PGA2.0

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life, freely 21:6

is it a coincidence that an age is 2160 years?

Just because I reject theistic claims doesn't mean that I do not find them endlessly fascinating.

That being said this thread is in direct response to two ideas. One is the idea that rejecting a claim is equivalent to making the opposite claim and therefore requires a burden of proof.

The other is that atheists are really believers who have just lost their way. That they "believe more than they think they do" or that they are "just angry at god" or "just want to sin" and so consciously reject something that they really believe deep down.

To be clear it is impossible to prove a negative and my claim is not that there is no god(s) but only that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of any god(s) that has been presented to me. Since I am unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence I do not believe in any god(s). I do not "believe deep down" or "believe more than I realize" I am not angry with any god(s) or indeed with any being or concept I consider to be fictitious and I  do not wish to be immoral.

I just reject any claim which has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

With the biblical God, Christians place their faith in Him as the highest authority

That is simply untrue, you place your faith in the ignorant, primitive, superstitious bronze/iron age savages that wrote the books.

So is torturing little children neither right nor wrong? EVERYONE, Mdh2000 doesn't know that torturing little children for fun is WRONG - hide your children and don't let him babysit them. 

Is that how you want to live your life? Do you really want me to push your moral button and show that you do believe that morality exists, that there are rights and wrongs and they are absolute??? If you can't distinguish between rape or torturing a child, and for fun, as wrong everywhere and in every situation I think you need to see a psychiatrist. I think that anyone who can't determine that is morally repugnant.

The problem is that all you have done is point out that people make moral judgements, not that morality exists.   If you want an analogy,consider colour.   We judge the colour of objects and even largely agree on the colour of objects, but colour has no objective existence.

If you want an analogy, consider colour.  We judge the colour of objects and even largely agree on the colour of objects, but colour has no objective existence.

Then you have it settled, don't you, Paul!

Philosophers have been arguing about dualism for some time, it's not what I'd call settled.

That doesn't change the fact that you have an immoral code dictated by primitive, ignorant, superstitious bronze/iron age savages. When you can discuss abortion honestly I may engage but that is a highly unlikely scenario. There is no evidence for the alleged prophecies in the bible.

You don't have objective morals, you have an immoral code dictated by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages who you call god.

It's not a secular worldview it's a fact, no brain no mind. We can observe it, we can test it and we can even experience it. Anybody that has had anesthesia for an operation or been in a coma experiences it. It's a common every day thing in real life. You want to sprinkle your religious nonsense over the commonly known thing that is called unconsciousness and it's not required.

Without God show me your moral standard matters?

Show me your god.

You first!

What?

It does because your god doesn't exist.

Or show me.

What is a mind? Is it the same thing as a brain? Or is there a difference between the two?

The Christian worldview says there is a difference. It says that we are a duel or triune being as human being in the sense that we are body and soul/mind, or body, soul, and spirit.

Well, to have a mind you need a properly functioning human brain, they are not two separate things.

The Christian worldview? Why are you trying to involve religion again?

Are you suggesting that we, on this side, can know?

On this side of what?

Without God show me your moral standard matters?

Show me your god.

[1] Notice how it states 'in those days, following that distress' then proceeds to talk of the stars falling from the sky.

[2] Also: 'at that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds.' These are still the same period, so do we have any records of these things occuring?

[3] What you have so far is that Jesus stated a temple would be destroyed and it was... I hardly find that to be any sign of divine insight, he even stated he didn't know when it would happen.

[4] Note, all this is simply initial opinions on prophecy from someone who claims neither to be well versed in prophecy or the history of the period.

How exactly do you verify that the Gospels in question were written prior to ad70?

I'm waiting for you to tackle Posts 182 and 191 with interest. 

I believe I began in a previous post with a couple of questions on the source of these prophecies. How exactly do you verify that the Gospels in question were written prior to ad70? Also your first bit about 

the olivet 

discourse being specific to a specific time is demonstrably speculation since

no date or time is given in the texts

What is that question?

You state: "My starting point doesn't presuppose," it does, because it uses an atheistic worldview to look for answers and dismisses the Christian theistic worldview.

My starting point is the very simple question 'How did the universe come to be'. No presupposition there.

You have demonstrated in a post (and I drew your attention to this) that you take the side of interpretative data that supports the atheistic/secular worldview and you are biased towards the Christian worldview. You deny the Christian God exists on the belief that there is no evidence for His existence. Wasn't it you who called Christians ignorant and insane? 

I take the side of reason and what I can observe. I see no reason to assume more than my senses are reasonably accurate and that I can use them to make reasonable deductions of the universe around me. No, I have never called christians either ignorant nor insane. I don't believe either to true, if I did I'd have no reason to converse with them. That said, I haven't been presented with evidence of the validity of their claims.

So, you must answer why it is okay to kill one whole class of human beings because of the choice of another class (i.e., unborn and women), yet you punish and set rules with other classes when they kill whole classes. That same woman can kill her unborn human offspring but not her two-year-old? The class of born as opposed to unborn gives different laws on killing. Why can't you kill the newborn but you can the unborn? They are both dependent on her. They are both smaller than she is. The difference is their environments. Is it okay to kill someone because they are in a different environment than you are?

This also does nothing to prove an objective morality exists.

If you have no objective standard then you are at the mercy of those in control and it is okay for them to do what they prefer because they are in control. Is that reasonable and logical to believe? If so, "You're next; please step this way!" 

No. I can very much say I'm against it. I can very much say that I will fight to change it, I will just do so with the intellectual honesty of admitting that my reasons for that are a collection of personally formed opinions, preferences and views. The same as someone who does this with a supposed (and as of yet unshown) moral authority.

So, is might makes the right GOOD? How can you know? Only if a necessary objective standard exists. Without it I would be in the same position as you, not knowing any moral truth, and that is where you are. 

You are in the same position as me. The difference is you have pointed at something and said 'that's my objective morality'. You certainly haven't demonstrated such an objective morality yet.

You said that good can mean anything (and I agree if there is no ultimate standard then any standard goes). You said I could not demonstrate there is such a thing as objective good. I agree if there is no objective source. However, the Bible claims there is such a source and gives good reason to believe it is that source.

No, I said everyone forms their own opinion of good. That's not the same as saying either good can mean anything (though that's technically just in definition, any word can mean anything depending on how we define it, but I also didn't mean that anything can be good). No, I never said you couldn't, I asked if you could and have stated that you haven't.

I chose the abortion debate as one issue in which we can question what the "good" is. Whose view is more reasonable and logical?.... 

Not really no, you wouldn't come to a moral conclusion by concluding what is more logical. Morality has never been synonymous with logic to my thinking. The rest of your position is an argument to consequence/appeal to emotion and meaningless to prove anything exists.

Some truths are logically self-evident. Would you know what straight was without knowing what crooked is? How would you measure good if all you knew was evil?

Can you show that anyone knows what good is? Or what evil is? Can you demonstrate why their definition is better than anyone else's? Let's talk about objective morality and abortion. My position is that neither position is correct to state their position as morally correct. Neither have to my knowledge demonstrated any way they can know their moral position is objectively accurate, or that there is any objective morality for it to be accurate against.

The law of identity states that a thing is what it is. (A=A)

So? In this case we have morality:

 a doctrine or system of moral conduct

So, why do these systems have to be anything more than a collection of subjective values and preferences? Morality isn't in conflict if the systems someone holds are different since by definition the system isn't specific. 

1

If you assert A in this case to be morality then there's no issue,

however

if your A is something else then what exactly are you talking about as A?

With goodness, how would you know what that was unless you have a standard to compare goodness to that was ideal? And you can't arbitrarily call something good without it actually being good. Why should I believe your opinion? Hitler thought it was good to eliminate 6 million Jews and 11-12 million undesirables. Is it good because he called it good? NO. Good has to have an identity that does not change on a particular issue and morph into its opposite. Abortion was an example I gave you. Before Roe V. Wade abortion was considered wrong and a crime unless the mother and unborn were both threatened and would lose their life. After Roe v. Wade abortion was legalized to a specific period in the development of the unborn.

Who said we do know what goodness is? We have opinions, but can you prove in any way that we know what is good and what is bad? Can you demonstrate that anyone's idea of good is more accurate to reality to anyone else's? You're still unable to address your claim that a moral absolute must exist, you certainly haven't done anything more than state your preference that there be a moral absolute because you dislike the implications otherwise. This doesn't suggest your position is accurate. Care to address how we can know morality exists as anything more than [subjectivity?]

So who was right with abortion? They both can't be logically right since they state opposites. Right, or good loses its identity when it can mean the opposite depending on who holds the view. It is stupidity to say that both views are right/good.

We're not even really arguing this point. All I can really say is so what? I don't know as I'd go so far as to say it's stupidity, but I see no reason to see it as anything more than an expression of opinion and preference. Can show any statement on morality is more than that?

Yes, I can show it as reasonable and logical because only one system is necessary for morality and no other meets that criterion. If you want to know what is good you need God - the unchanging, benevolent final standard of appeal.

Missed this, sorry.

No, you can't show it as logical or reasonable. You simply assume that we must a means of judging 'best' or 'morality' You have shown no way in which this is actually in accordance to reality. Can you show that we do in fact have a means of judging best or morality (neither actually state they are objective values, even if they did then you would still need to show that something exists that fits the definition). Your argument seems to be close to assuming an objective moral standard in its premise (that would be begging the question).

Makes sense of it? Why is your view any better than any other view? You have already admitted it is not. Thus, you are inconsistent which means you have major problems. Why is your good better than my good? Not only this but as I have pointed out a number of times, everything has an identity and that identity cannot be what it is not.

My 

Norm Geisler, Any Absolutes, Absolutely, had this to say:

"Finally, if morals are relative to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites."

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DE198.pdf

That's absurd. If morality is purely subjective then no group is 'right' every group is simply stating an opinion. There is no contradiction if there is no objective morality by which to be right. You seem to think that my position is that no bodies morality is wrong. It's not, it's that I have know way of knowing if anyone's morality is right.

If I were to assume no god exists and no objective morality then I could make sense of morality by acknowledging morality is a purely subjective set of values, same with best. This would make sense of them. They would be reasonable and easy to understand.

Morality would be a set of values a person adopts. Best would be a preference (can you show it's anything more than that). You keep attacking the straw man that I assume all morals are 'right' my position is actually that I can't call any moral values correct because no one has demonstrated we can know of anything to measure those values against.

It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what. 

It is nonsensical when the person you are conversing with has said that it would appear that A) there is no 'better' in an objective sense

I've never said best is subjective in regards to moral good and evil. It is only subjective in terms of personal preference (what is as opposed to what should be). As soon as a moral ought is brought into the equation there has to be a best to make sense of it. There has to be something (or Someone) that does not change in which we can measure everything else in relation to it (Him). If there is nothing that does not change then you can't measure it. God is that something (Someone).

It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what. 

It is nonsensical when the person you are conversing with has said that it would appear that A) there is no 'better' in an objective sense or B) We've no way of demonstrating that we can determine objective 'better'. This is the problem is you haven't shown that we can measure objective best, you have simply stated that without god we can't. Can you demonstrate that we can know best? Can you show how we can know this. You can say 'god is best so we measure against him' great, now show god exists. At this point you're not longer able to logically use objective good/best/morality as evidence of god as you need to show god exists before you can show any of those things objectively exist. That would be a circular argument.

Based on the definition of "Evidence", what compelling evidence can you offer for the likelihood of God's existence?

Contrary to that, what compelling evidence can you offer for the likelihood of God's non-existence?

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

Evidence is the information which is used in a court of law to try to prove something. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication

3. law matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, 

An innocent person is without sin. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin are death (by the way that is spiritual death/separation from the presence of God for eternity). How could a JUST Judge condemn an innocent person? Answer - He can't. He is just! 

What is the promise of those born again? It is restored life in God's presence. Jesus continually spoke of the kingdom of heaven. 

https://mobile.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NASB&quicksearch=kingdom+of+heaven&begin=47&end=73

It is a SPIRITUAL kingdom, not a physical kingdom on earth.

John 18:36 

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

So when He said the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, He pointed to the little children. Those He died to save!

Relying on a book of myth and untruths to support your erroneous beliefs is simply absurd. We are discussing human life ie the woman's life and her right to control it.

You produce a fantasy about some fictional character in a book bringing the foetuses he aborts back to life. When I ask you does he do the same for the foetuses humans abort you run away and pretend you don't understand the question. 

But I'm being harsh, the real reason you have trouble answering questions is because you You produce a fantasy about some fictional character in a book bringing the foetuses he aborts back to life. When I ask you does he do the same for the foetuses humans abort you run away and pretend you don't understand the question. 

If you and your fictional god were consistent then aborting a foetus is the best thing that could happen to it. Allegedly they go straight to heaven no matter who aborts them, or are you going to make another claim?

You haven't shown me that God never ends an innocent life without restoring it

You haven't answered this: So he restores the life of the "human" that he "murders" what does he do with the ones humans "murder"?

I have no authority over a woman's body (heaven forbid). She does. Don't make this personal. It is a moral issue

It's not a moral issue at all it is all about bodily autonomy and you have no right to interfere.

You keep waffling about "killing human beings" when we are discussing the removal of a growth from a woman's body.

Many people would adopt the child in a heartbeat.

Let them adopt the aborted "child" then. Oh that's right it's not a child, regardless of the lies contained in your preachers propaganda.

If your over 60 then let me tell you that you have wasted your only life and have learned nothing. When you die you will be dead but don't be afraid, you won't know that it's over it'll just be over. No more fairy tales just no more anything.

When you say "a favorable character tendency" - which persons or groups favor? If it is subjective then it is not wrong for someone who believes the opposite. Can you live in a world like that? Watch what happens if the Democrat's take back the power to govern and pass their agenda with their relative ideas. Your country is done if that happens. The downward spiral into despair and meaninglessness will continue at an accelerated rate. Watch what happens to the wealth of your country. 

This is again an argument to consequence. I don't have a choice in any of this, I can only logically and reasonably follow the evidence where it leads, so far it has all led to the conclusion that if there is an objective morality we have no evidence to show it or what it is. In short, reality is what it is. I can only conclude based on facts.

You can't say you're objective because you don't have what is necessary for objectivity with your worldview. It does not allow it. Yet, people with a relativistic worldview keep borrowing from an objective worldview everytime someone crosses the line. Then their subjectivity goes out the window.

I can be very objective when there is objective data to work with, same as you. The difference is that I don't assume that data when I don't have it. When I'm left without that data, I rather concede the fact that I can only be objective. I will ask again, can you demonstrate objective morality? So far you have argued:

that good cannot be made sense of without it, yet I can make sense of good. Your issue seems to be more with the idea that good is meaningless without it. Considering we have cases where 'good' is meaningless without objective morality and as of yet no one has shown objective morality exists what is the logical reason to conclude good isn't meaningless?

You don't want to live in a world where morality is subjective. This is moot since the reality is what it is regardless of what we want.

I objectively consider what is presented to me and then conclude what warrants belief based on that.

I don't claim that my worldview doesn't hold subjectives, it does, it holds many of them, the difference is that I admit they're subjective, I hold them strongly, I will do a lot to support these values, but they are subjective and they are no better and no worse than your subjective values, which I suspect you hold just as strongly, just as dearly. Where in all this do I borrow from your worldview? Or do you mean in some hypothetical situation where you spin my actions or reactions to suit what you want? 

Exactly, and good becomes meaningless if it has no fixed, objective address.

And that is evidence that god exists how? This again seems to be an argument from consequence, this doesn't show anything other than the fact that good may be meaningless (and that our opinion of what is good is meaningless until we can demonstrate that not only objective morality exists, but that we can and do know what it is). You're pointing out something you don't like and stating that because your world view allows you to view the world otherwise your worldview is valid, this isn't a case for your world view unless you can show that morality is objective.

It is COMMON SENSE.

No it isn't.

We give a fixed term to the thing you and I call a dog. You understand when I use that term that it does not mean a cat or tree. It refers to that thing and nothing else. When it comes to goodness on any given specific subject the term is interchanged with other meanings, depending on where you live. It can mean the exact opposite. Some countries believe abortion as a woman's choice is wrong/ evil and others believe it is right/good.

Dog: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dog

This is because dog has a (reasonably) clear and defined meaning, it means a canid, especially the canis familiaris

(it can also mean a worthless or contemptible person).

Notice this is a clear definition, the traits necessary to fit it are fairly small, a cat and a tree aren't canids, so they're not dogs.

Now look back at the link I presented for good, it lacks that same traits, if we were to write a definition for good that included the traits and criteria that made a thing good (there are several definitions for good that actually do this, but they're for very specific context), then we'd have a world that clearly meant one thing, it wouldn't however be anymore objectively 'moral' than it is now. The first definition presented for good is actually: of a favorable character or tendency.

1

That's subjective, that's dependent on circumstance. How about these:

(2): BOUNTIFUL, FERTILEgood land

(3): HANDSOME, ATTRACTIVEgood looks

b(1): SUITABLE, FITgood to eat

(2): free from injury or disease one  good arm

(3): not depreciated

bad

money drives out good

(4): commercially sound a good risk

(5): that can be relied on

good  for another year 

good for a hundred dollars

always good for a laugh

(6): PROFITABLE, ADVANTAGEOUSmade a very good deal

c(1): AGREEABLE, PLEASANThad a good time

(2): SALUTARY, WHOLESOMEgood for a cold

(3): AMUSING, CLEVER

3, 6, c1 and 3 are certainly subjective. We have to scroll the page down quite a way before we come to anything that addresses morality directly and then it states:

'something conforming to the moral order of the universe'

I don't think it has anything to do with the after life.

Why so defensive all of a sudden?

Here you make [ ] mistakes in what my point is I think. Firstly regardless of a topic you're assuming that morality on said topic is a single thing, that there is a good and a bad. Yet we have no way of knowing such a thing exists, let alone how to apply it to this (or any other position).

Your position is that it's meaningless to state X is good or bad without an objective morality. I don't disagree, I simply state that we don't have any evidence for an objective morality. We have only our own opinions and assumptions to use as a basis, so until an objective morality can be shown to exist, then it logically is meaningless to state X is good or X is bad. This point makes sense of morality by acknowledging that morality is meaningless until we have an objective morality. You don't want to make sense of morality you want to justify morality having meaning. In short, morality in no way supports the existence of god, it simply shows a reason why people may want to believe in god.

In this physical existence, yes, you need a brain. Remove the brainand you are dead physically.

Do you think all youare is a physical being?

As for your questionon comas, I'm not a medical expert. I don't know much about comas.Maybe you could inform me of your take?

So what you are saying is that your mind and your soul are the same thing?

No I'm not saying that all I am is a physical being, I am other things too.

You are in luck, I have been in a coma so I can tell you what it's like, I didn't experience anything. When I woke up I thought it was the same day asthe accident that put me into the coma. I couldn't believe that I had been in a coma for five days.

No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic. 

Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing?

Here you make to mistakes in what my point is I think. Firstly regardless of a topic you're assuming that morality on said topic is a single thing, that there is a good and a bad. Yet we have no way of knowing such a thing exists, let alone how to apply it to this (or any other position). Your position is that it's meaningless to state X is good or bad without an objective morality. I don't disagree, I simply state that we don't have any evidence for an objective morality. We have only our own opinions and assumptions to use as a basis, so until an objective morality can be shown to exist, then it logically is meaningless to state X is good or X is bad. This point makes sense of morality by acknowledging that morality is meaningless until we have an objective morality. You don't want to make sense of morality you want to justify morality having meaning. In short, morality in no way supports the existence of god, it simply shows a reason why people may want to believe in god.

The claims that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy is questionable at best because the only details we have to Jesus' life are held within the text that is claiming he fulfilled prophecy (I tend to question outside the source for claims when seeking to confirm claims).

Our issue here is again going to be your presupposition of the bible. I don't claim to be particularly versed in prophecy, nor do I claim to be particularly versed in history. I would however question how we confirm the Gospels were written before AD70 and how we confirm the events of Jesus' life occurred as is claimed in the Bible as a starting point (to believe these things and then build a case is making strong assumptions that will heavily bias our conclusions).

No denying that, but we are all biased. I'm glad that you are looking for reasons! Doubt is a part of life. I'm asking you to find out which is more REASONABLE and LOGICAL by examining the evidence as best as I can present it. There are lots who are much more sophisticated and polished, yet in regards to prophecy, I have been examining the evidence for the Christian worldview for a long time. I've professed faith in Jesus Christ for almost 40 years now. Debating unbelievers for most of that time has helped me to look hard for the explanations that confirm God for others. That said, even if the evidence is most compelling, those who are rebelling will always find another excuse not to believe. That has been my witness. On these forums I find but a handful of people who are really willing to test what they believe. The rest are locked solidly in their position and do not budge, do not hear the message or evidence. They do the opposite. They deny it. The more you present the more they dig into their position. That is why you, me, or anyone else coming to faith depends on God and His word.

Let's begin the examination of the evidence with the most pertinent question. [1] What methods have been used to date when the gospels were written? Internal prophecy is always hard to handle. The claims that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy is questionable at best because the only details we have to Jesus' life are held within the text that is claiming he fulfilled prophecy (I tend to question outside the source for claims when seeking to confirm claims). Our issue here is again going to be your presupposition of the bible. I don't claim to be particularly versed in prophecy, nor do I claim to be particularly versed in history. I would however question how we confirm the Gospels were written before AD70 and how we confirm the events of Jesus' life occurred as is claimed in the Bible as a starting point (to believe these things and then build a case is making strong assumptions that will heavily bias our conclusions).

That is precisely the point, if you don't know but exclude God then you are taking a position. You are presupposing that the material worldview is the more evident worldview.

My only presupposition is that my senses are generally reasonably accurate and that I am able to make somewhat accurate deductions from the information I receive from these senses (the fact I survive and function suggests these assumptions are reasonable). I make these assumptions because they are necessary to function, without them I would literally be able to observe nothing and reason nothing. However, once we have these necessary assumptions, I see no reason to assume anything else, reason tells me assuming as few things as possible is more likely to produce accurate results. As for excluding god, I don't exclude god. I simply question the claims god exists, even in that statement you show your biased. You cannot objectively or reasonably address the existence of god because you have already concluded god exists before the

Even if you don't know whether God exists by looking at the world through " a naturalist's eyes" you see things through "atheistic eyes" - eyes that deny God. Jesus made this point:

 Matthew 12:30

[ The Unpardonable Sin ] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

If this is true then there is no neutrality. I do not believe we are unbiased and neutral in the way we look at origins or life. We either cling to the one worldview or the other. In the Christian worldview, an atheist is the one who denies Jesus. He/she does not take the biblical God at His Word, for the Bible claims to be His revelation.

It's a false dichotomy. I am not 'against' Jesus, I care very little one way or the other. 

You have to start somewhere and with something. Those core beliefs are presuppositional by nature. It is whether or not they are justifiable or inconsistent that is the question. When you begin with the presupposition/position that God's existence is unknown and then use an atheistic belief system to channel your inquiry you are not being neutral.

You are acting on the presuppositions of that atheistic belief system.

My starting point doesn't presuppose. That would mean making an assumption. The only thing my position takes as true is that I don't know how the universe began  (I have since concluded it is likely I never will) and that I don't know if a god exists. As for my taking on an 'atheistic' world view. That depends on your definition of atheism if you mean holding the negative belief that god doesn't exist, then you're wrong. To believe god cannot possibly exist would be an assumption and the bases for presupposition. 

So you start nowhere? (i.e., starting point) You have no starting point?

No, I start with a question. Why would I start with an answer when I have no means to support that answer.

I argue it does presuppose since you were not there, neither was any other human. Even if you don't know you still look at or start with the universe from God as Creator (or the greatest personal being), or you begin with a material origin alone and origins via a chance instead of by intent. You ASSUME that everything that exists came about by your presupposed method, even if you have no surety (ignorant).

No. You don't have to assume either. To assume is to believe. I don't believe the universe came to be without god, I don't believe the universe came to be with a god. The only belief I have in regards to the nature of the universe is that it appears to have had a beginning. No assumptions are made in that position at all and as such no presuppositions.

You deny Him. His authority means nothing to you (for now). Every single example I give you will deny. It is a waste of my time, like it was on the DDO threads. 

You haven't shown me that

God never ends an innocent life without restoring it

So he restores the life of the "human" that he "murders" what does he do with the ones humans "murder"?

What gives you more authority over a woman's body than she does? Oh that's right your god teaches you that women are to be controlled by men and your misogyny agrees with that.

If you can't tell the truth about abortion why should I listen to anything you have to say on the subject.

Why do you refuse to take on the responsibility of bringing this separate human body to adulthood. Just let it be known far and wide that you will take any aborted separate human body and continue the process of bringing it up.

Your prophesy shtick has been laughed out of every thread you've posted it in.

The human being developing in her body is separate from her body because it is a unique human in its own right. 

Then there shouldn't be any problem removing that separate body from hers, you could adopt the blastocyst and bring it up like the human you claim it is.

God never ends an innocent life without restoring it

Show me.

You make a lot of claims but never have any evidence to support them.

There must be an ultimate best to know good, just like without good we would not know evil. Evil is measured against good, just like good is measured against the best.

And you can demonstrate that we can know good? Or that we can know evil? How can we show any of these things to be objectively true?

Objective best is God. He has commanded humanity to not kill (murder, or take innocent human life), not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not covet something that is not ours, honor our parents, love Him, and do not defame Him.

Ok. I get that's your postion, but you still haven't answered my question. Can you show that best exists objectively? 

You are saying you don't know best because your worldview does not have what is necessary for best. 

No, I'm saying that we have no demonstrable example of good or best existing. We have no way of determining if they are anything more than ideas we made up. Until we can demonstrate that they exist let alone what they are how can anyone logically claim they know what good or best are?

You make sense of the concept because you understand that good and better are degrees that depend on the ultimate, best. 

No. I make sense of them as because I understand when someone says 'X is good' they are basing that on a collection of criteria they determine to be good. Same when they say 'X is best'. This fits every example of best or good I have encountered. Please don't assume to know what I understand and don't, it's quite insulting.

No one is killing human beings Mr. Godwin.

I advocate the protection of a woman's sole right to her own body.

I know that invisible friend declares women to be chattels and less than human but only fools believe that.

It is written by men who claim inspiration from God.

A sane person would never accept such a ridiculous idea, those men were either lying, delusional, insane or all of the above. Why would you believe other men and not God?

So are you saying that the laws of logic are contingent on your mind believing them? If you didn't believe them they would not exist?

No, they are practical to use against illogical nonsense such as men claiming inspiration from God.

2+2=4 is a logical concept 

Its a simple equation.

I asked you who made the natural laws and enforces them? 

That has to be one of the dumbest questions I've heard today. It shows you have no clue what a physical law is and you actually believe there is some kind of police enforcing them. I'm stunned at this level of ignorance. Please put the Bible down and read a book.

You then cross-over to my worldview that has objective moral values in which some things are definitely plain evil or wrong. You then recognize that some things are BETTER than others. 

That is complete and utter baloney, I would do no such thing. Total fantasy.

Why can't He choose the way He communicates with us?

Simple, it fails.

Some things are beyond our authority in determining our well-being.

Such as?

I have spent many years wrestling with some doctrinal concepts, such as Calvinism v. Arminianism, Young/Old Earth, Preterist or Futurist, etc.

Im so sorry to hear that but it certainly explains your widespread ignorance of the world around you.

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

That's exactly the kind of childish, ignorant behavior I've been referring. Even though no one has done anything wrong other than criticize your beliefs, you immediately lash out spitting poison with filth from Scriptures simply because you haven't the means to defend your irrational nonsense, which only serves to promote hate and cause conflict for no reason at all. Disgusting religion.

And the central point in the abortion debate is what is the unborn? It is a human being. 

There is only one question and that is a woman's right to autonomy of her body and her right to remove a growth from her body, there are no other humans involved.

No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic. 

Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing? 

Every woman has the sole right to her own body, there isn't even any reason for men to be involved in the discussion.

You did not answer the question. Can you answer that question? It's easy to push it back to me, but how well does your worldview answer it?

I have answered the question several times (more accurately I have addressed the question as it's a nonsense question). If best is subjective  (which all examples I'm aware of are), then best doesn't exist, we make it up. It's nothing more than an idea we have. This is why we can (and often do) disagree repeatedly over what is best.

My worldview has what is NECESSARY to make sense of morality. 

No. My world view makes sense of morality just fine. It just accepts unpleasant conclusions in favour of what can be shown to be true. Rather than bowing to arguments of consequence and appeals to emotion. Humans are intelligent creatures capable of (varying degrees of) reasoning. Humans generally have similar priorities (safety, comfort, companionship). If we can agree on that, then wouldn't it follow that subjective morality would develop in such a way that many would share similar principles (don't steal, don't kill... In short don't do those things that might one day hurt me). It explains a somewhat consistent attitude in morality (especially when society teaches morality), it also explains why morality changes and is sometimes drastically different in different cultures. The only thing it doesn't make sense of is the existence of objective morality... Not an issue since if it's correct there is no objective morality to make sense of.

How do I know if there is no objective best? I don't. It becomes a game of power to enact your desires and preferences over those who think differently, but Hitler's Germany is no BETTER than your America, or Kim Jong-un's North Korea.

Appeal to consequence/emotion that does nothing to support the existence of objective morality. Can you show that one system of morality is objectively better than another? Or do you simply believe it to be so? How do you prove one moral code is better than another?

Best implies no better. How can that not be objective?

Beauty is a subjective preference. It is not wrong for me to think someone is more beautiful than someone else

Because what you think is best isn't what others think is best. To my knowledge there isn't one demonstrably objective example of best. You can state something is better than something else, you can even state why you think that, but you will always be stating criteria you (or someone else)  as being better. I notice you still haven't demonstrated an example that best actually exists.

Killing and torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible. It says it is wrong, not just a subjective choice.

Now the trouble is how do we show this to be objectively true? I personally find it reprehensible, I believe anyone who would do such a thing should be removed from society for the safety of society, but that in no way suggests that morality is objective. I have created the criteria by which I determine what is moral and what isn't  (largely due to the same social pressures and teachings others of my time have gone through). The objectivity of morality is thrown into question when you look at the world over a long enough timeframe what we view as moral has clearly changed over cultures and times.

If you try to push beauty along the same lines as torturing children as both subjective then for someone who likes to torture little children there is nothing wrong in their eyes and each to his own. Are you willing to live with such a belief or do you think that some things are definitely wrong?

This is an argument from consequence. It's also moot, since what I want has no bearing on what is true. Further it does nothing to show any way in which morality is objective. I don't push morality and beauty down the same path, I follow the path they both go down. Can you demonstrate that morality is objective? You can certainly show that people have a sense of morality, but can you show it is consistent and reliable? Spartans used to consider it moral to throw babies off cliffs if deemed unfit (and immoral for parents to hide unfit babes), slavery was deemed moral for most of human history. Can you objectively demonstrate that they were wrong (you can give reasons you think they were wrong, but can you demonstrate it objectively)? 

Sure it follows if best is derived from One who is the best, One who is objective in the sense that He knows all things, thus knows what is actually right and wrong.

And you can demonstrate that this is the case? If not you haven't demonstrated objective mortality.

What is necessary for objectivity in regards to morality? You would have to understand every position and you would have to know what is right and wrong, then your nature would have to be good to judge rightly. For a subjective being to know the difference, such a being (you) would have to have a revelation from an objective Being to guide your thinking (i.e., The Ten Commandments covers our relationship with both God and humanity).

Currently meaningless as you can't establish morality is objective, let alone that we can judge such an objective morality. I have no reason to conclude that there is an objective being to provide such a revelation or such an objective truth to be revealed.

He is that objective best, and since we are imperfect, we are with sin/wrong and limited in our nature, we cannot get to that best ideal on our own merits, but we can understand the One who has because we are created in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26).

You have a means of proving this statement?

Genesis 1:26 (NASB)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Our minds are made in the image and likeness of the Greatest Mind, our Maker, just not to the same extent.

Your proof of this?