PGA2.0

SkepticalOne 303

I think you, and many people, overly complicate morality. We only need to agree on something by which to measure our actions. Your preference is god. Mine is well-being.

PGA2.0 331

Well-being in whose eyes? Your subjective eyes? No thank you.

His point exactly. You dislike well-being. He dislikes God. In the real world we all have our preferences.

PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOne

How does that answer my question? You continue to evade my questions.

Read who is writing.

PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOne

That is your subjective opinion. What makes that right or anything you say right since you have no objective standard of appeal. Why SHOULD (a moral imperative) I trust your subjective opinion since it appears that is all you have got? Your subjectiveness is what wars are fought over.

Religious wars are far more popular than subjectiveness wars.

PGA2.0 331

Abortion bad -abortion good - abortion bad again - abortion good again.

[a] Something you are missing is that in matter of abortion, almost everyone agrees on what has value, i.e. [b] they have shared preferences. [c] Both the rights of the mother and the life of the child have value. [d] The contention is about what has most value. [e] Almost no one is of the opinion that abortion is good. However, many people consider, i.e. are of the opinion, [f] that in some cases no abortion is even worse.

3RU7AL

Have you managed to distill any moral AXIOMS?

PGA2.0 288

How do you mean? I believe I have.

I work from the principle of the Ten Commandments, which delves into most aspects of morality for it deals with what happens when someone wrongs instead of loves others. Abortion centers on the "thou shalt not kill/murder"principle. Abortion is a spiteful act that does not take into account the life of someone else but thinks of self. It is not loving.[87] All human life is created in the image and likeness of God. It is God's right to take human life since we are His creatures.[88]

God permits exceptions for civil societies to function. Wrongdoing - life for life; that would be equal justice. The exception to abortion is when the woman will die before the unborn is developed enough to save it. Then it is permissible to take its life because the death of the woman would be unavoidable and so would that of the unborn. At least one is saved, so it is the greater outcome of the two - one dead instead of two. When someone dies unintentionally, in the case of manslaughter, the intent is not to do harm (but sometimes it can be because of carelessness), but an accident results in death. That is not the same thing as malicious or spiteful intent - murder - that the commandment deals with.[89]

[87] So is rape. [a] Yet I don't see any prohobition against that in the Ten Commandments. From biological evolution point of view on the other hand, rape is useful, as it helps the distribution of the rape gene. No god is required for that.

It is God's right to take human life since we are His creatures.[88]

[88] How is that supposed to follow?

God permits exceptions for civil societies to function. Wrongdoing - life for life; that would be equal justice. The exception to abortion is when the woman will die before the unborn is developed enough to save it. Then it is permissible to take its life because the death of the woman would be unavoidable and so would that of the unborn. At least one is saved, so it is the greater outcome of the two - one dead instead of two. When someone dies unintentionally, in the case of manslaughter, the intent is not to do harm (but sometimes it can be because of carelessness), but an accident results in death. That is not the same thing as malicious or spiteful intent - murder - that the commandment deals with.[89]

[89] I don't see the Ten Commandments mention any of that. Is that just your personal opinion you use to fill the gaps in your moral axioms?

3RU7AL 294

Nope. Please explain.

PGA2.0 301

Words carry specific meaning when in context. From a context you can determine what is spoken of. If not, the author needs to make his meaning more clear. If you have not grasped the author's meaning, you have not understood what the author said or communicated.

What if the author fails to make the meaning more clear?

I sometimes debate a Christian who keeps throwing moral attributes around without specifying the referenced moral standard.

He assumes that when different people use the same word, like good or right, they mean the same thing. The author appears to want to sow confusion (the Christian's friend).

FLRW

Remember that there were 19 million miscarriages last year also. Doesn't god know anything about quality control? Why did god use atoms and 10 sextillion suns to create one planet that life would finally form on?

PGA2.0 273

How many of those deaths are attributed to the individual and how they live that results in the miscarriage?

I don't know and I am not told why He used so many atoms.

Cool. Now I can quote you saying “I don't know”, totally out of context and completely misrepresenting what you meant. Just the way you like it.

PGA2.0 247

Sure you can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing.

ludofl3x 249

Yes, and....? So what?

PGA2.0 273

So you live inconsistently with what you know as true - you live a lie, you deceive yourself.

So do you, but your belief in the lie is stronger. You know the lie to be true.

ludofl3x 249

Or the stuff in the universe was always around in various forms, cycling from big bang to big crunch eternally.

PGA2.0 280

How do you get to the present universe from an infinite of universes? These universes coming and going? They do not all exist simultaneously. So what created the universe? What is this 'stuff' and how can it 'act' as an agent?

You can't have an infinite causality and get to the present causality, can you? Explain how it you think so

What relevance does any of that have?

First, it is off topic.

Second, suppose ludofl3x doesnt know, so what? [a] The only attempt at relevance I can see is that you are looking for evidence for the first premise of the God of the gaps argument: [b]

P1 Atheists can't explain how this or that is possible.

P2 God is responsible for everthing atheists can't explain.

C Therefore, God exists.

Officially, most Christians admit it is a bad argument, but they use it anyway, because it works. Why do you think it is that so many people still fall for it?

3RU7AL 254

[Complaint about God ordering the killing of women and children in Numbers 31: 15-18]

PGA2.0 287

I'm not sure if that particular verse teaches the killing of children (among the little ones), but and innocent life God takes (a life that has not committed sin and is not able to reason or yet be accountable) God will restore to a better place. Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children.

[a] Why would God need to restore the children to a better place? [b] Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.

PGA2.0 287 to 3RU7AL

The point, there are explanations for why this happened.

The point is off topic. This is a debate about morality. Behaviours need not be explained, but justified.

secularmerlin

Better is a subjective term. It is only useful if we first have a reference point. If the reference point is human welfare then I believe my viewis "better" at promoting welfare. If the reference point is some possibly fictional god then until the god is demonstrate along with s ok me methodology for unambiguously (not subject to interpretation) determining the will of said god then even if it exists we are still all just guessing. If I understand your method properly it is very suspect specifically because it is subject to interpretation which allows subjective opinions to again enter the conversation.

PGA2.0 263

How can it be better if it is subjective? Better in relation to what???[83]

Well-being, in whose opinion?[84]

Human welfare in whose opinion, the woman who kills her unborn human child? How is that well-being for the unborn?[85] You selectively choose who you will apply wellbeing to. When food is short are you still going to be looking for the wellbeing of your neighbour? Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, this principle of wellbeing works in most countries of the world, especially socialist and communist atheistic states.[86]

[83] Your worldview is a serious handicap for understanding reality. In order to understand these things you must open up your worldview to it.

It can be better by meeting the definition of better described in the (omitted) standard. Better is a relation. Something is better than something else.

Well-being, in whose opinion?[84]

[84] Dude, ask clear questions.

Human welfare in whose opinion, the woman who kills her unborn human child? How is that well-being for the unborn?[85]

[85] Is that well-being for the unborn?

You selectively choose who you will apply wellbeing to. When food is short are you still going to be looking for the wellbeing of your neighbour? Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, this principle of wellbeing works in most countries of the world, especially socialist and communist atheistic states.[86]

[86] Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, God as a source of morility and justice in most countries of the world, especially in religious states.

Tradesecret 189

Hence, it is impossible for them to argue they have morality - they don't - not as atheists. The only morality they could possibly use is morality they have borrowed from other worldviews. This is their cake - they cannot eat it as well. Either they have morality - which means they have a shared doctrine or dogma or they have no morality of their own - but borrow it from everywhere else.

PGA2.0 228

I agree with you 100%. I would argue that what atheists call morality is their 'moral' preference, their likes and dislikes.[68] They impose those on others by laws.[69] But what is good or right they have no ideal or fixed standard for, thus you are again correct, they borrow from a system of thought that does. [70] We as Christians have a solid foundation for right and wrong, they do not. We can justify our worldview in this area, they can't.[71]

I don't entirely agree with Tradesecret. That atheism would have to borrow from other worldviews, implies it is a worldview itself, in which case it can have it's own morality.

I would argue that what atheists call morality is their 'moral' preference, their likes and dislikes.[68]

[68] Again, likes and dislikes alone do not make something moral or immoral.

They impose those on others by laws.[69]

[69] Atheists aren't the only ones who do that.

But what is good or right they have no ideal or fixed standard for, thus you are again correct, they borrow from a system of thought that does. [70]

[70] So you claim, but can you prove that?

We as Christians have a solid foundation for right and wrong, they do not. We can justify our worldview in this area, they can't.[71]

[71] Corrections: Christians believe they have a solid foundation and Christians believe they can justify their worldview in this

area.

Tradesecret 189

How of course they are able to measure whether it is good or not - is going to be interesting. They will try and say science - but this is nonsense. Not because science is nonsense - because it is not - but because science is objective - allegedly. Morality is subjective. And cannot be tested scientifically.

PGA2.0 228

I agree that morality cannot be tested through empirical means that science uses. It requires a different standard.[72] [ . . . ]

[72] Indeed. Many things are like that, all subjective things. Then comes along a group of people, who base their beliefs on texts written by ancient goat herds, telling us that morality is the exception and expecting skeptics to roll over and accept.

Notice how you were unable to see the inaccuracy of the prediction Tradesecret made.

ludofl3x

These are two separate and distinct notions . It's a pretty simple principle. You yourself make plenty of arguments like "well it was moral at the time to stone gays, but that changed when JEsus showed up somehow."

Stoning was an OT law. It is not carried through to the NT as a physical punishment. Remember, Jesus came to a people who lived under the OT Law. Jesus died to instate a new covenant. That means the old does not apply and there was a transition taking place during the 1st-century between the OT and NT.

So, it is the OT law that was wrong. Were the Ten Commandments, being in the OT, wrong too?

PGA2.0 228 ludofl3x

During the Old Covenant, an if/then covenant, God illustrated His holiness and purity by laws that addressed the times they lived in (they came from a chattel slave state - Egypt). They were instructed not to adopt thesame practices when they entered the Promised Land. In the case ofmarriage, God's decree was a contract or covenant between one man andone woman. It was a sacred bond (still is) and it was symbolic andtypological of the holy union between Christ and His Bride. Thus, thecovenant between God and Israel was a holy covenant not to be brokenwithout punishment. Since the punishment of sin is death, breaking ofsome of the OT laws required the death penalty.

[a] That the punishment of sin is death, does not imply sin requires death as punishment. What is, does not necessarily need to be. [b]That God prefers death being the punishment for sin to satisfy his personal, [c] might-makes-right justice, does not imply it has to be that way.

PGA2.0 228

So, if you want just laws they must be based on what is actually right regardless of how many people like such laws.[66] Abortion is just morally wrong, except were there is no choice in that the woman and unborn will die in the case of a tubal pregnancy. At least one can be saved. It should not be the woman's right to CHOOSE to kill another INNOCENT human being.[67] If humans are to be treated equally under the law, that does not give some humans the 'right' to decide whether or not an innocent human being is killed.

[66] Also don't forget, just laws must be based on what is actually right regardless of whether an invisible sky magician likes them.

Abortion is just morally wrong, except where there is no choice in that the woman and unborn will die in the case of a tubal pregnancy. At least one can be saved. It should not be the woman's right to CHOOSE to kill another INNOCENT human being.[67]

[67] That is what you claim and it may even be what your god claims, but morality should not be decided by the opinion of a minority or their god.

PGA2.0 228 ludofl3x

You country is a Republic but the party in power or the party that controls public opinion so often packs the courts with liberal judges that think in a particular way that legislates rather than inteprets th...

Indeed. Donald Trump placed many liberal judges in the Supreme High Court, one of them just two weeks before the elections. That is what republican presidents do and that is why now a majority of the Supreme High Court members are liberals.

ludofl3x

I don't think it's got much to do with what's 'morally right," it just addresses why making laws based on morality requires those laws to be changeable with the majority view.

PGA2.0 228

Majority view? Is that what you base right upon? That is an appeal to the people or argumentum ad populum. It is based on the false notion that something is true just because the majority accepts it as true.[65] And what are such laws by the majority based upon can be an appeal to emotion? Nazi Germany's persecution of the Jews was both of those, IMO. They villainized the Jews, then passed laws expressing that bias. Were those laws just? No!

I remember in [a] our discussion on DDO that you criticized my morality and all [b] you could present as an alternative was an even worse one.

Majority view? Is that what you base right upon? That is an appeal to the people or argumentum ad populum. It is based on the false notion that something is true just because the majority accepts it as true.[65]

[65] No, it isn't. If ludofl3x is like me, then he does not believe what you want him to believe. He merely believes in reality.

Chance is a possibility of something happening.

In 1954, Einstein said : "About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. [...] As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but [a] if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. [b] His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws."

Also with regard to God, Einstein stated, "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." "A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."

Some scenarios make sense of our existence others do not. I do not believe an atheistic explanation can be consistent with its starting presuppositions, its causal roots.

[a] A god creating it would make more sense, but [b] it makes less sense that a god is presumed to or exists at all. 

We also have lots of philosophic and empirical reasons to believe He does, the impossibility or improbability of the contrary. Overall, atheism can not make sense of many key aspects of life, such as existence, the universe's origin, and morality. It does not have what is necessary for these three aspects.

I have already explained life, I have already explained existence, and origin, you have not sufficiently rebutted these. 

Morality doesn't matter, because you would have to prove that objective morality exists at all, which you haven't.

With the moral aspect we are dealing with here, atheism lacks a fixed reference point or ideal of comparison. 

Everything lacks a fixed moral point that's demonstratable.

Dogs and cats are two very different species and they see each other as potential prey. But this doesn't mean that they can't get along. In fact, many households have proven that dogs and cats can become best friends. So they have morals even though they are atheists.

secularmerlin 233

If this is your objective moral standard it isn't good enough to satisfy my moral intuition. If that is the behavior and decrees of a perfect moral being I have no interest in being moral whatsoever and instead intend to concentrate my efforts on human welfare and the betterment of quality of life.

PGA2.0 258

Sure it is good enough. As an atheist how do they get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and changing?[81] How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other posts)?[82] How do we identify 'good' when two different people believe the opposite is the case? Who is right then? How does that make sense, two people with opposite views on the same thing both being right? How can it?

[81] [a] Most people get it from their [i] genes, [ii] education, [iii] life experience and [iv] the environment. [b] How do Christians get to a standard that is anything but arbitrary and fixed?

How can good vary and fluctuate in respect to the same issue (and I picked abortion as an example in other posts)?[82]

[82] You really still don't know? Try adopting a worldview based on reality i.s.o. on an invisible sky magician and it should become clear to you.

There are aspects of reality where you believe God is present. Therefore, learning of these parts of reality, how they work without God, would hinder your God-belief, which would be unacceptable. That makes them off limits to you. Hence explaining them to you over and over again has been and would stay being throwing pearls to the swine.

That is a serious drawback of your worldview. Atheists can incorporate real morality in their worldview, while you have to invent an invisilble sky magician to somehow generate morality.

To illustrate something that you may have denied in the mean time: all of your moral claims and questions in that paragraph are ambiguous because they fail to include a reference standard. Ambiguity is good for confusion, the Christian's friend.

PGA2.0 258 to secularmerlin

[ . . . ]

Thus theism andChristianity are more reasonable than atheism in this aspect and others.

Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization. Even if your claims directed at secularmerlin were correct, that would still not imply they are correct for all atheists.

secularmerlin 233

Well let's look at the Yahweh's actions and pronouncements as described by the bible.

Commands, condones and commits genocide.

PGA2.0 258

Nope, He brings judgment on the cultures that inhabited the Promised Land for their wickedness.

Can you prove that the victims of Israelite oppression were wicked?

secularmerlin 233

Holds people guilty until proven innocent (original sin).

PGA2.0 258

God is omniscient, He knows all things. He knows that if it was you or me in the Garden we would have chosen to disobey God, just like Adam. With Adam came the corruption of what God created as good. Adam passed down his traits and influence to his progeny.

[a] Even after your embellishments, [b] I still dislike the biblical god's morality and justice, [c] as I suspect do most people who are not infatuated with him. [d] Assuming God's existence (something yet to be proven), [e] why should those people adopt God's morality and justice [f] i.s.o just relying on their own?

All these great, subjective attributes you praise God with, [g] presumably reflect your and God's personal opinions, but [h] why should people who find the guy a power-hungry, immature jerk, worship [the] him?

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4

Job also understood that God is just. He understood that God would not do wrong, as did his friends, and that human beings are wicked and act wickedly when they live outside of God's good decrees and commandments.

[a] So what? I am sure there were plenty of Nazis around who knew what a wonderful guy Adolf Hitler was and who knew that Jews were wicked. Does that imply any of it is true? No. It is an appeal to authority fallacy.

You cannot demonstrate God is just, moral, best or whatever you want him to be without choosing a reference standard. [a] And you won't do that in the same paragraph, because that would it make it obvious your claims are empty and [b] because you are not as stupid as you pretend, you know that.

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4

In an atheistic worldview, the atheist still has to account for evil.[76] How do you do that as an atheist?[77] Go ahead, explain how this is done. First, what is the standard by which you, as an atheist, judge evil?[78] Can you answer that? I would like to tear it apart in its unreasonableness.[80] [ . . . ]

[76] So you claim, but can you prove it?

How do you do that as an atheist?[77]

[77] Atheists don't do that. I do. People noticed the following:

“that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.

the force in nature that governs and [c] gives rise to wickedness and sin.”

[a] and they decided to call that evil.

[b] Relevance?

First, what is the standard by which you, as an atheist, judge evil?[78]

[78] His own standard.

Can you answer that? I would like to tear it apart in its unreasonableness.[80]

[80] I am sure you would like that. ;)

Partly due to laziness and partlty due to seeing a lecture on God and morality, I only managed to reach post 800. But I did reach the first of my posts, i.e. 798.

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4

Why do we discover (no intent) the laws of nature? These questions are usually left blank by atheists. Do you care to answer them, or should we expect the usual silence?[74]

How does an atheist worldview make sense of any of this? Why is it so inconsistent with its starting points?[75] Why? Because it is an unreasonable system of thought. Its foundation is rotten.

[74] Your question is a contradictio in terminis. Why questions imply intent. There can be no intent in the absense of intent.

Try asking intelligent, clear questions for a change.

[75] Your fallacy of choice is the loaded question. You have so far [a] been unable to demonstrate that an atheist worldview is inconsistent with its starting points and you never will be able to demonstrate that.

@PGA :

You often mention the identity of things that do not appear to have an identity, like the good or right. I'll assume what you mean is meaning.

secularmerlin

The point is that it isn't a stretch that humans would object to getting killed and understand that taking measures against individuals who cannot be trusted not to kill is preferred to no such measure. What else is necessary in order for us to agree that killing people is wrong than the mutual agreement that we would not like to kill each other, be killed by each other or see each other killed?

PGA2.0 230

Tell that to Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping.

Nice dodge.

secularmerlin

[ . . . ] The onus therefore of proving any god(s) or any such code on the one claiming they exist. Humans agreeing to live in (relative) harmony with one another is not evidence for any such.

PGA2.0 230

We can, but others can't. That is the problem. Some do not recognize some of these aforementioned things as wrong.[73] But since you do, are you  proposing an objective moral standard? If so, what is the best you derive that from since I have shown you that people do not have the same views on fairness or wellbeing? In

[73] The world has many problems. People have invented deities, but the problems persist. Religion has even created problems, as people disagreed on which deity to worship.

PGA2.0 231 to secularmarlin

Then, how does such a standard originate from chance happenstance? There are many hurdles to straddle.

How does such a standard originate from God?

SkepticalOne 97

God, by your own definition, is infinite.  That makes god as an explanation infinitely complex.  Occam's razor favors multiple explanations given that they are infinitely less complex.

PGA2.0 231

You are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.

Assuming God the explanation and God the person are the same, how can the former be less complicated than the latter?

You have addressed that in post 278 to SkepticalOne :

"That is not my argument. The explanation is simple. He merely spoke the universe into existence. Very simple in comparison to let's say the Big Bang."

Don't be silly. Calling only part of the explanation the explanation does not make it any more likely. The complete explanation matters. Otherwise you would require an additional explanation for your explanation. In this example : God.

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4

If there is no intention there is no meaning to the universe or behind it. Thus, there is nothing good or bad about anything ultimately. Thus, as an atheist you would be lying to yourself by acting as if there is. Sure you can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing.

What does ultimately mean in that context? What is the difference not having an attribute and not having an attribute ultimately? [a] What is the difference between meaning nothing and ultimately meaning nothing?

PGA2.0 247 to zedvictor4

Why do atheists seek meaning? Why do they understand information and order and detail and complexity that would have to come from chaos, in their worldview? Why would that happen? No reason, right? Reason requires mindfulness. Why is there uniformity of nature, these natural laws that keep sustaining the universe and things in the universe? Why are we able to do science in a universe that is operational by chance happenstance (no intent)?

[a] What relevance does any of that have? [b] What would an atheist doing the effort of answering, without any compensation for the work, contribute to add useful, relevant knowledge to this discussion?

Why would there be God?

...why should we avoid checkmate? 

It is not desirable for our egos. It ends the game and we lose.

It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.

We are subjective in our thinking, but in chess (as in morality), there is the best move in any given circumstance. If you could look ahead to every move 'til the endgame and play the perfect game, there would be a fixed reference point for every move, depending on what opening is employed. I still can't decide if the game would end in a draw with particular openings if both players could make every move the perfect move. They can stunt the potential. I believe in tempo, therefore white has the initial advantage. White is able to open up first and should be one step ahead of black in the development of pieces and opening files in putting pressure on the opponent's position. Having said that, some openings are downright weak (i.e., P-R4). Opening up the middle gives the pieces more freedom although the Indian defences can be very effective too.

There is a set move for white for those fool's mate scenarios I gave you earlier that also depend on a set move for black. These are fixed. If white does 'a' and black responds with 'b' it leads to those forced scenarios of checkmate. We do not have the foresight to determine the fixed and best move every time, like when we get ten moves into the game, both players playing a sound game. There are books on openings in which every scenario has been analyzed and documented for a great number of moves for any given opening. When one player exploits the other player's weakness, there again becomes obvious fixed (best) moves five or ten moves ahead that result in checkmate. Every move of your opponent is forced in these checkmate scenarios.  

Peter, you have already responded to this post, and we've moved the conversation well beyond. Either you're very disorganized or you're trying to pretend we've never had this exchange.

Let me know when you catch up to where the conversation actually is.

#860

#870

#872

#874

3RU7AL

HOW DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF AXIOMS APPLY TO MORALITY??

PGA2.0 217

They are established by the Ten Commandments. Most nations, most cultures, most groups, most individuals of the world recognize the fundamentals of the Ten Commandments as they relate to human beings - do not murder, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, and do honour your parents. In most legal systems these principles are ruled upon.

There is overlap, but there are important differences between most legislations and the 10 commandments, even among the ones you listed, like the ones about lying, covetting, committing adultry and honouring your parents.

ludofl3x

Morality shifts over time, and laws change accordingly, in a democratic society. Christians once thought it was moral to own black people. It was the better moral judgement of others, including some other Christians, that it is in fact immoral, in spite of what's in the bible on the matter.  In any case, at least one group of Christians was reading the bible incorrectly.

PGA2.0 227

Morals shift if there is no objective, fixed standard. Humans make laws that shift. That brings up the question of what is true to what is?

Such ambiguous questions are typically brought up by enemies of clarity (the skeptic's friend).

PGA2.0 193 to secularmism

But you don'tunderstand the problem. You (all of those of accountable age, plus also through the representation of our federal head - Adam) have wronged your Creator by your willful sin. Thus, you are accountable to Him. Your nature has too been affected by Adam's sin. It is no longer open to God. Because of His grace the Son chose to address our problem and make our relationship with God good again. Since He made us for relationship with Him He is willing to fix the wrong without sacrificing His justice and righteousness. A good Judge does not overlook the law or what is right. Neither did God.

In this case the judge wrote the law : “Worshipping me is mandatory. Failure to comply is punishable by death.”

Then God, pointing to a heretic : “Hey you! You failed to worhip me! I am sorry, but the law is clear. I have to punishe you. Otherwise I would be a bad judge.”

I wonder how God would feel when he found himself at the other end of such justice.  I doubt he would still like might makes right justice.

3RU7AL

Without explicit MORAL AXIOMS, your claim to "universal" "objective" morality is indistinguishable from your personal preference.

Please present your moral mathematics.

For example, [MORALMATHEMATICS]

PGA2.0 217

Again, the presentation relies on your merit, your good deeds outweighing your bad deeds. It does not take into account God's moral purity and holiness, and the wrongs we have done that deserve addressing. Remember, God is a good Judge.[63] He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it.[64] Thus, I realize my good deeds do not measure up to His perfection and that I have fallen short of the mark He has set for intimate fellowship and peace and joy with Him. That is why I look to the works of another, the Lord Jesus Christ in setting my record straight.

[63] [a] God is a good judge according to who? Himself? Remember, [b] Adolf Hitler was also a good judge according to himself. Kim Jong Un is also fond of his own justice.

He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it.[64]

[64] So did Adolf Hitler and so does Kim Jong Un.

I suspect your good deed didn't even measure up to AH's imperfection.

PGA2.0 179 to secularism

Whether or not it passes the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there is no universal wrong does it matter?[60] If there is no universal accountability what does it matter if you get away with treating others unfairly?[61] That is the problem with atheism.[62] It has no objective, universal court of appeal. Everything is subjective.

Whether or not it passes the liveability test, some people just don't care. If there is no universal wrong does it matter?[60]

[60] Does what matter?

If there is no universal accountability what does it matter if you get away with treating others unfairly?[61]

[61] Personally, I like getting away with treating people unfairly. It is people getting away with treating me unfairly that I have issues with.

That is the problem with atheism.[62]

[62] That would only be true if we define atheism as a worldview. The worldviews of most atheists are based on reality and therefore tend to include many of reality's problems. Does your worldview exclude reality's problems?

3RU7AL

Please QUANTIFY empirically measurable MORAL AXIOMS.

PGA2.0 183

Morality operates on a different standard than physical objects because it is an abstract concept. Morals are mindful things.

What a coincidence. Opinions and preferences are mindful things too.

secularmerlin

Wow seems like you have found a perfectly reasonable standard for determining the moral correctness of an action which requires no god(s) and no dogma.

PGA2.0 179

No, you are wrong. Although I can reason killing innocent people is wrong, if someone else thinks the opposite it becomes a battle of wills or might unless there is an objective, universal fixed standard of appeal - a should or should not that is universal and fixed. All I am saying is that you can't live by a system of thought that does not treat innocent human beings equally, because eventually, you are going to have the tables turned on you where you are innocent and treated unfairly.[59] While you can argue it matters, how would it ultimately matter in a universe devoid of meaning? And it might matter for you but someone else might not give a damn. [ . . . ]

[59] Indeed. Such things happen in the real world. Are they not possible in your worldview?

People not giving a damn, is that also not possible in your worldview?

Powered by The Force my zeal let me plow through up to post 775.

3RU7AL

There is no "universal" "one-true" language.

PGA2.0 176

So your conclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or true moral values?[55] As I have said before, you can think such thoughts but you can't live practically with those beliefs [56] for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know it is wrong [57], and if you don't I would say you have major problems[58]. There is no, 'Well that is your choice but I would prefer you did not do it.' There is a definite, 'What you are doing is wrong.'

So your conclusion is that because of that there can be no universal or true moral values?[55]

[55] [a] Although it is unclear what a universal or true moral value is, [b] it looks like such things do not exist.

As I have said before, you can think such thoughts but you can't live practically with those beliefs[56]

[56] That a belief is impractical doesn't make it wrong. In school they teach students the Newtonian theory of gravity in stead of the more accurate theory of general relativity. The latter would be impractical in most situations.

for the minute someone cuts in line in front or harms your innocent family members, or tortures you sadistically for fun against your will, you know it is wrong [57]

[57] a) Wrong according to who?

b) In such situations one can probably not think rationally and would find phylosophical considerations unimportant. Hence one's knowledge would then probably not be reliable. In such situations one is guided by instinct and emotions, in accordance with the rules of biological evolution.

c) Why would something being wrong, e.g. according to God's moral standard, imply that there that are true or universal moral values?

[58] If me or my family were tortured, I would have a major problem, indeed. Would you not if you or your family were tortured?

I notice that the way you establish the alleged fact that something is wrong, is by referring to someone's knowledge. I think, that if that is the only way to establish something, all you get is an opinion. Can you think of a counter-example, an example of a fact (in a different field than morality) that can be established only by relying on someone's knowledge?

[a] What if two moral knowledges contradict each other? [b] What if someone knows that snitching one's mischievous friend to the authorities is wrong, while someone else knows that that is right? They can't both be correct. So who is correct and who is mistaken ?

3RU7AL

My personal preference would be foreveryone to stop killing each other.

PGA2.0 176

Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism? Maybe you don't like it (again, adescription) but what makes that wrong for someone who does?

Why is your preference significant if there are not absolute, objective standards, like with atheism?

Maybe you don't like it, but what makes that wrong for someone who does? 

PGA2.0 176 to 3RU7AL

Again, it is God who is wronged. He is just and will not let those who practice evil and will not repent a close relationship with Him and those who do. God has a right to do with His creation as He wishes[54] and He will not punish innocent creatures. Since we are designed for fellowship with Him forever and if we do not choose as much then the option is separation for eternity, which will be hell since you think the moral relativism now is bad. When there are no restraints it will be worse.

If God is just by definition, then his existence will be very hard to prove and I doubt that will ever happen. If that is merely a property of God, then [a] on top of God's existence, you would have to prove his justness. I doubt that will ever happen.

God has a right to do with His creation as He wishes[54] and He will not punish innocent creatures.

[54] According to himself no doubt and being as powerful as he is, he is the one who gets to decide. [a] If I were as mighty as God, I too would like might makes right morality.

I notice that you are again systematically omitting to mention the reference standard for almost all your qualitative claims and questions, making them ambiguous. That contributes to you goal of maintaining confusion (the skeptic's enemy).

3RU7AL

You're basically saying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.

PGA2.0 175

I'm saying without God, a necessary being, what is right is a shifting preference that cannot be locked down. It always shifting and that is what we see with most cultures for they have rejected the biblical God.[53a] Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who is right, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you can call it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixed address.[53b]

[53a] [i] So you claim, but most cultures have rejected most gods. Maybe reality is the way it is because of the rejection of some other god. [ii] Or maybe the reality is the way it is because there are no gods. Or maybe reality is the way it is because so many believe in a god.

Thus, might makes right and wars are fought over who is right, so this 'moral' preference (although I don't know how you can call it right or good without a best to compare good to) has no fixed address.[53b]

[54b] So what? [i] You are supposed to argue that adding your god to a naturalistic worldview would make that worldview a [ii] better tool for generating an explanation for the existence for morality. In stead you are complaning about reality. Yet again.

It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.

You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat? 

I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?

No, you are making a categorical error. One set of evaluations has to do with what is (the descriptive), the other with what ought to be (the prescriptive). If I make the wrong chess move, resulting in my loss to you, it is not morally wrong, just an oversight that affects a game's outcome. It was not my intention to lose, and I played the game for my enjoyment. If I steal and lie to you, and it results in an injury to you, I have harmed you by intent. My evaluation has nothing to do with a moral wrong in a chess game. It does when I intentionally hurt an innocent person for my enjoyment and greed. 

That is no answer at all. An evaluation of chess action isn't descriptive because it causes no intentional harm. Likewise, an evaluation of a life action isn't prescriptive because harm might hang in the balance. You are claiming a difference, but providing no explanation beyond assertion. 'Harm' isn't the metric by which we apply the labels  "prescriptive" or "descriptive".

So, somehow organic molecules happen from inorganic matter 

Methane, water, hydrogen, and ammonia, these were the prominent elements that made up the early earth, and are thought to be one of the key requirements for abiogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiment reduced a controlled environment to these exclusive ingredients, then shot electric sparks through the mixture. The experiment is hailed for its results as it produced amino acids and other “organic” compounds. This essentially proved that in the right conditions, by chance alone, the building blocks for proteins could come into existence. While this experiment did not create life, it took a very unique set of environmental requirements and proved that components of life could naturally occur.

It is from the Book of Numbers which is the fourth book of the Hebrew Bible,

and the fourth of five books of the Jewish Torah. In Numbers 5 the woman has to drink a concoction

that is part water, part dry earth taken from the floor of the sanctuary, and

part an inky residue from a parchment inscribed with a curse. The imprecation

is to the effect that if she is guilty of adultery her belly will swell and her thigh

will rot, referring, almost certainly, to her uterus and genital area. By and large,

critics and translators assume that she is pregnant and that

the effect of the curse is to cause a miscarriage in the guilty. Num 5:28 is explicitly

about the innocent: “She shall be free, and retain seed,” that is, her conscience

being clear, she will carry her child to term.

I am saying that without a reasoning being who created the universe, the universe is without reason for its existence.

Oh boy.

Is that what you're hung up on?

The teleological fallacy?

3RU7AL

ATHESIM HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY ABOUT "THE ORIGINS OF LIFE".

PGA2.0 166 to 3RU7AL

Sure it does. Members of such beliefs speak about origins all the time.

What kind of fallacy is that, claiming that when many people who share a (lack of) belief make claims, the (lack of) belief also makes those claims?

Atheism at best excludes some explanations for the origin of life.

PGA2.0 168 to 3RU7AL

If there is no objective and universal reference point then you do not have right and wrong. You just have 'I like this,' or 'I like that.' 

Morality is a framework that humans use to discern right and wrong but if there is no final measure it is arbitrary, relative, subjective and contingent. How does a shifting system of belief make something right or good? It just forces its views on others.

[a] I don't know what a system of beliefis, but I shall try to answer the question: “How do preferences make something good?” [b] The question assumes that there are preferences that do make something good. I will start from that assumption.

[c] One should ask those with those preferences that claim something is good because of them. [d] Whatever explanation they come up with, according to you, it will be because they like it. [e] Thus, if you are correct, liking something makes it good. Hence, according to you, if preferences make something good, it would be by being liked.

PGA2.0 163 to 3RU7AL

How do you know you commit to God as He is? It is easy to assert such things, but show me some evidence. You see, the Christian God is strongly evidenced. There is 66 writings that in themselves give verification to the reasonableness of His Being.[49] These writings have manyverifications from the world of history and archeology as well that Iassert makes your system weak and not as reasonable or sufficient incomparison.[50] The unity is not of one book but of many that areinternally consistent although often misunderstood.

[49] These are indirect claims by ancient people. Relying on them to support the existence of Yahweh would constitute an appeal to authority fallacy.

[50] Those verifications only verify part of those writings. That some of it is confirmed, does prove all of it.

PGA2.0 162 to 3RU7AL

[ . . . ] Quantitative values such as length, weight, height, size can bemeasured and we have a fixed system of measurement. I argue we do also with qualitative values, by necessity. As with quantitative values there has to be a best or fixed measure as a comparison.

How would one measure the quality beauty? What is the ultimate, fixed reference for beauty?

If two tribes have conflicting or opposite views on beauty, then which tribe has the true view ?

PGA2.0 157 to 3RU7AL

[ . . . ] Although this thread was not created to debate this but rather which worldview better explains and is justified in answering the question of morality, you have not addressed the question. Here it is again:

Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?

[a] I suppose that atheism can be world view if it is considered to be the collection of all worldviews that do not incorporate a deity.

[b]  However, many will have different explanations for morality. I think a better question would be whether nature can account for morality and [c] whether adding one or more deities to nature would sufficiently improve one's ability with the worldview to account for morality to warrant the cost of doing so.

[d] Nature alone can generate morality through evolution by natural selection. [e] In social animals, morality is advantageous. [f] For humans we more or less expect what we see: varying degrees and kinds of rightness and wickedness, more favouring group-thinking [g] (loyalty is good, treason bad) and of course people contradicting each other.  [h] I am not clear on what extra mystery a deity would explain, nor how, especially the Christian one.

PGA2.0 144 to 3RU7AL

Again, atheists usually incorporate naturalism in their belief system, if they have done any serious reflection on origins.

If you do not ascribe to God or gods, what is left?[47] It would be a system of belief that looks to nature or matter for the answers in origins. Without personal being there would be no intent, no meaning, no value, no purpose.[48] If you want to space our existence that one step further back you could pose aliens, but if they too are not eternal or almighy then there must be another cause beyond them.[49] Or you could pose the ridiculous and unbelievable that everything comes from nothing.

[47] How about nature? [a] Most of the people I thought were atheists believe in nature.

[48] There are plenty of personal beings.

[49] Maybe so, but Christianity would still be false.

PGA2.0 119 to fauxlaw

Morality is complicated and there are lots of examples or scenarios of how Israel was to handle the day to day life of Israel under that covenant law. Some of these Old Covenant examples have been adopted into many legal systems and the principles of the Ten Commandments apply in these legal systems. There are laws for murder, stealing, perjury, adultery, built into most (if not all) legal systems. The idea of two or three credible eyewitnesse testimony is a principle still used in courts for proving guilt and innocence. It is where a country deviates from such a rule of law that injustice happens, like in the case of abortion in the USA. The framers of the Consstitution recognized some basic godly principles such as equality under the law for there to be justice.

What evidence can you present that the rejection of group responsibility and inheritance responsibility, as promoted by the Old Testament, causes injustice?

PGA2.0 137 to 3RU7AL

The funny thing about an atheist is that they make themselves or some other relative, subjective human being the object of worship. They become their own authority on all things or leave that in the hands of their idols, their subjective human gods. They pick and choose who they want to believe in every branch of science, or they take other means such as perhaps an atheistic philosopher instead of a scientist as the guru god.

Apparrently I was mistaken in believing I was an agnostic atheist.

3RU7AL

You're putting the cart before the horse.

We can only begin our epistemological exploration right here, within ourselves.

PGA2.0 104

Although we have our reason and logic to work with are we necessary beings? Not if we derive our existence from something or someone else. If that is the case we are contingent beings. Thus, we have to start somewhere else beyond ourselves[46], unless you want to contend that you are all there is and everything is your mind in operation? Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely.

[46] How is that supposed to follow? (No. [a] I am not asking you to repeat all the problems you have identified with reality, nor to repeat the questions you have asked too many times already.)

3RU7AL

We gather data, check it for logical coherence and efficacy.

We (as individuals) are the origin, our individual curiosity is ground zero.

PGA2.0 104

You are not the origin of yourself if you had a beginning. So you have to start somewhere else, besides yourself, even though you are using your mind to reason this out, unless you are all there is. So which is it? Did you begin to exist, and do you owe your existence to something or someone else?

He probably started with his parents in a bedroom. What relevance does that have to morality?

PGA2.0 101 to secularmarlin

Since you say you are an atheist, where do your moral values come from? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right?

When I trace your starting point back as far as I can reasonably go, to origins, how does existence happen? What causes the 'beginning' if you believe there was one. Next, how does something nonliving become living? Then from what is, how do you get what ought to be?

[a] Where do God's moral values come from? Are they just made up? If so, by who, and why are they right?

[b] From what is, how does your god get to what ought to be?

PGA2.0 101 to secularmarlin

Likewise, to understand what I mean you must get my meaning not anything you want to make it be or else we have failed to communicate.

You want that communication to fail to promote confusion (the Christian's friend).

secularmerlin 26

How exactly does the existence of some god(s) solve the problem (if it is a problem) of opinion based morals?

PGA2.0 101

There is a fixed and final reference point with the biblical God. Thus, I have what is necessary for I realize that in and of myself I am not necessary in determining the moral good.

What would prevent people from picking a different fixed, final moral standard, or people picking a changing, subjective moral standard, or people picking your god's moral standard, but changing their mind or disagreeing on what it entails?

secularmerlin 26

Thought experiment time!

If your preferred god came to you in a dream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the"moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow this beings horrible commands?

PGA2.0 101

Why do you think God would do such a thing?

Nice dodge.

It is interesting to me that you acknowledge the subjectivity of chess and still look for a 'best' move. Aren't you the same person that claims there can be no 'best' without a fixed (absolute, universal) reference point? You are contradicting yourself.

You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat? 

I believe you are making a category error. How are evaluations of chess actions and evaluations of life actions fundamentally different...other than you saying so?

Now I am not saying that the meanings cannot change with use if enough people like the new buzzword or new meanings for the word. When that happens, another definition is added to the word meaning in a dictionary.

I'm ever so glad we can agree on this crucial point.

God is eternal. He has no beginning, so the premise does not apply to Him. 

Meh, forget it, I don't have the energy to explain special pleading to you. 

1. With Him, there is a reason for the universe.

You could mean this a couple of different ways:

Perhaps you mean to say that with God, there is a reason for the existence of the universe, that he created it. If this is what you meant then it fairly easy to refute by pointing out that anything could possibly explain a universe would have the standard that god does for existing. 

In another sense you could mean this give the universe reason, as in some reason to exist more philosophically speaking, this doesn't really matter, nor would it prove the existence of a god, it would simply mean that if he did exist he could do this, sorry.

If you meant something else, please do clarify, and if you meant either of those two things, well... yeah just refuted them.

2. God has what is necessary for the universe. He transcends time and space, so He is not of the physical realm, which began.

[a] You would be forced to demonstrate this beings existence, it isn't unreasonable to say that claiming an agent who transcends space and time is a [b] rather huge claim, and would [c] require proportionate evidence. Not to mention, again, just because if something was true it would explain x or y, does not logically follow that that something is true.

3. He is the simplest reason since the Big Bang can morph into many other scenarios, with black holes, wormholes, an expanding and contracting universe, a steady-state universe, multiverses, etc.

No, first of all this is a straw man of Occam's razor, which is to make the least assumptions possible, not be the simplest possible. Lexico says this:

NOUN

• The principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made [a] than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.
  

Second of all, god would not raise to the level of some of these theories or hypothesis, as they each have some contingent or empirical evidence to support them, whereas the [b] god proposition only has, "Would make sense [c] given the facts" [d] with no direct evidence supporting it. As well as it would make one assume bigger and more things, the level of the assumption also matters here. 

4. Experientially and observationally, every cause has an explanation, yet when you get to the Big Bang, you don't know? You trace the cause and effect back to a point in time, a singularity, then no further. With God, that is not the case. We can go beyond the universe.  

"You" is wrong, Nobody knows,

[a] we don't yet have the technology nor the understanding to measure what came before it, if we were to apply the, "Cause and effect only go as far back as time" then it is entirely [b] possible that the universe literally did pop into existence from nothing, [c] this is not using my reasoning, but yours. Not to mention, [d] there has still been no demonstration of a god. 

[a] Any god that did not exist [b] would not be God.

Yes it would. Simply not your definition of god. 

God, as a supernatural Being, is the Occam razor of explanations.

This is incorrect, because [a] you are assuming supernatural things to exist, that a god exists, that the god is super natural, that the god did x or y, and that the god a, b, c characteristics. So no, this is not true either.

[1] What is "chance?"

Lexico (An English and Spanish Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus) defines chance as the following:

NOUN

• 1 A possibility of something happening.
  

  ‘there is a chance of winning the raffle’
  
• 1.1 chances The probability of something desirable happening. 'he played down his chances of becoming chairman
  
• 1.2 in singular An opportunity to do or achieve something. ‘I gave her a chance to answer’
  
• 2 mass noun The occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause. ‘he met his brother by chance’
  

ADJECTIVE

attributive

• Fortuitous; accidental.
  

  ‘a chance meeting’
  

  More example sentences
  

VERB

• 1 no object, with infinitive Do something by accident or without intending to.
  

  ‘he was very effusive if they chanced to meet’
  
• 1.1 chance upon/on/across Find or see by accident. ‘he chanced upon an interesting advertisement’
  
• 2 informal with object Do (something) despite its being dangerous or of uncertain outcome.
  

In this case I am referring to the 2nd definition of chance under nouns:

Chance - "The occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause."

Show me it has the ability to do anything.

Chance is [b] not an agent or something that causes things, but a noun to refer to  [c] an event does not have an intention or cause. It can also be an adjective to describe something that has happened in what may seem unfavorable circumstances. [a] This seems like either semantics or you being dishonest. 

Then your system of thought is irrational and illogical, as I have explained before. I don't think I can reason with you. 

I agree, we're talking past each other , and I don't have the time to sort through your repetitive screeds. I'll go on not torturing little kids for fun even though I don't believe in god.