. So, your argument that God demands the death of ANYONE who says God in vain raises questions about why you and others who oppose the biblical God are not dead? One reason is His mercy. Another is because their physical death is symbolic of a greater truth - spiritual death or SEAPARATION from God in eternity.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://creation.com/the-christian-foundations-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-a-legacy-of-liberty-and-resistance-against-tyranny

-->

@Barney

Round 2:

"John Smith murders Jill Ohlson..."
The intuitive revulsion toward this crime, is contrary to religion. John may well claim that God commanded the death, and yet in our sense of morality, we would punish him regardless of his prophecy. Even if Jill sinned in the eyes of Christians by styling her hair and/or dressing nice (1 Timothy 2:9), John is still punished for murder. This is because in civilized countries justice is based on morality, and morality is not based on religion.

Of course, in Sharia law John might be a hero for murdering a woman. Our natural non-religious sense of morality disagrees with this.

Again, I'm confused. Are we discussing biblical murder or Sharia Law? For our discussion please narrow down the focus since I will gladly jump on the bandwagon with you in your fight against Sharia Law. IOW's, I will only defend the Christian position.

Your contention: "intuitive revulsion toward this crime, is contrary to religion"

Contrary to religion? Not so with Judaism or Christianity. One of the Ten Commands strictly forbids murder.

Exodus 20:13 (NASB)

“You shall not murder.

Another command warns against the taking of innocent or righteous life.

Exodus 23:7 (NASB)

Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.

So, your charge is mute and does not comply with the teaching of Scripture (i.e., what is taught by its words).

***

Now, to contrast the biblical position against your "natural" evolutionary "sense of morality."

The first question that comes to mind HOW does a non-thinking process decide why things are moral?

Your biological systems operation does not have to conform to the way my biological system functions/operates and you seem to be basing morality on functionality/behaviourism. Second, you and a handful decide you don't like a particular action so you who are a like-minded bunch band together to stop this behaviour. Hitler, Kim Jong-un, President Xi, President Putin, Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, and a host of other leaders and depots controlled power and caused a lot of death and destruction for those they did not agree with. Their solution was eliminating those who they do not like or agree with. What is wrong with that if your evolutionary group wins the day? Nothing, there is no fixed standard from your viewpoint that you can show must be this way, only a standard that you and those of like mind would prefer to be this way and enforce as the way. Human history is littered with examples of people deviating from what you consider the "absolute" norm which you identify as consequentialism. What is more, human history is littered with examples of conflicting qualitative moral values. It just begs why your particular system is any "Better" than any other.

Lastly, I would like to point out the Western societies have largely adopted a biblical system of morality. It doesn't revolve just around murder but the whole host of moral values we see operating in civil societies. One site I found gave good examples of this argument along with questioning how evolutionary law "undermines the rule of law."

It also gives the reason why laws are so necessary,

"we want for ourselves and our future generations...freedom under law, not absolute subjection to the arbitrary will of human authorities..., the rule of law talks about the protection of the individual by God-given liberties, rather than by an all-powerful, law-giving government endowed by god-like powers over the civil society."

So, can you argue that a system of law based on human thought as governed by evolutionary processes has not produced the very abnormalities to justice and fairness we witness and would expect if what you say is true (i.e., Long Term Self Interest)? Whose long term self-interest? Wars are fought over the very question.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

The other factor that goes against your argument is the changing nature of what is morally right we can point to every day. There is no absolute about what you are proposing. Show me it is not relative to different groups or different individuals. Different societies view different things as "right. This fact can be demonstrated by pointing out cultural, moral differences. Who has the "right" view of morality when two cultures, two societies, two nations, two individuals, disagree? Does might then make right or is there a real unchanging measure of appeal - a best - that better and good, wrong and right can be measured against?

Logically, these glaring examples I could elaborate on go against the Law of Identity. "Right" loses its identity when there is no fixed and ultimate reference point to compare goodness and righteousness against. Either A=A (right is right; good is good) or the law is contravened. So, I do not see logic being on your side unless you can show an absolute, unchanging standard. Remember, you said, "This debate is not about mere likelihood, but an absolute. Within that understanding, I shall show two simple ways morals can exist without God (capital G., singular)."

I do not believe you have done that.

And one more question, how do you ever get to good or right if your standard is always shifting and EVOLVING?

Is what is right now more right than it was when someone said it was right because our views are evolving? How do you measure right against a shiting standard is another way of saying this.

Finally, and it has to do with"I shall show two simple ways morals can exist without God (capital G., singular)" and then you employ a small "g" god - the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In the evidence for the biblical God, many different avenues can be used to give reasoned proof. History, as it coincides with biblical prophecy, is one such reasonable example. The Bible comprises several historical documents that speak of people, places, events. What do you have as evidence for this Flying Spaghetti Monster you pull out of the blue? Let us see if it meets the same burden of proof that the biblical writings provide. What real revelation have you of this Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

Round 1

Buzz words and phrases that form a biased picture:

"Religious terrorists";

"People with consciences (unlike certain religious people who only care about divine command theory, and would otherwise eat their own babies) were better breeding partners".

***

A few points, one of which is that what some do in the name of religion does not necessarily follow the teaching of the biblical God. Are you suggesting that what a small minority do (eating babies) represents the vast majority and are you implying that through divine command theory that God commands such actions?

Please state whether you are citing the biblical God as God, Ragnar since your reference seems to be a biblical one (do you have a verse of Scripture you are implying this from?).

***

I. Long Term Self Interest (AKA Consequentialism)
People being civilized benefits everyone, there are too many things groups can do which individuals cannot. We codify this and teach it to our children. Boiling this down to the simplest terms, people seeking easier reliable access to food, does not require any divine intervention.

True, it does not require divine intervention if what makes people seeking reliable food a moral imperative of what is right? If I seek easily accessible food by stealing your food is it right? It depends on which side of the equation you look at this from unless there is an objective, unchanging measure and reference point that knows and reveals the difference. Otherwise, it is a matter of wills and may the fittest, the strongest, the most cunning, and shrewdest win.

Easier reliable access to food by who? What about all those who are starving? What happens if they can't afford to buy food? Do they have the same accessibility that those do who can afford to buy food?

"This category also includes altruists, who get a sense of joy from helping others, and care not for bribes or threats from religious terrorists."

Again, what makes what someone likes to do something good or right? I believe you are confusing what is with what ought to be. I believe you are confusing a moral right with a subjective preference or taste. There is a different, and I ask how you derive an ought from an is? If you could then if Joe liked potatoes (what he wants to eat) then should all people like potatoes and is eating potatoes "right"?

With moral relativism (i.e., no absolute, universal, objective, unchanging frame for morality anything can be passed off as "good") what makes your opinion of long-term self-interests the one that others should follow? Is it because you agree with it that you base all others deciding on it as right all about?

I could give you a historical example after example where long-term "self-interests" counters the best interests of a vast number of people or classes of people. Apartheid in South Africa is one example. Slavery in the South of the USA is another. Killing Jews in Nazi Germany is another. Abortion is another.

History is replete with examples.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

Christianity can make sense of origins.

Please show how. I bet your argument boils down to "Well, God did it. Therefore, sense." Please, please, please prove otherwise.

God gives us a sensible reason for our existence and why things are the way they are. Prophecy is reasonable confirmation. Morality has an objective and best standard as a comparison. Origins are explained.

A universe devoid of God lacks the why. It gives understanding to subjective beings who do not see the whole picture nor understand how everything works in every detail. Thus there is no ultimate authority, no ultimate meaning, no reason why we are except "it just happened."

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

Third, origins is an interpretation of what happened. We are in the present looking back at the past and interpreting the data. We are limited in our knowledge and are speculating on the way things were. We build models and try to fit as many positives into those models as they will allow. The anomalies we put aside for a later date as long as there is not an overwhelming amount we continue to build on that paradigm. Once the anomalies become to many we abandon the model in search of a new one that better explains the conditions.
Right. Except I don't see how this statement creates a model where there's any unknowable, unseeable, untestable, undemonstrable being that somehow created everything. If it did, I don't know how that model would suddenly default to being Jesus, either.

Well, there would be intent and purpose behind the creation. There would be a Mind who has revealed how things are the way they are. And it makes sense too. Also, from an ultimate, necessary Mind comes other minds. From an intentional and purposeful Being comes other intentional and purposeful beings. From the LIVING ultimate Being comes other living beings. From the loving God comes other beings capable of love. From a good Being comes the standard for morality. We have an ultimate, absolute, objective standard that is best and from which we can compare morality against. Just because you can't see God does not disqualify Him from existing, nor any of your other qualifications. The biblical God has revealed Himself, according to the words within. He has given us ways to verify the words are true. Prophecy is one of my favourite verifications. It is a way of testing the truth of the Bible. It is a way we use to demonstrate and verify His word, via history.

The model defaults to Jesus because the Bible reveals it is most reasonable to believe He is God.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

That appears to me to be a loose attempt at a mechanical conception of human beings, no more. I do not believe you can be absolutely sure of that and your worldview can't make sense of it (i.e., recreate how consciousness comes from something lacking it; how life stems from non-life).

No, I can't be absolutely sure of it because I wasn't present when it happened, but everything in my response is actually supported by research and evidence.

But you said, "I'll give you the answers we can absolutely be sure of..."

Yet you were not there. Thus, your answers conflict if "being there" is the criteria. As for research and evidence, it is interpreted. The evidence is built on paradigms.

It definitely makes sense, but you're not talking about making sense of something: you're talking about recreating something. Fair enough. I will consider your position once you recreate the process through which God created everything, or provide evidence of a similar caliber to that end. Me potentially being wrong lends no credence at all to your theory somehow being correct by default.

He spoke the physical realm into existence from His Mind.

Psalm 33:9 (NASB)

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

The evidence is the bible which has many verifiable and commonsense evidence.

Second, if you are wrong about science as your ultimate god and reason there are consequences.
Is there though?

Sure. If your wrong and the Bible is God's word then this life is not the end and you will be separated from God forever.

I guess you're a faith supersedes works person, in which case, your god can suck it because that's an idiotic system.

It depends, on what sense you are using the word faith? Are you questioning whether my belief relies on faith alone or on faith and works? If you mean my worldview on origins relies more on faith than on how things work, I would say no more than yours.

As for it being idiotic, it can make sense of existence. I challenge you to do the same with yours.

Guess I'll take my chances, seeing as my multiple blasphemies have not resulted in me being struck with boils or anything yet.

You are applying these standards to yourself, you who are a secondary audience of address. The primary audience no longer exists and the times have changed. Nevertheless, God promises to hold us responsible for our sin in one of two ways. Either we answer for our own merits and shortcomings or we rely on the work of another - Jesus Christ.

You know this is Pascal's wager. It's a terrible argument for any god, much less yours.

I rely on His word as my ultimate authority. What is your ultimate authority - yourself - science or some scientist(s)? Which one(s)? How well do they make sense of your existence? You are a biological bag of atoms that reacts to its environment in a determined way. There is no ultimate meaning for your existence yet you continually act as if there is.

Also, if we're BOTH wrong, then there's consequences for you too, right? What are the chances you're wrong? By numbers, they're not very much different from mine. You're one god away from me.

What consequences when I'm dead? No justice or accountability. Thus, do what you can get away with doing since it doesn't matter.

I've examined the Bible and worldviews for around forty years now. I keep probing others to make sense of a worldview devoid of God and I do not believe they can. So the question is whether you want to make sense of existence and origins or not? I think you constantly betray your worldview by borrowing from mine. You do this in morality and when you speak of qualitative values, for one. So your worldview is inconsistent. That spells trouble. You do it in another way also. You presume that random chance happenstance can produce what we see. You presume that something devoid of mind, devoid of intelligence, devoid of order, purpose, and sustainability can do the things you take for granted such as science. Why should we expect uniformity of nature? Why do we discover laws that explain this sustainability and uniformity? How can you say that what takes place yesterday and today will take place in the future if there is no intent behind the universe? You take it for granted that it will. You reason that because things have remained consistent in the past and present they will in the future too. Why? There is no reason or intent behind them doing so.yet they do.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/gods_crime_scene.html

-->

@Goldtop

The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone.
It is stunning that this incredibly stupid argument is still being used by theists. Hey pal, no one was there to witness the origins of the earth or how life started, that includes CHRISTIANS, hence Christianity does not know either. That's why this argument is futile and stupid.

What seems stupid by outward appearances or little thought can give a more suitable explanation of the universe and does. Whether you think Christianity explains the universe or not it certainly can make sense of it. I do not believe your worldview can when you peel back the veneer.

Thus, the same charge I have put forth on many a thread I put forth here. Christianity can make sense of origins. Your worldview cannot. Now I invite you to try instead of blowing hot air.

Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from.
There is no slant in how scientists interpret evidence. The only slant we see is from theists and their hilariously absurd creationist fables.

Sure there is a bias or slant. It is a solely naturalistic approach to life as opposed to a supernaturalistic approach that starts the naturalistic ball rolling. The slant we see is from scientists who try to construct origins solely from the naturalistic. The questions are how and why such things happen? Science can't answer why.

Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins
So, what you're saying is that if police detectives and forensic scientists were not there to witness a crime, then the crime can never be solved. Again, that's how utterly stupid the argument.

Try telling that to former forensic homicide detective Jim Wallace. I have read two of his books on the subject and in God's Crime Scene he lays out the investigation of the universe as he would a crime scene. Basically, he goes outside of the universe to explain the universe. The theory behind it is what he used to investigate homicide crime scenes himself. When investigating a potential crime scene and possible murder/homicide he would ask whether the evidence was better explained by what was in the room of the death scene (i.e., suicide) or whether something outside the room gave a better explanation (i.e., another person that left evidence of being in the room).

https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=Jim+wallace#action=view&id=74&vid=6f196ac3ab4199b0f2e1822e65b8d0f9

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ludofl3x

all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die

I'll give you the answers we can absolutely be sure of, all of us. In order: humans, we're all made of elements forged by exploded stars (specify the question a little more perhaps) , that's philosophy's department not science, and decomposition into the elements we are all comprised of. The questions that science should be answering, it has answered. They're of cold comfort but they are based on factual evidence. Not faith.

That appears to me to be a loose attempt at a mechanical conception of human beings, no more. I do not believe you can be absolutely sure of that and your worldview can't make sense of it (i.e., recreate how consciousness comes from something lacking it; how life stems from non-life).

Second, if you are wrong about science as your ultimate god and reason there are consequences.

Third, origins is an interpretation of what happened. We are in the present looking back at the past and interpreting the data. We are limited in our knowledge and are speculating on the way things were. We build models and try to fit as many positives into those models as they will allow. The anomalies we put aside for a later date as long as there is not an overwhelming amount we continue to build on that paradigm. Once the anomalies become to many we abandon the model in search of a new one that better explains the conditions.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Stronn

If you don't love The Truth, critical thinking naturally leads to arbitrariness. If you love The Truth, your critical thinking in theory would perform the function you say it would.

What is the motivation for thinking critically?
The goal of critical thinking is to make better decisions. This includes decisions about what one believes.

Part of critical thinking is recognizing logical fallacies. One such fallacy is equivocation, which occurs when a key term in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one part of the argument and another meaning in another part. You commit this fallacy when you equate God with Truth, when people don't simply mean Truth when using the word God.

One of the attributes of the biblical God is His truthfulness (i.e., He does not lie. Another characteristic is His omniscience. He knows all things). So to equate God with truth is not wrong logically in the sense that He is true and He knows what really is. As many have said, to correctly think God's thoughts after Him is to think truly.

As Ethang5 pointed out, and I somewhat agree, young people are leaving the faith because of the culture of groupthink (that is mainly atheist in lifestyle and values) that has brainwashed them into believing a lie. It seeks to replace God with meaningless pleasure.

Romans 1:25

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (NASB)

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Castin

While people can have faith in science (I do), science is not faith based. It is evidence based. It doesn't require ardor or faith. It requires empirical proof.

The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone. Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from. As I have said many times (using a Ravi Zacharius argument), atheists, agnostics, Christians all have a religious view in the sense the all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die.

Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins. It builds on a particular model. In the past, many of the models have been replaced with a different paradigm. Thomas Kuhn has documented some of these paradigm shifts.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

Ramshutu’s Razor

-->

@disgusted

So you can't say that raping children for fun is objectively immoral to you since there is no objectivity to morality? I pity you.
Thinking that raping children for any reason other than fun is objectively moral proves you are a sick fuk with moral standard at all. I pity you.

Now you are putting words in my mouth and making it personal with your rude, vulgar name calling. I never said nor do I believe such an act is morally right. It is reprehensible. I believe it is objectively morally wrong.

IMO, I would say it is sick that you can't distinguish some things as objectively wrong no matter what anyone else thinks. If it is not objectively wrong (and you say there is no such thing as objective morals) then it is a matter of subjective opinion. IOW's some prefer the act and others do not. Now that is sick that anyone would think it morally permissible. I'm through with our discussions.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

We would certainly.say the same thing about Jesus being the savior.

But ours is the church founded by Jesus and descended from the apostles. Your church is not older than 500 years, in all likelyhood younger, and it is at variance with the church fathers who all professed One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I agree with that definition but I do not see Christians as a building but a people who believe in Jesus Christ.

What is/are the criteria/criterion to be a Christian?

Denominationalism or nondenominationalism(really the same thing in tat they deny the church) is a recent development that has no precedent in the ancient church.

I do not deny the church as the body of believers. Our rule of faith is God's word alone - sola scriptura. Anything that deviates is not Christian. You say you trace your church back to the Apostles. So do the RC's.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

I am not Roman Catholic, I am Orthodox.

I was pointing out who labelled Calvin a heretic, not referencing you. I somewhat understand the difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

The church has always taught synergism.

Your church which you believe is the true universal church, just like Roman Catholicism believes it applies to them. I also believe in the universal church as those who were bought with a price by the Lord Jesus Christ and sanctified by Him through the Spirit. So, we perhaps have three different views present on some issues. We have the RC view, the Orthodox view and a non-denominational view held by those who see a Person as Savior, not a church. The church as the body applies to those who are in Christ Jesus, those who identify our lives in His and place their trust in Him for salvation. That could include those in all three churches. Our object of faith is in Jesus Christ and a right understanding of who He is and what He has done on our behalf.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

I'm not really disputing anything in your second post.

But the idea that at a moment in time you are saved and then from that point on you can't fall away is not only not what the church teaches but is even kind of silly. That is always how I was taught once saved always saved.

I would argue that if you "fall away" and deny Jesus that you were not truly saved, just made a profession that was not sincere. I would argue that when you repent and turn God gives you the Spirit of truth as a seal and guarantee of your eternal salvation.

2 Corinthians 1:22

who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

Ephesians 1:13

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Thus, the believer is sealed and God has promised, the same God who cannot lie.

Ephesians 4:30

Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

It is written, "we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

How is the word "all" used in this passage? Is it without distinction or every kind of man? Or does "all" mean rich men, poor men, tall men, short men, free men, enslaved men, or every single man without distinction?

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Thus, the "all" here does not speak of everyone without distinction, meaning the whole of humanity. There is a distinction in who is saved - all who believe regardless of whether they are male or female, free or slave, rich or poor, Jew or Gentile.

It is also written "this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

And yet many do not know Him as Lord and Savior. Notice also that it say "this IS eternal life."

It is also written "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

I believe He already came but what is your point with this verse? Is it the underlined?

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

The good works come after salvation, not before. God gives the believer a new nature, one that is no longer hostile to Him. Salvation is not of yourself, it is a gift of God, not a result of works.

As mentioned in one of my last couple of posts, Philippians 2:12-13 says:

12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Thus, there is no boasting there. If is all of God as He works in you, not of man.

Also, to be totally frank, John Calvin was a heretic.

A heretic to the Roman Catholic Church that was teaching all kinds of unbiblical and false doctrines at the time. I would be happy to deal with the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) on another thread as to whether they are biblical or not.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

We also don't really look at salvation as a one time event in life, but something to work out our entire life. There is no discipleship without discipline.

We work out our salvation with fear and trembling, yes. We work it out so that we understand it and understand what God has done for it is the Lord at work in us.

Philippians 2:11-13 (NASB)
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Thus God is at work in the lives of believers and if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ he does not belong to Him.

Romans 8:9

However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

So, are you saying the Jesus needs to die over and over again like in the OT sacrifice to secure our salvation? That is not what the Bible teaches.

Romans 6:10

For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Hebrews 9:11-12, 13-15,

11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption...14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance...28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

So Jesus offered Himself once for the sins of the believer. He obtained eternal redemption, something the OT sacrifice on behalf of the people could never do. It had to be brought year after year to atone for the sins of the nation. Thus it is what He did, not anything you can do you achieve salvation.

Once saved always saved is a Calvinist doctrine that the church has never taught.

I will argue that the NT teaches it. That is why the New Covenant is so much superior to the Old Covenant, as explained constantly in Hebrews and throughout the NT. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice. Animals were only a substitute until the perfect sacrifice could be made, then the old disappeared and was abolished in AD 70.

Hebrews 8:13

13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

I don't believe Calvin even believed in free will.

Not in the sense that your will is free from influence and worldview bias like Adam's was. Thus, he was the "federal head" of humanity. He represented us. He could choose to sin or he could choose not to sin. You cannot choose not to sin. Do you believe that? If so try not to lie for a week, Try not to steal, to covet, to murder (as Jesus defined the anger against a brother), to commit adultery even in your thoughts and lusting, to honour your parents, and most importantly, to honour and love God will all your heart and put nothing above or before Him. Try it for a week and see how you do. Thus your will is not free, it is in bondage to whatever controls you. Even though you have a volition - you choose - you will not choose God without His Word, His Spirit, His Son and His influence in your life. Many, many reject the Son and therefore do not have the Father.

Please feel free to argue any of my points above.

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Mopac

Oh we certainly don't believe we save ourselves. It is God who does the saving.

Imagine you are drowning and Jesus holds out his hand to lift you from the water. You have to grab for his hand. You can choose to smack his hand away. God respects our free will.

So we do have a part to play. The church elaborates this in the doctrine of synergy.

Well, this brings up an interesting point as highlighted by John Owen's and expanded upon by James White in his article titled, "Was Anyone Saved at the Cross?" Here is the relevant points:

Many who believe in a “universal” or non-specific atonement, assert that while Christ died for all, His atonement is only effective for those who believe. We shall discuss the fact that faith itself is the gift of God, given only to the elect of God, in the next chapter. But for now, we defer to the great Puritan writer, John Owen, in answering this question:

To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:—God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 3….If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will. (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) pp. 61-62.)

So, here are your options:

1. Jesus died for all the sins of all humanity. Therefore all humanity is saved.

2. Jesus died for all the sins of some humans. Therefore some humans are said.

3. Jesus died for some of the sins of all humanity.

Which approach do you take, 1,2, or 3?

If you pose #1, I will ask you does the Bible teach that all humanity is saved?

If you pose #3, I ask you if we will be guilty before God for the sins He did not die for? If so, then what is our need for a Savior who could not save us? His perfect life lived on behalf of the believer was not enough. Do you believe that? The OT teaches a substitutionary atonement. So does the NT. He atoned for those who believe and put their trust in Him. Thus, once saved by God will He not keep His promise and guarantee?

If you pose 2, then His atonement accomplished what it set out to do. Thus, once saved always saved!

Created:

6 years ago

0

Posted in: