Total posts: 3,179
-->
@ethang5
Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.This is an incorrect statement in that God will NOT do "whatever". The statement implies,Anything God does is good and just according to his own standard.This statement is untrue, and not the position of the bible. The bible's position is, because all of God's actions are morally good, there are some actions God cannot do, ie, morally bad actions, like lie.Citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard."
Ethang5, who are you addressing?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
why is there life on it?Abiogenesis, and Evolution.Evidence for Abiogenesis:
Again, what do you want me to glean from these links? I opened the first one, and it was highly speculative and downright false.
I.e., "Abiogenesis is the theory... Spontaneous generation was an early model for abiogenesis developed by Aristotle...flies formed directly from decaying material and logs gave rise to crocodiles...Louis Pasteur...disproved spontaneous generation...scientists...working to describe more probable models...which could explain the formation of life...propose a chemical-based theory for the evolution of life...hypothesized that Earth’s early atmosphere had mostly ammonia, water, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide and phosphate and very little oxygen and ozone...they thought...theory is also known as the Primordial Soup theory...propose that these organic molecules may have concentrated in certain locations...duplicated [pure speculation]the atmospheric conditions on Earth proposed by Oparin and Haldane...then introduced pulses of electrical sparks into the chamber [intentional agency]...simple molecules could have been created on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago... current research and debate about abiogenesis now centers around how and why organic molecules may have accumulated in certain areas on the early Earth...additional information that supports abiogenesis."
Again, notice all the lack of surety from the first link. The evidence has always been very debatable and doubtful. As I mentioned before, these theories are not plausible given the agency or lack of it - chance happenstance operating to organize and sustain particular conditions.
Evidence for Evolution:While Evolution has more evidence and is a scientific hypothesis, there is still an abundant amount of evidence for Abiogenesis.
Again, I could list all the presuppositions built into the theory and its beginning presuppositions, like life originating from a common ancestor. That is not demonstratable - we never witness it nor can we repeat it, but we can speculate about what might have happened by presupposing the commonality presupposes the common ancestor rather than a shared environment. We never witness macro-evolution, just micro, which Christianity supports. I could also show how the idea of macro-evolution caught on and how scientists ran with the Darwinian model despite the anomalies and presuppositions.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting,VERB (permits, permitting, permitted)
First, you cut off the rest of my thought. Why did you not include it?
Not allowing or not possible.
The fact that several massive events almost killed all life on earth (and has several times) kinda disproves even the earth was made for life, in fact, you would have to prove it was made at all to get any implications from its being there.Fact or presupposition? You were not there. I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth. How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting, why is there life on it? The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe. Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death?As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process.
That is the fuller context.
How can (several) mass extinction event(s) disallow for life? Pretty simply, eliminate all life on the planet, or prevent said planet from being life permitting anymore. Not to mention we are not just talking about something "permitting" for life, we are talking about something designed for life, by the most intelligent being existent. Therefore mass extinction events that were not caused by that being would put doubt that that being even did create that thing. That's why I doubt very heavily that a god created the earth at all, much less the universe.
At least you are revealing your bias! You believe that the universe and life in it are most likely not designed because of mass extinction. Thus, there is no intent behind either the universe of life, IYO. So that brings to mind how a universe that has no intention to it is sustainable? Why do things happen the way they do? For you no reason, as you give link after link full of reasons. The irony of it all. The universe would be here by chance happenstance unless you have another solution.
I think your view is vastly more unreasonable than anything you can think of to disqualify the biblical account.
Fairy-tale scenario: "Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, the universe exploded into being (from nothing)!"
Consider the following: [a] Besides the heavens, hell, and earth, no other celestial bodies, planets, space stuff, etc, were mentioned beyond being created. There was no importance of such a thing, [b] god did not tell us why they created such a vast array of space. Therefore we have no knowledge if there is actually any use of this space, which would make it reasonable to conclude that all of that other space (besides arguably the solar system we inhabit as well as definitely the sun) is useless and not necessary for god to make. [c] Therefore its existence causes reasonable doubt.
[a] The purpose of the Bible is not to display scientific knowledge but a knowledge of why we, as humans exist (God chose to create us for a purpose - to chose whether or not to know Him), and what went wrong with the universe (sin, thus God imposed curses on the earth and humanity for a PURPOSE - we are only given so much time to either know and enjoy God or reject Him. We observe the consequences of our actions [in Adam], yet we try to explain them away with other reasons).
That is a Christian perspective.
Your universe, devoid of God, has no purpose, no meaning, yet you constantly search for it and find it. Why would that be? Are you just creating a fool's paradise (imagining meaning from the meaningless)? I say you are unless God exists.
[b] We can deduce why God created the vastness of space from the Bible. He did it to display His glory and power. So we know, provided God exists and has revealed (which is the biblical claim, and it is reasonable).
[c] Not more doubtful than disbelief in God. That unbelief is unreasonable. Then you have no justification for the way things are other than sh_t happens. You can't account for the uniformity of nature - why things remain constant by chance happenstance. You have no justification for morality because morality is a mindful thing, and in a universe devoid of mind, how does life arise. Our life is meaningless in the big picture of such a universe. Why are you making it meaningful? You are not being consistent with your starting point; I am. There is no overall purpose for you in doing so. You are a tiny, insignificant human being in a vast expanse of meaninglessness once you discount God. You are trying to find meaning and reason in the meaningless. Go figure. It sounds insane to me, and people have gradually gone insane once they jettisoned God. Life without God is ultimately dead-end meaningless.
Yet, what do you find? You discover that there are laws, fixed certainties that you can make predictions and do science with. You can express these laws you discover are operating in precise, concise formulas. You find things that you assess as beautiful and meaningful for life (the anthropic principle), and your mind can only fathom the earth as necessary in sustaining life in the vastness of the universe. The comprehensibility of the universe is beyond your mind, yet you make countless speculations on it that are not necessary for its existence. You can't tell me why it exists. Without God, there is no reason.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Fact or presupposition? You were not there.Wrong, while it is true that I wasn't there we have evidence for several mass extinction events, 5 to be precise.
All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. Many of these models work on a specific worldview that depends on anomalies that do become too many. Once that happens, as witnessed many times in our distant past's scientific inquiry, the model or paradigm is thrown out, and a better one is employed. If there is no better model, the current one with all its anomalies is continued.
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to the fact
What specifically do you want me to glean from these links? I could provide you with hundreds of links that question such views, and we could then get into a link war where nothing is stated, and hundreds of pages have to be read without a point being identified. I read your first and second links and noticed some of the language used is opinionated, speculative, not factual.
I.e., "Despite compelling evidence that these extinction events were probably driven by dramatic global environmental change...originally thought to have little macroecological or evolutionary consequence...originally thought to have little macroecological or evolutionary consequence...The challenge ahead is to establish the geographical extent...reconstructing the vegetation dynamics associated with these events..."
I.e., "Many aspects of these events are still debated...supposed extinction...are, at best, equivocal...unlikely...are considered to have been particularly detrimental...in the geological past...is associated with widespread stunting of marine organisms...Rebuilding of the marine ecosystem... a number of models have been constructed that can be used for comparative purposes...those associated with global warming...may be crucial...many aspects of these mass extinction events remain little understood, there is still much work to do."
Both links are highly speculative, folks. Where are the facts? You have scientists reconstructing what they believe are models of the past while working solely from the present. They don't observe the original conditions. They recreate them on lots of suppositions. When the anomalies pile up to a critical point, the models are rejected in favour of what scientists consider better models. And you put all your faith in these models and these scientists because you think they are better than the biblical model.
I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth.Provide evidence for this proposition.
A catastrophic event - millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth.
Are there millions, billions, of fossils in rock layers throughout the earth?
Is a catastrophic event or events necessary for this to happen?
I will wait until you answer those two questions before replying.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Amoranemix
He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.The "YHWH" seems to have some strange "moral preferences".Specifically when it comes to slaughtering the children of "non-believers" and keeping foreigners and their children and their grandchildren in "perpetual servitude".
1) God was judging evil and bringing evil people to account. That is reiterated over and over again in the Bible.
2) If God takes an innocent life (allows evil people to take the life of an innocent child, for instance) because of the sins of others and their barbarity, that life will be restored to a better place, a place free of moral corruption and evil.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7ALThird, God is good, which means that to read about Him and understand Him is to see (mirrored) and understand what goodness is.[42] It just is who He is and He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness and what is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evil is doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the evil we do in our moral relativism.[43] With human beings, we witness this moral relativism all around us.[44] One society believes one thing is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough and you will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as I pointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that it does not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings are dehumanized, demonized, discriminated against, and diminished to the point of death.[45]
***
Third, God is good, which means that to read about Him and understand Him is to see (mirrored) and understand what goodness is.[42][42] [a] That is so sweet. You again [b] forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend). [c] Adolf Hitler was also good according to himself. [d] And we can also read about AH's goodness.
[a] Isn't it, though!
[b] Once again, the reference standard is the Bible. It claims to be His revelation to humanity. It is a very reasonable reference standard. First, the said Being inside the pages of these 66 different writings (by around 44 different authors united in themes), all claiming God is speaking to them (and that they are recording the conversation via the guidance of His Holy Spirit), is revealed as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal.
[c] So what? Why does that make him good, morally speaking? Please explain why you believe he is good. Go ahead. I already challenged you to do this. Many fools think what they propose is good, like Hitler, but it misses the actual mark.
[d] Yes, by other human beings who do not claim inspiration from the objective standard of truth, and most of them do not believe Hitler was good in what he did to a massive number of the German population. In fact, most of them are morally outraged by Hitler's evil. They correctly understand that what he did was not good at all, and you say it was good because Hitler thought so does not make it so.
It just is who He is and He allowed us to find out the difference between His goodness and what is evil by giving humanity (in Adam) a choice to know evil. Evil is doing the opposite of what God has said as good. We understand evil since the Fall because God let us experience evil for a purpose, that we might perhaps seek out God, be reunited, and escape from the evil we do in our moral relativism.[43][43] Thus far your fairy tale.
Another claim without justification. You think just asserting something makes it so. Provide your proof so that I can get into a critique of it if you dare.
With human beings, we witness this moral relativism all around us.[44][44] Aha. That is what we see in the real world. It doesn't look compatible with the former.
Yes, we do witness it. The former being a true and fixed objective standard. Your argument does not necessarily follow. It can also follow that without God moral relativism is all we would expect to witness, and that is what we witness when human beings diverge from the path of righteousness - God Himself and His revelation. That is the alternative you deny. Denying something does not necessarily make it so. So, make more than just another assertion. Back up your claims.
One society believes one thing is wrong and another the opposite. Just wait long enough and you will see people reversing their beliefs about goodness, such as I pointed out about abortion. The reason abortion is evil is that it does not treat all human life as equal. Some human beings are dehumanized, demonized, discriminated against, and diminished to the point of death.[45][45] The real world does have its problems, indeed.
So you recognize moral wrong in the treatment of the unborn! Hurray! Evil is doing contrary to the good, and to know the good, you must know the best to compare and contrast moral values.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7ALSecond, we need a fixed standard, a final reference point. God meets that requirement, we do not for He is unchanging and eternal.For what do we need a fixed standard?
We need a fixed objective standard that is unchanging, or else we contravene the laws of logic and can't make sense of morality, the moral good. It can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief, which means whose belief is true to what is?
God could only meet that requirement if he exists, something so far no one has been able to prove.
There are many proofs for God's existence, and regarding morality, one of them is a necessary being to make sense of the moral good. Another is how do you make sense of morality if it is always in flux? How can something that is shifting and has no fixed address be better than something else. How do you compare 'good' to something that shifts? 'Better' concerning what? What is the best? You don't have one. Thus, how do you compare the good? It just shifted.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Please present your ("objective") MORAL AXIOMS.PGA2.0 99God (as revealed in the Bible), as the necessary Being, is required for morals. That is reasonable to believe.[40] I keep explaining why. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal. That is what is necessary.[41][40] OK. So it is not true. It is just something reasonable to believe. I doubt even that.
I never said it is not true. I believe it is true and reasonable to believe as true. You argue the opposite. We both start with core presuppositions - God or no God. I am arguing that without God, you can't make sense of anything, ultimately. I am arguing my belief is more reasonable than your belief as an atheist. Your belief is plain foolish, IMO. You, nor any atheist, has been able to justify your position, when it opposes God, as reasonable or true. I argue adamantly for that and give a supporting argumentation.
I keep explaining why. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal. That is what is necessary.[41][41] You are joking, right? [a] Morality is possible without any of that. They may be [b] terrible moralities (the sort of moralities we see in the real world), but [c] no god is necessary for them.
Wrong. I am serious. I do not joke about such serious matters. What you are doing is making a fallacious appeal to emotion (pity) and appeal to ridicule. There is an underlying insinuation here. You are attempting to bypass justifying why these attributes are unnecessary. Your appeal to pity is a way of making my argument appear irrelevant to the point made (i.e., what a schmuck to believe such things - "You have got to be joking, right? If not, I feel sorry that you could believe such things. Poor you. You are so naive."). You are trying to make it seem that any point of view that opposes yours is false. You are trying to get others to trust your evaluation by making my argument seem like a joke without giving ANY justification for doing so. Your appeal to ridicule is to lampoon my view and alienate it from the audience without providing why your statement is relevant to what is necessary.
[a] Again, you make an assertion. Justify it.
[b] They are not moral without a fixed reference point (I reiterate, again and again). They are preferences. What makes a preference right or wrong morally? A preference is a subjective feeling. It may also be felt and favoured by a group (the likes and dislikes).
[c] Again, an assertion that has not been justified. Quit your fluff and give some substance or at least an argument rather than a statement. Why should I believe what you say? No reason so far. Who are you to preach to me about what is necessary without justifying your stance as logical or reasonable?
PGA2.0 99 to 3RU7ALFirst, God isobjective in the sense that He knows all things and is thecreator of the universe and life on earth. [ … ]Does your god really know all things, or merely all true, knowable things?
I don't understand the question. You can't know something unless it is true. Knowledge conforms to truth. If you have a false belief, it is not knowledge. God is the truth. He knows all things, and concerning His creature - the human - knows all things that they think and whether those things are true or not. He knows when you think untrue things. He does not think untruths. Not only this, He is responsible for all things and because of Him, they are sustainable and hold together. Thus, there is nothing about everything He has made or about Himself that He does not know.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
No, it is not. There is nothing good about Hitler murdering countless millions. He was evil, not good, and you do not know the difference, which points to your standard of judgment as being morally deficient. As I said before, you can espouse such beliefs, but you can't live by them. They do not meet the experiential test, which you ignore, nor meet the logically consistent test. If you were a Jew in Hitler's Germany, you would more than likely be dead, making Hitler's beliefs unlivable for vast numbers of people. Logically, good must have a fixed best as an appeal, or it becomes meaningless.
God is a standard in only in the sense that he is used (chosen) as a standard by his followers.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. The biblical God meets what is necessary for morality. Please show me that a subjective human being does. Go ahead. Quit your bluff and fluff and show some substance to your position. So far, it is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
[39] Necessary for what?
That was answered. You keep asking these irrelevant questions because you do not read the post. The thread's subject is morality and which position, the atheist's or the Christian's, makes sense of and is necessary for morality.
And why would omniscient, eternal and unchanging be necessary for that?
Because to determine 'good,' you need a fixed best for comparison, a fixed standard, not something that is constantly changing depending on the whims and opinions of limited mindful beings. Knowing all things means you can determine what is good and evil in all circumstances. By nature, God is good. By nature, we are not. Starting in Eden, our relativism makes our morality a shifting standard that can mean the opposite depending on who holds the view. Our minds are limited in what they can perceive. God, as omniscient, is not. He can perceive all things.
Being eternal means that His unchanging nature has always been what it is - good. Thus, He does not derive goodness from something else, nor change His mind, which would make something else sovereign over or above God.
There is one more thing that think is also necessary to be or provide a good moral standard: existence. AH scores badly in that department, but his existence in the past may suffice.
I'm not sure what you mean again. Should that be, "There is one more thing that I think...?
I have already stated that, over and over. Not only existence but conscious of existing. What you seem to be insinuating is that God does not exist. Prove it. You can't, being limited in knowledge.
As I have argued over and over, not only in this thread but every other I have engaged in; God is reasonable to believe in, more reasonable than atheism.
How do you leap from what "IS" to what "OUGHT" to be?PGA2.0 95I base it on God's prescriptive decrees and commands - an authority and necessary being who knows everything and reveals what should be. Thou shalt not kill (murder). Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not lie. Love your neighbour as yourself, etc.You forgot to answer his question.
A being is necessary for ought, and a necessary being for fixing that ought as a moral right. Or wrong. You are not that being. Why should I believe what you are selling? It does not exist.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
For example, HUME'S GUILLOTINE [LINKPGA2.0 85I listened to the whole thing and agree with some of it. What is the main point that you want me to glean from it?Any artificial intelligent being would be a programmed being. It would only be as good as its maker designed it to be. Its input would determine what kind of moral actions it took.However intelligent or wise that AI may be, it will never be able to deduce an ought from it's knowledge of the real world. Some fundamental oughts, i.e. goals have to be programmed into it.Goals are chosen. You prefer God's goals. Nazis prefer AH's goals. I prefer Mohandas Ghandi's goals.
Goals are chosen based on what - preference? What makes conflicting preferences good? Funnily enough, many of Gandhi's 'preferences' were biblical, such as turning the other cheek, love for your neighbour. But that is beside the point.
1) What makes Gandhi's preferences good if all we are is biological bags of atoms?
2) Why is Gandhi the necessary standard, and what happened before and after him?
So you start from God's oughts, which he allegedly revealed. So you can't deduce what ought solely from what is either.
You start from your position of the highest authority, or else why would you believe it? That, for you, appears to be Gandhi. Is that position the necessary position, and if so, why?
An ought can only come from a personal, intelligent, mindful being. You can't demonstrate it comes from something devoid of these qualities. Nature just is. As for beings, if everything is relative, subjective shifting preference, what makes that 'good?' How do you get an ought from a shifting standard? You don't. You get a preference enforced by might as in Hitler's Germany.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened. Very simply, God spoke, and it was so. He said, let there be light, and there was light. He said, 'Let Us make humanity in our image and likeness,' and it happened according to His will, His agency, His intent.Clearly you don't understand Occum's Razor.
Defend your claim.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 85 to 3RU7ALThe biblical God is described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God. Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know what is good and we have the best to compare values against, provided He exists.[40] Without Him or such an omniscient, unchanging, eternal, omnipotent God what is your fixed standard? Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since you claim to be a deist, describe why your god out does my God in reasonableness.[40] You again forgot to mention the reference standard to avoid clarity (the Christian's enemy). [a] Assuming you implicitely meant God's moral standard, then [b] so what? [c] Adolf Hitler (AH) was necessary for us to know what is good according to AH and [d] we have what is best according to AH to compare values against. [e] Without AH, what is your perishable standard? [f] Let us test its sufficiency and reasonableness. That is all I ask of you. Since you are a theist, describe why your God outdoes AH.
I'm sick of you guys making false charges like this. I have mentioned the reference standard many times - the internal biblical evidence in conjunction with external historical evidence. Not only this, I have given various philosophical and logical arguments, the one presented in this thread (the moral argument) being one of them that support the biblical God. I have invited you and others to show the reasonableness of these arguments (i.e., the moral argument) from your standpoint (without such a God). The overall/constant theme is 1) to ignore any proof/evidence by the atheist (he doesn't present any), or 2) provide countless links that I am then required to read through (pages and pages) instead of highlighting the main point and what he/her wants me to glean. So instead of a two-way conversation, they usually attack the Christian position alone.
The onus is for both the atheist and the theist to present their case. Here is a reminder of the thread's theme - Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
OP: "This topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based...By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods."
Defend your belief.
[a] The Christian God is the only God I believe in, and the only one I defend. I have stated that to you and others before.
[b] So what, you say?
You forget so soon - "The biblical God is described as an omniscient, unchanging, omnipotent, eternal God. Thus, that revealed Being has what is necessary for us to know what is good..."
[c] Hitler's view is subjective and relative and does not have what is necessary for us to know the good. It begs why his opinion is any better than anyone else's. Since you make the charge, how do you think it was good? It is nothing more than preference unless he can provide a universal, unchanging reference point. Did he demonstrate that regarding the Jews, Gypsies, gays, the disabled, political opposition and his handling of them? Are you saying what Hitler did was good? Are you saying that the dehumanizing, discriminating, and torturing done against these groups by putting them to death in mass was good? Is that your point? Can you justify it?
You seem to think that just because someone can state something as 'good' makes it so for that person. That is an error in your thinking. It defies logic and reason when speaking of qualitative values. If Joe thought it was good to shoot you and kill you, would that make it good? That is your argument in a nutshell regarding Hitler and those he chose to kill.
[d] According to him? How is Hitler's opinion about good best? Why does he become the best standard? Show me his opinion was the one we should all follow because it is necessary.
[e] It is not perishable, providing this God exists, and it is reasonable to believe He exists. The biblical standard, the Ten Commandments, has what is necessary and is sensible to believe. The commands that apply to human beings (e.g., murder, stealing, lying, coveting, adultery, honouring parents) are found in most cultures of this world. The ones that neglect them are unlivable, such as Nazi Germany.
[f] Are you justifying Hitler's standard as good? If so, show me how it is good. I gave you what was necessary for anything other than mere opinion - 1) a revealed Being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, 2) is the fixed standard that is best that no better can be used in the comparison. Hilter is a relative being whose standards changed during his limited life. He was not necessary for morality since people before and after him have different views on what is good that contradict his views. That begs why he was right in his assessment. Show me he was, that what he did SHOULD be done by everyone because it is morally good to torture, kill, and dehumanize those groups that he did not like or value. Are you willing to have a formal debate on Hitler's standard as being the ultimate standard, you defending that position, or are you making a point you cannot defend adequately?
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 85 to 3RU7ALBut beyond that distinction, only moral beings can make ought statements, but how did we first cross the divide to get an ought from an is, that is matter, the physical universe, in the case of naturalism or atheism, where a personal being is excluding as the beginning link of the chain?[39] Somehow we got from an is to an ought through naturalistic means according to naturalism, devoid of God/gods.[39] Indeed we did. See [10] in post 798.
What I believe Hume was saying is that we cannot derive the moral from the amoral.
Post 798:
Please take note of the difference between qualitative values and quantitative values. I describe what I like. That is. I do not prescribe what I like as a must that you like it too. I like ice-cream is a personal preference. I do not force you to eat it too as a moral must. If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one. The words 'should,' 'must,' or 'ought' denote a moral prescription.[17] No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too. That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy. There is no bridge between what is and what ought to be in that one is a mere description of what is liked or what is while the other is what should or must be the case.[18] Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance. How is that more reasonable? Am I missing something here?[17] One should, must or ought according to a standard or goal. In case of moral prescriptions they refer to a moral opinion or standard.[18] Actually there is, but it is not a philosphical bridge. That is, one does not correctly reason from only facts to an obligation. On the other hand, opinions and standards have causes in reality.
Notice you say we "indeed" did. We did cross the bridge, the divide between the physical non-personal, non-mindful to the non-physical personal and mindful, yet you provide no means of how this happened. Nice avoidance of the problem. Nice assertion with no proof (Indeed we did). Your worldview, without God, is devoid of a suitable or necessary explanation.
Second, only mindful personal beings are capable of making prescriptive judgments. A rock or chemical composition is not. It just is. It is not conscious. It does not think. How does something that is, have the agency to become something conscious of itself? But even if this could happen, there is another problem there too. If there is no absolute, objective reference point, a necessary unchanging mind, whose relative mind is the one we SHOULD trust? Good in whose opinion? So, there is still the problem the is becoming the ought. The ought is a mindful problem. "Nature" is not mindful; it just is. There is No-Ought-From-Is (NOFI). How do you get from the non-moral to the moral (In the same manner, how do you derive logic from something devoid of logic)? You are appealing to a set of values from what is. There is supposedly (from an atheist perspective) no intelligence behind nature, yet intelligent beings are derived from it. Somehow from the unintentional, you get intentionality, beings capable of prescribing. But how can they prescribe the good, the right, the morally just and righteous from what is? Does just saying "I like ice-cream" make it right? Righteousness has to be based on the righteous, the ideal, and that something can only be another mindful being, but which one? You are not the ideal, neither am I.
Truth is based on what is the case, the facts. Mindful beings understand facts. Without such beings, things are. Why should I trust that you know what actually is the case through natural means? You are making moral distinctions based on nature. And, why are your preferences any better than mine? We are the complete opposite on moral issues, such as abortion. We are opposite on how human morality is derived. Who the hell are you to tell me what is moral unless you can convince me that your standard is necessary and reasonable to believe is actual? Nature is quantitative. Values are qualitative. There is a different standard in measuring the two. Yet without the ideal how can we measure the thing? It has to have a best to measure it against otherwise it is meaningless. Additionally, you holding a value does not make it objectively binding on me unless there is an objective fixed reference point or measure. The right needs a set value, an unchanging value.
What we run into is the Naturalistic Fallacy, defining morality in terms of natural properties. Natural properties are tangible properties. You can't grab hold of goodness. It has no tangible qualities. It is an abstract concept. A value has to have a valuer. Nature, in itself, has no valuer. That valuer has to be the ideal or else we have nothing fixed to measure values against. Without the ideal, the best, values are turned on their head and become illogical.
How did we get from an is to an ought according to you?
Ought derives from a necessary mindful being - God.
We were derived from the ought, a necessary mindful being - that simple (Occam's Razor). We don't have to go through all kinds of complicated explanations of how things happened. Very simply, God spoke, and it was so. He said, let there be light, and there was light. He said, 'Let Us make humanity in our image and likeness,' and it happened according to His will, His agency, His intent.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Do you perhaps have some indicationthat other humans might also dislike being chained to a grind-stone?PGA2.0 80Yes, that is chattel slavery, IMO. I believe that is morally wrong and I determine this based on what I consider a necessary or self-evident truth by pointing to a necessary being revealing it.Most of us disapprove of chattel slavery. A popular reason is religion, another is valuing human freedom.
Are you saying that chattel slavery is objectively wrong, or is this just your own subjective moral preference? If someone likes to have chattel slaves, then to them, is it right?
Is being free your moral preference? What about those who think otherwise of you, that you should not be free? Are they objectively wrong, or is this too just their moral preference?
Your inconsistent language and moral stance imply an actual objective good to judge chattel slavery as wrong. Then you say elsewhere that morality is nothing but a preference. Thus, why are you getting so worked up about what other people believe??? Why should it concern you? It is none of your business what others do to others, even yourself, as long as they think it is "right." It is their PREFERENCE. Stop being a hypocrite and dictating what others should think UNLESS you can show that it is objectively, universally, morally wrong to own chattel slaves. The Christian system of thought can. Yours can't. You borrow from it all the while trying to undermine it. The term for that is hypocritical.
3RU7AL 82 to PGA2.0You say that you have moral preferences.And then you say that your personal moral preferences are not "preferences".You're basically saying your moral preferences are universal and authoritative.He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.
God is the necessary objective moral standard since He knows all things, revealing (the factual) that His nature is good. An objective fact is different from a subjective preference. A subjective preference or opinion is not morally binding on all people. An objective moral good or best has a fixed and unchanging identity.
God does not issue moral preferences but moral commands. He is consistent. A moral relativist like yourself is not consistent. Moral relativism is a self-refuting standard. On the one hand, you say, "everything is relative; everything is a preference." On the other, in contrast, demanding that I treat your statement as an absolute, everything is indeed relative except that statement; everything is preferential except that your statement is not preferential. So, as always, you are a walking contradiction. You say one thing but have no footing to prove it true. Why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? You subjectively like what you push, but why should I?
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 80 to 3RU7ALWell bring up your objections so we can discuss them. I gave my opinion and I am wiling to back it up for anyone who wishes to engage. So far you have avoided yet another question I posted.That reminds me of someone I have debated on DDO. ;)
Your posts got tedious because you showed a particular closed mindset, and you never corrected your run together words. I have to edit every post of yours. There must be something wrong with your copy and paste feature. I would consider a formal debate with you on some of these topics.
Please make your preferred definition of "morality" EXPLICIT.PGA2.0 80I already gave what I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is not preference.[36] Morality has to be based on what is actually good, not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like or desire. A moral is something that should or should not be so.[37] Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know the difference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed, absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.[38]You assume that something can be actually good without being a preference. Can you prove that is even possible?
I have already given you a reasonable proof. You keep glossing over it. The laws of logic, the law of contradiction, identity, and middle exclusion. They are necessary, or else the value loses its meaning. It can mean anything, the opposite thing to different people.
I already gave what I believe is necessary and for good reason, and it is not preference.[36][36] Perhaps, but you have failed to provide a definition for morality.
Morality - the extent to which something is right or wrong.
Definition of morality
1a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson ended his lecture with a trite morality
1a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson ended his lecture with a trite morality
b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson"Aesop's Fables" is famous as a morality.
2a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct the basic law which an adequate morality ought to state— Marjorie Grene
moralities plural: particular moral principles or rules of conduct we were all brought up on one of these moralities— Psychiatry
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct admitted the expediency of the law but questioned its morality
4: moral conduct: VIRTUE morality today involves a responsible relationship toward the laws of the natural world— P. B. Sears
Morality has to be based on what is actually good, not a preference. A preference is an opinion and personal like or desire. A moral is something that should or should not be so.[37][37] In other words, it's a preference.
A preference is a personal, subjective like or want. Because I like something does not mean you have to like it too. Moral good is something that, whether you like it or not, that does not change its value. You should do what is good regardless of whether you want to or like doing so or not.
You should like ice-cream. There is no moral compulsion or obligation to like ice-cream.
You should like killing innocent human beings. There are moral compulsion and obligation not to kill innocent human beings.
What you do is blur the line between the two.
Thus, I raised the question of how can a subjective being know the difference between right and wrong if there is no objective, fixed, absolute standard - the best in which to compare goodness to.[38][38] I assume you mean, moral and immoral iso right and wrong. It could do so by referring to the pertinent moral standard.
What does 'iso' mean? A moral standard identifies the difference between right and wrong. If there are two different moral standards, it begs, which is the correct one. If a person lived on the border between two countries and was a citizen of both, and each had an opposing moral standard, how would they determine the right?
Country A: Abortion is wrong and punishable by death.
Country B: Abortion is right. Feel free to have one.
Which is the correct standard? In Country A, the person will lose their life by having one. In Country B, the person takes the life of an innocent human being with no consequences. Are you saying it is okay for them to do either or both? You see, abortion has lost its moral identity. It can mean two opposite things, thus how can they both be right? Once the line is blurred on right and wrong, anything can pass. The question is, can you live consistently in such a world?
Not only that but within a particular society, say Country A, subgroups and individuals are holding contrary views to the "law of the land." Why are they wrong if a preference is the order of the day? No, you say. Then how can they be punished if they believe the opposite? (Goodbye justice)
Is the majority always in the right?
Is it the minority who holds power? Are they right? If so, then how could anyone outside Nazi Germany condemn what the Nazis did? It would be good to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays, and political opposition in Nazi Germany. How can you say otherwise? To each (preference) his/her own.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
THE LAW = CODIFIED MOB RULEIn Hitler's Germany the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other 'undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33] All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time. It defies logic (the law of identity - A=A). At least one belief has to be wrong.[34] So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society that kills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who live in that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for good can mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can be the opposite of another society.[35] It begs the question of which is the actual right for logically they both can't be.
***
In Hitler's Germany the 'codified mob rule' or law was to round up Jews and other 'undesirables' and kill them. Fine, unless you happen to be a Jew, right? Then the practice is definitely wrong.[33][33] According to you perhaps and according to me, but not according to the Nazis. Your god also didn't do anything to prevent it.
So, what you are saying with "according to you or me" is a big fat maybe. Maybe it is wrong for us, but it is not wrong for the Nazis.
You: The killing of Jews by the Nazis is wrong.
Nazis: The killing of the Jews is right.
Your relativism says there is no true moral identity. (A=A) You say for some A=B, C, D..., but never A=A. So, it is perfectly permissible for the Nazis to torture and to kill innocent human beings (the Jews) — each to their own. Thus, you can never say torturing little children for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you don't like it. I would be preventing you from accessing my loved ones if you could not tell the difference between a moral right and a moral preference. All you display in your conversations is a preference.
You are a moral relativist, totally uncommitted to the truth. You make up the truth. It ain't true until you say it is true. The problem is your system of thought is unlivable. It not only does not pass the logical, consistent test, but it also fails the experiential and practical test. As soon as someone turns the tables on you and makes you and your family the innocent scapegoat, the ones about to be killed, then you know it is wrong.
All your claim does is make one society or culture prefer one thing and another the opposite. In some countries abortion is illegal and others it is legal. What is your preference? The problem is that two societies, groups, or individuals who advocate opposite standards as good cannot both be correct in their thinking at the same time. It defies logic (the law of identity - A=A). At least one belief has to be wrong.[34][34] So, if society A claims that strawberry icecream is the tastiest, while society B claims chocolate icecream is the tastiest, then who is right? They can't both be right. At least one belief has to be wrong. In order to determine who is right, which icecream really is the tastiest, a personal being who has revealed himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable and eternal would be necessary to determine what is tasty because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the tasty' (since there is a best). Correct?
You confuse and conflate categories. You make a categorical error in thinking. You confuse something that tastes good (ice-cream) with something that is morally evil (killing innocent human beings). You are switching what a quality is (the moral good/evil) with what a quantity is (taste of the ice-cream). One set of values are physical, tangible objects (how many, what shape, what do they feel like); the other, intangible mental objects or concepts of the mind. One set, the tangible, describes. The other set prescribes what should be.
A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. An example is a person learning that the game of cricket involves team spirit, and after being given a demonstration of each player's role, asking which player performs the "team spirit": team spirit is not a task in the game like bowling or batting, but an aspect of how the team behave as a group.[2]
You are using your five senses in 'tasting' the ice-cream, the sense of taste.
You can't use the five senses in determining 'good,' for it is not a physical object like ice-cream. You cannot taste, hear, see, feel, or smell 'good." It is an abstract, intangible, non-concrete, non-physical concept. Thus, the comparison between taste and morality does not work in the examples given.
Then we could ask that being and if it were to grace us with an answer we would know which icecream really is the tastiest. Otherwise the Nazis could come to power and decide that mokka icecream is the tastiest.
Again, you conflate two different categories, what tastes good (subjective opinion) with morally evil (objective fact). Ice-cram has nothing to do with morality unless someone uses an ice-cream to choke another person to death or harm them.
Morality is of the mind, but without an objective, an absolute, universal, omniscient, unchanging reference point - God - answer me why your moral pronouncements are any BETTER than my opposing views.
So who decides? You propose might makes right. Thus, a society that kills or enslaves others by mob-rule cannot be wrong by all who live in that society but the idea is morally and logically flawed for good can mean whatever a society deems it to mean and the meaning can be the opposite of another society.[35][35] You are mistaken. Language is conventional. Societies decide the meaning of words, including the words good and tasty. There is a lot of ambiguity and confusion surrounding the meanings of the word good. Some people grab the opportunity to claim that that confusion can only be removed with God.
Different conventions have equivalencies. Those equivalencies do not mean the opposite. The words used have the same or very similar meanings. Yes, sometimes cultures have additional nuances built into the word.
While a particular culture can provide a meaning different from the overall understood meaning and have more elaborate additional interpretations, it would be impossible to communicate if the language barriers did not have equivalencies. Similarly, I know that in some parts of the world, the French word 'oui' can take slightly different pronunciations. However, the word still means the same thing (yes), and it is understood that when you are in Mauritius, the sound is not quite the same as in Paris, but the meaning is the same.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 80 to 3RU7ALA preference is a like or desire for or against something held by an individual or group. How does a preference (I like ice-cream) make that anything other than a personal taste or a group of people all liking the same thing?[31] They like the taste. How does that make tasting ice-cream morally right?[32] That would be equivocating to different things that are not related.[31] That would depend on the preference. For example, a preference of icecream over horse manure could be a survival necessity.
You are again equivocating, confusing two different things.
One is a logical statement about survival (or what will kill you), the other about what you like to eat.
"'A' is right" is a moral statement. It makes a statement about an intrinsic moral value, about something that ought to be done.
"'A' tastes good" is subjective like and feelings. It makes a statement about what someone likes to eat.
Greg Koukle put it this way (paraphrasing); a moral ought is different from a rational ought. The first is a right or wrong based on what is ethical; the other is a right or wrong based on what is logical. I like that distinction. He explains that making a statement about ice-cream is a personal (subjective truth) taste since I am tasting the ice-cream. It does not taste me. Thus, it applies to me. It is different from making an objective moral value statement (objective truth) because it no longer applies strictly to me but everyone. It is a universal truth that cannot be changed by our feelings. It is true whether or not you believe it to be so. Thus, your personal likes or feelings do not change the truth of what is the case. The truth depends on you discovering it, not making it.
Likewise, a preference is different from an ought since it describes something (you liking ice-cream), whereas a moral ought is a prescription. It prescribes what you ought to do. Moral ought prescribes an obligation, what should be done.
[32] Personally, I don't think it does. Do you think otherwise ?
Then, you disagree that preference makes things right, at least in the area of tasting ice-cream.
Personally? Don't think? Please notice again; you are making it subjective to your opinion (a preference). Why should I value it if it is not objectively so, universally applying to all, the actual case? Are your thoughts so valuable that I SHOULD believe them?
Greg Koukle again makes what you just said stand out. He asks, how can a relativist make a moral decision? By deciding for themselves exactly what you did. You THINK. Why should I value what you think if it is just a subjective opinion? You are a moral relativist (Yuk)! You continually show me that you cannot make sense of morality. His statement on not identifying a thing from its opposite is fitting because, as you have shown above, the identity between the two is meaningless.
Very well said by him, and I encourage you to check out the entire article!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
[1] What is "chance?"Show me it has the ability to do anything.Let’s start by looking briefly at a few of the possible methods by which abiogenesis could occur by chance. There are a few basic theories by which abiogenesis could happen, and each one has some slightly different environmental requirements in order to occur.
You once again ignored one of my questions. What is "chance?"
You assume it could occur by these (intelligence using) methods, but each in its own right is riddled with problems. On top of that, you assume that a mathematical probability (chance) can do anything.
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.
Please notice the loaded language here. And notice what it has in common with God, a mind/minds produced it in a closed system, controlled environment. Notice it also failed to produce life, by your own admission. So, even in this simulation, a mind was behind it, giving the experiment agency.
The experiment has been proven invalid or problematic for several reasons.
1. It was doubtful the conditions and atmosphere of early earth were replicated. There is disagreement on what the early conditions were.
2. The chemicals themselves provide problems.
"a) ammonia absorbs ultraviolet radiation from sunlight and would be quickly destroyed by it, and b) the lack of organic molecules in the earliest rocks indicates that methane was not present in abundance...most of the hydrogen would have been lost to space, and the remaining methane and ammonia would likely be oxidized."
2. During the '70s and '80s, the “reducing atmosphere” theory caused doubts about whether oxygen was present which would inhibit and destroy the "prebiotic chemical pathways" from forming these amino acids and organic compounds.
3. The experiment was repeated by others with different results.
4. The early earth conditions are thought to be hostile to the Miller-Urey experiment and life's building blocks.
5. The experiments required the agency of intelligent human beings to produce any results at all. You do not get the building blocks of life by just mixing or leaving these chemicals together.
6. The theory once disproven was still taught and indoctrinated into students by scientific texts.
Hachimoji DNA is one of the latest examples of mankind creating DNA within a lab environment. This synthetic version of DNA is different from humanity’s DNA in that it has eight letters rather than a mere four, which is assumed to be a benefit in that it may allow for more efficient information storage. DNA is created and manipulated using a synthetic biology lifecycle method. This method allows researchers testing against a great number of variables to produce desired results. While these processes aren’t exactly “from scratch” and take certain conditions for granted, it goes without saying that this level of progress certainly indicates that it is possible for life to occur naturally.
Again, the whole paragraph is rife with assumptions and human agency. Once again, intelligent human beings are creating and manipulating the conditions with their build in assumptions of benevolence to produce the desired result. The paragraph smacks of agency and assumptions - mankind creation, assumed to benefit, created and manipulated, produce desired results, not from scratch, take CERTAIN conditions for granted, certainly indicated...life occurs naturally. What is natural about this experiment? It is all designed to produce the desired result.
Genesis 1:26-28
26 Then God said, “[h]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and [i]let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [j]moves on the earth.”
You have not shown me "chance" at all. You have shown me your mind is working from a materialistic perspective, that is all. From my Christian perspective, you have shown me mindful beings trying to replicate the greater mind - God.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The fact is that Einstein also said that God does not play dice with the universe, and Einstein had a concept of God.You are not aware of the vast time difference between Einstein's comments on God. Einstein said God does not play dice in 1926. In 1954, one year before he died,he wrote a letter that said, “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.” This shows that you manipulate facts to support your claim.
I think you should investigate further.
Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion, and a personal friend of Einstein, had other thoughts on the subject, including quotes also from 1954. Einstein believed in "a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience" Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 255, and elsewhere stated that he was not an atheist, and said to Hubertus zu Löwenstein that what made Einstein really angry what when people quoted him in support of no God (See citation [22] in the article).
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I have admitted the thought of being the only one is absurd.Which Church flavor do you subscribe to?I am non-denominational. I believe the body of Christ is not an organization or a building but those who believe in Jesus Christ and what He says and did.Hi PGA2.0I have enjoyed reading your posts. But I have a question for you about the church. I don't want to divert the topic. So would you like me to pm you or to start a new topic or are you ok with it being added here?
Thanks, Tradesecret,
If you think it is worthy of a new thread, then please go ahead, or just private message if you want. I always enjoy those conversations. I will be fairly busy this week and the first part of next, so I might not get too many posts between now and then.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
We don't know what the cause is, suggesting anything to be the cause is presumptious.
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.
Not to mention we have lots of philsophic and emperical reasons to believe god does not exist
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.
With the moral aspect we are dealing with here, atheism lacks a fixed reference point or ideal of comparison.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Abstract:During the evolution of cooperation it may have become critical for individuals to compare their own efforts and pay-offs with those of others. Negative reactions may occur when expectations are violated. One theory proposes that aversion to inequity can explain human cooperation within the bounds of the rational choice model, and may in fact be more inclusive than previous explanations. Although there exists substantial cultural variation in its particulars, this ‘sense of fairness’ is probably a human universal that has been shown to prevail in a wide variety of circumstances. However, we are not the only cooperative animals, hence inequity aversion may not be uniquely human. Many highly cooperative nonhuman species seem guided by a set of expectations about the outcome of cooperation and the division of resources. Here we demonstrate that a nonhuman primate, the brown capuchin monkey (Cebus apella), responds negatively to unequal reward distribution in exchanges with a human experimenter. Monkeys refused to participate if they witnessed a conspecific obtain a more attractive reward for equal effort, an effect amplified if the partner received such a reward without any effort at all. These reactions support an early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion.As you can see from above, morality is a product of evolution.
I did not read the article. I responded to your comments. My time is limited at the moment.
Again, a particular response is generated by the environment and human or animal conditioning. So what? What is good or bad about that? Cooperation is only desirable when food is in abundant supply or a mutual hunt will benefit all parties concerned. When there is just enough (negative response) for one particular member to survive, then what? The other thing is that human "experimenters" rig a system for a particular outcome. The animal learns quickly what is required for it to eat or survive.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
...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.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
I wanted to read past past 125, butthen I was overwhelmed by laziness.
Please fix your compute program glitch that keeps running words together. I have corrected the errors below (as I did in your last post), but I left the one above as an example.
PGA2.0 20 to SkepticalOneYou continue to bring up these red herrings, as if I had the time to examine every worldview. Truth is confirmed or refuted by the worldview examinination and once what is true cannot at the same time be false. That is a logical contradiction. Thus, if Christianity is true, other belief systems cannot also be true except where they agree with Christianity. As I have said many times, your worldview does not have what is necessary for it to be true.You haven't proven Christianity yet.
That was not my intent in that paragraph, as you can see. I am ARGUING that two opposing worldviews stating opposites cannot both be true on any given subject matter. I am stating that Christianity and atheism cannot reconcile regarding morality. I am asking SkepticalOne/you to justify your atheistic system of thought.
I have given lots of reasonable proof in the past(i.e., my argument from prophecy, morality, existence from a logical and philosophical perspective, etc.). I have presented many logical arguments for God's necessity to make sense of morality that atheists have largely ignored.
Your impossibility of the contrary seems to rely on the assumption that if atheism were false, your worldview would be true. However, that would not follow.
My question is: Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism? At the moment, I am not arguing against other systems of thought.
PGA2.0 20 to SkepticalOneNot true, you do reject Him by looking at the universe in a solely mechanical or mythological naturalistic way. There is not supernatural consideration involved.PGA deciding what others believe again. Beliefs come with degrees of certainty. That I believe the supermarket to be open today, does not imply I exclude the possibility of it being closed.
SkepticalOne has stated elsewhere he is an atheist, more of an agnostic. Thus, I am stating the logical alternative. By rejecting God/gods, the only other avenue is a naturalistic/materialistic one of thinking about the universe. That is precisely what SkepticalOne does. The describes origins in that way.
I'm not excluding reasonable deductions like the supermarket example.
If you think by rejecting God/gods, there are other explanations, then present one, and we will take it apart with a closer examination. A closed system looks within itself for the explanation - the naturalistic framework.
PGA2.0 to SkepticalOneYet you have failed to justify how nature alone is capable of explaining anything regarding origins - origins of our existence, the existence of the universe, the existence of conscious beings from things devoid of consciousness, the existence of moral rights and wrongs.Giving a complete, detailed explanation for most things would be a gargantuan task. Also, assuming atheism, no one can be expected to have the required knowledge.
I'm after a brief outline that I can work on critiquing how morality emerges from it. I'm looking for a justification of atheism as reasonable. I have explained why theism is reasonable.
I'm glad you realize that!
PGA2.0 to SkepticalOneI have proposed a comparison and contrast in our two views, starting with the area of morality. Are you going to show me how your system of belief is objectively based where it comes to morality, as you have claimed it is?We more or less did the same. Your strawman of my worldview was terrible, but less bad than your worldview. So presumably SkepticalOne's worldview is also less bad.
Describe how it is terrible. I have no idea what you are referencing. Be specific. More assertions without proof. I am questioning how morality makes sense of itself by getting to its origins, the root causes. Take the causal tree back to what is necessary.
Is your thought system, atheism, one in which naturalism and materialism are used as the explanation?
Do atheists deny God either by stating there is no evidence He exists or excluding Him from any plausible explanation?
How do conscious moral beings arise from non-conscious non-beings, the organic from the inorganic?
How do you counter the is/ought dilemma as proposed by Hume?
How is your subjective framework objective in determining the good?
What is fixed about your system of morality?
Does it have what is necessary for morality, and how do you describe objective - true to what is the case, or some framework that people say is objective because they like it?
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Human beings are subjective relative beings in that we do not know all things and constantly revise and change our moral views. Once, not long ago,abortion was considered a moral wrong in America, except when the life of the mother was threatened with certain death, such as with a tubal pregnancy. Now, some even condone the abortion of the unborn right up to the time of birth and beyond by choice, by preference, and they pass laws to accommodate their preferences. Who is right?[23] And once again, if there is no objective standard, whatmakes your view any better than mine?[24] Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing.[25] What is good about that?[26] SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint?[27] How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity? An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.[28][23] Right according to who or what?
Right or correct in the society's evaluation of the moral good? You can have two opposite moral standards (as per the example of abortion) thought of in the same society or culture and hotly contested about the right or correct assessment by subgroups in the culture (pro-choice vs. pro-life). You can have different societies or cultures with opposite views of morality (In some Middle East countries, it is considered wrong to abort, whereas, in the West, anything goes). Logically, can both be right or correct? You imply they can, which defies logic.
You again forgot to mention the reference standard and your question is stupid if using God's morality as reference standard.
The reference standard would be an atheistic one because this is a discussion pitting atheism against Christianity to see which is more reasonable. I am asking you to account for morality once you jettison God, as atheism does, in making sense of morality. Please show me your thoughts, as an atheist, can justify morality as good. Take a specific example of dispute (abortion was the example I used) to show me why your position is justifiable.
Again, asserting God's standard is stupid does nothing to further your argument.
I have already explained to you before that your question is ambiguous. The problem is that God has nothing to do with it, while your worldview requires God to be in there somewhere.
And your worldview does not require God, or so you think. Again, that is an ASSUMPTION coming from your atheistic point of view, that God has nothing to do with morality. Without God, you do not have a morality system but a system of preferences (and I have explained my reasons previously). What makes a preference morally good?
I keep asking the atheist what is necessary for morality? Can you answer that question?
Hence, that part of reality you refuse to learn about. Hence skeptics can learn about parts of reality that are off limits to you.
You are begging of how we know something such as morality is real. Because I do not adopt from your system of thought, I feel accused of refusing to learn. Learn what? Learn how to think like a drone?
What about the parts of reality that are off limited to you?
And once again, if there is no objective standard, what makes your view any better than mine?[24][24] Better according to [a] who or [b] what?
You push qualitative terms around all day. So, your "good" is not the same as what I perceive as good. Who is right/correct/true to what is the real identity of the good?
Is the identity of "the good" fixed in your worldview system? If morality is subjective, the question is who is correct and what is morality based upon?
Force, duress? How does that make something good or even objective? So you get a bunch of like minded people to push your views and make it law by force. Dictators, benevolent or tyrannical, do the same thing.[25][25] If I understand correctly, such things don't happen in your fictional worldview. Alas, in the realworld they do.
They happen because people do not look to God or an objective necessary standard as the standard. And again, you paint my worldview as the fictional one (hah). Saying so does not necessarily make it so.
They happen in the real world because people reject the absolute and the objective necessary standard and invent their own subjective standards more in line with what they like or are willing to accept. These systems of thought do not work, as I have shown in my abortion debates and in the examples of tyrants.
What is good about that?[26][26] Presumably there are people benefitting from that. That is good to those people. Personally, I dislike it.
Sure, those in control of the masses, like is apparently we are about to be witnessed in the USA under Biden and the Demagogues, I mean Democrats.
SkepticalOne says although he is an atheist he believes in objective morality. Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint?[27][27] Indeed, it is. Lacking a proper definition of objective morality, all one has to do is give it a defintion of something that exists. QED.
But morality is an abstract concept, not a physical reality.
How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity? An objective standard is not subject to personal preference but to what is the case.[28][28] You are mistaken. Have you forgotten how in 2006 Pluto ceased being a Planet because the IAU dislike Pluto being a planet ? Contrary to what you believe,subjective beings can create objective standards.
I haven't looked into the reason or the standard used. Still, if it was later discovered Pluto did not conform to that (presumed objective) standard after more information was collected, I have nothing critical to say about the determination. But if planets have to meet a particular physical standard and Pluto does not meet that standard, then the scientists were wrong and had to adjust their assessment. The objective is what is the case.
Interesting. Artificial Intelligence professionals ponder morality for their work and they don't seeit as something to be discovered, but as something derived from choices, choices Robert Miles calls terminal goals. It is what I call values.
AI is a program programmed by these professionals. They create this artificial being. Thus, it reflects on their subjective knowledge. Morality requires input by moral beings into these systems.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
It takes faith to be an atheist[19], a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker. How is that reasonable in arriving at morality?[20] Somehow, there is a giant leap from chance happenstance to uniformity of nature and sustainability of these natural laws. We discover these laws, not invent them. And, these laws appear to be a mindful thing because we can use mathematical formulas in expressing and conceptualizing them. Why would that be possible or probable in a blind, indifferent, random chance universe? Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?[21] There is a giant leap between inorganic things and organic mindful, moral people. How does atheism transition between or scale this chasm?[22][19] Is there any belief that does not require faith?
No. You start somewhere and build upon that starting or core belief - e.g., God/Chance. Core beliefs are the building blocks that all our other beliefs rest upon, except when we are inconsistent with that system and borrow from other core belief systems. Our worldviews are made up of beliefs, things we place our trust in, but are those beliefs warranted? Can we justify them? Some dichotomize religious beliefs. They are not put on the same scale as other beliefs to naturalists who think they work purely from the empirical, scientific method, which they do not.
a blind faith if you look at the causal tree of blind indifferent chance as your maker. How is that reasonable in arriving at morality?[20][20] People don't arrive at morality that way. Individual moralities are determined mostly by genotype and fenotype.
From an atheistic perspective, genotypes and phenotypes are blind agents, for there is no intent behind them. Intent is reasoning. Intent requires thinking being. Evolution does not. Somehow particular genetic makeup combines at the root causal level to create a specific kind. That information is then inherited or passed down and governed somewhat by the environment (mutations). On the phenotype level, somehow, the environment influences our behaviours, moulds us into group herd beings. The question is why we have these genotypes that operate by biological laws in the first place. We inherit 23 three chromosomes from each parent to make up our genetic structure. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, which differ from other beings.
Christians have a reasonable explanation -
Genesis 1:20-28 (NASB)
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [a]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [b]in the open [c]expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to [d]their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to [e]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth according to [f]their kind, and the livestock according to [g]their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “[h]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and [i]let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the livestock and all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [j]moves on the earth.”
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [a]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [b]in the open [c]expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to [d]their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to [e]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth according to [f]their kind, and the livestock according to [g]their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “[h]Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and [i]let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the livestock and all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [j]moves on the earth.”
So what we would expect to find we do actually find, as Christians. We find we are different from animals. We can do things they can't do, like reason and categorize and explain and find logical connections that animals are incapable of finding. We can actually investigate our origins. And the founders of different fields of science apply godly principles but mar them, such as categorization, as found in Genesis 1, but they do not follow the same biblical mould but invent their own. They again believe we derive our existence from a common ancestor, but instead of God, they speculate a chain from a single-celled amoeba that somehow transitions from non-live to living beings. Instead of each to its own kind, it is each to its own species and sub-species, down the line. The kingdoms, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, sub-species became very complicated instead of the simple (Occams Razor) biblical plant, animal, human category. Still, then again, it also expressed God's diversity in creation in human thinking. We discover the intricate connection and complexity of unity in all things to the Creator's mind through the different branches of science - the one and the many/unity in diversity/universe/one spoken. We share common traits (genetically similar structures, like the same foods) because we share common environments.
To the atheist in his/her speculation, these information systems happen for no reason, for there is no mind behind them. He/she spends countless hours and ages explaining, in a reasoning manner, how everything comes about by Chance. They bow down and worship this concept called chance that is unable to do anything. Things just happen for no reason, and then we derive sense and meaning from the things, sense and meaning we should not find from the senseless and meaningless. Go figure?
So, once again, is atheism more reasonable than theism???
Somehow, there is a giant leap from chance happenstance to uniformity of nature and sustainability of these natural laws. We discover these laws, not invent them. And, these laws appear to be a mindful thing because we can use mathematical formulas in expressing and conceptualizing them. Why would that be possible or probable in a blind, indifferent, random chance universe? Does SkepticalOne believe we just invent morality too, that there is no objective mind behind morals, just chance happenstance as the root cause?[21][21] Unlike the laws of nature, moral standards, like any standard, are not open to be (dis)proven. They are not floating out there to be discovered.
But they are open to the same abstract, intangible, non-physical logic used in discovering nature's laws. And if the laws of morality have no universal, omniscient, absolute, immutable, eternal ideal (or fixed reference point - God), then why are your ideas of good any better than mine? Better in regards to what? Something shifting that can never be tacked down? The good keeps changing, sometimes falling back on itself and becoming the opposite of what it used to be. Countless examples can be showcased.
Listen to yourself - "not open to be[ing] (dis)proven." Thus, your worldview cannot say for certain that torturing little children for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you do not like it. Well, what about those who do? They can be no more right than you can in your atheistic system of thought. The 'right' requires a fixed identity, or it can mean the opposite depending on who holds the belief. That is logically inconsistent and the logical inconsistency of atheism. Does it make sense to say a thing is not what it is? No, it does not, yet you continually argue for such silly premises. Atheism is a rude joke.
The laws of morality come from mindful beings, but just any being does not sufficiently explain them; they require a necessary being to make sense of them. On the human level, all we see is people fighting to the death over two opposite ideas of what is good. We see it in cultures and subcultures, groups and individuals, just like you and I do now. The difference is the Christian has what is necessary for morality; the atheist does not.
There is a giant leap between inorganic things and organic mindful, moral people. How does atheism transition between or scale this chasm?[22][22] Atheism doesn't of course. Science attempts to.
You are right there. Your system of thought, as an atheist, can't make sense of itself.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Please take note of the difference between qualitative values and quantitative values. I describe what I like. That is, I do not prescribe what I like as a must that you like it too. I like ice-cream is a personal preference. I do not force you to eat it too as a moral must. If I liked to kill human beings for fun and believe you SHOULD too, that would be a moral prescription, although not established as an objective one. The words 'should,' 'must,' or 'ought' denote a moral prescription.[17] No one will condemn me for my preference of liking ice-cream but they will in my preference for killing others and prescribing others should like it too. That is because there is a distinction between what is (liking ice-cream) and what should be, a distinction between the two that has been called the is/ought fallacy. There is no bridge between what is and what ought to be in that one is a mere description of what is liked or what is while the other is what should or must be the case.[18] Whereas I believe I derive my moral aptitude from a necessary moral being, you believe you derive yours from chance happenstance. How is that more reasonable? Am I missing something here?[17] One should, must or ought according to a standard or goal. In case of moral prescriptions they refer to a moral opinion or standard.
Which standard or goal??? You forget the goal MUST reflect the good. A moral opinion or standard??? Whose???
Why are your goals any better than any other? Nothing, unless there is an objective, universal, fixed and unchanging reference point. What is that?
[18] Actually there is, but it is not a philosphical bridge. That is, one does not correctly reason from only facts to an obligation. On the other hand, opinions and standards have causes in reality.
Moral opinions have no basis for the good unless there is an objective, universal, unchanging best to compare "good" with. What are you comparing "good" with - someone else's shifting standard?
Kim Jung-un: My standard of good is killing others before you are killed, looking out for my own interests above all others.
Jack the Ripper: My standard of good is killing others for fun.
Adolf Hitler: My standard of good is ridding society of undesirable groups that are an inferior race. Those who meet my standard are safe from persecution.
Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism: Whatever promotes happiness and well-being for most by avoiding harm is good, depending on how you define well-being, good, and harm.
Jesus Christ: THE standard of good is to love others as yourselves and love God.
In the first four, the standard is based on personal opinion. Each "good" can mean something different for the person holding the belief. The fourth could be argued as having what is necessary for good: an ultimate, objective, unchanging, omniscient reference point. Every one of these first four standards is conflicting and logically cannot all be true because they state opposites. They have different identities, which is inconsistent with the laws of logic.
Facts have an objective identity, a fixed measure; opinions lack an objective that fixed identity since they mean different things to different people.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
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.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
First, what is the origin (reasoning the chain of events back to its furthest point possible) of moral conscious beings?[10] Is such a causal factor intentional (thus mindful) or random, chaotic?[11] A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best).[12]How does SkepticalOne arrive at best? What is the ideal, the fixedreference point? That necessary Being is reasonable to assume sincewe only witness or observe moral mindful beings deriving theirexistence from other moral, mindful beings.[13] With atheism (no Godor gods) what is left for the origins of morality and beforethat conscious beings? I say it is a blind, indifferent, mindless,random chance happenstance.[14] How is that capable of anything, letalone being the cause of moral mindful beings?
***
First, what is the origin (reasoning the chain of events back to its furthest point possible) of moral conscious beings?[10][10] I am sure you are superficially familiar with the story. [a] In a nutshell : Big Bang, [b] in homogeneity, separation of fundamental forces, inflation, dark matter, gravity, first generation stars, possibly second generation stars, formation of the solar system, the goldilock zone, comet strikes, organic molecules, appearance of life, cambrian explosion, first social animals.
[a] Just like you?
So, somehow organic molecules happen from inorganic matter and become conscious of their environment? They develop eyes, and hands and everything needed to interact with this chance universe. How does that happen, and where have you ever witnessed it happening? What you propose is great in theory, but it is not experiential. It takes great faith to believe these things.
[b] Big Bang - That means you support a beginning to the universe. Why did it happen?
Here is “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God as put forth by William Lane Craig and others:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.
Now, chance plays a big part as this agency for the universe (either intent or chance), but what is 'chance'? Is it a physical thing or an abstract, immaterial concept? So, please, as an atheist, explain what 'chance' is and how it can do anything. How is it a causal factor? Please explain.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins
Now, if the universe exploded into being, what caused the explosion? (I.e., the agency)
Are you saying that nothing caused the universe to exist, that nothing existed, then suddenly something existed? And what solid proof do you have to your conjecture? Let us see it.
And no. I don't know all the details perfectly, which is perfectly consistent with my worldview.
Very true!
Is such a causal factor intentional (thus mindful) or random, chaotic?[11][11] Or could it be neither?
I'm listening. What do you propose?
A personal Being who has revealed Himself as omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal would have what is necessary in determining what is moral because there would be a fixed measure or reference point in which a comparison can be made as to 'the good' (since there is a best).[12][12] Moral according to who?
Already explained above. There is only one Being who fits the mould.
Does it have what is necessary to know what is moral according to itself?
"It?" With a being who is good and knows all things, why not?
What a great achievement! Adolf Hitler also had what is necessary to know what is moral according to himself, despite him lacking of a fixed reference point. Kim Jong Un as well.
I certainly hope you are not serious with that statement, just being facetious? No, Adolf Hitler nor Kim Jung-Un do not have what it takes, what is necessary. They are subjective, relative, limited human beings. Why are they right? First, they do not have to exist for there to be morality. People were making moral judgments long before they existed. Second, morality has to be based on a 'best' for comparison; otherwise, it is relative, and the moral good can be whatever anyone wants to make it. Thus, it does not pass the logical consistency test or that of the laws of logic.
And while you are at it, that best that there is, is best according to who?
Best in light of God, the ideal, the measure, a necessary being who knows all things and is benevolent by nature.
How does SkepticalOne arrive at best? What is the ideal, the fixed reference point? That necessary Being is reasonable to assume since we only witness or observe moral mindful beings deriving their existence from other moral, mindful beings.[13][13] How is that supposed to follow? Please elaborate your argument.
What part?
How SkepticalOne arrives at best? He can't. All he can do is say, "I prefer this." Preference is descriptive (I like), not prescriptive (You ought). This relative nature does not have what is necessary in and of itself. It has to reference a fixed best to support his relative views and show how they comply with that best. He can't produce one. His views are contrary to other views.
His reference point? It is shifting. He is not necessary for morality. Many others oppose his views on morality, including me (see our abortion debates).
A necessary being as reasonable? What attributes would such a being need? The ones I described apply to the biblical God.
What we witness? The experiential test is important in our justification of things.
Moral beings the causal agent in producing more moral beings? First, morality is a mindful process. It requires conscious, living, intelligent beings to ponder such abstract things. Second, all we ever witness is the conscious moral agents giving birth to other such beings. We don't see them arising out of inorganic matter.
[14] Or it could be what I summarized in [10].
Return to [10].
Second, how do relative, subjective beings determine anything other than preference - what they like? IOW's, why is your 'moral' preference any 'better' than mine?[15] Is it more reasonable? I say no. It does not have what is necessary for morality. Preference is just a like or dislike. What is good, morally speaking, about that?[16]For example, with a ruler, I, asubjective being, can objectively measure the length of a table. Canyou not do that ?[15] Define 'better'.
Morally, of superior quality, more excellent than what is good.
[16] Good according to who?
Precisely! If morality is relative to the person or group holding the belief, what makes what you like, your personal taste, good? It just is. Your liking ice-cream is not something I must like. You are not going to convince me abortion is good because you like it as a choice for women in the same way you will not convince me it is good to kill innocent human beings, of which the unborn is. If you think it is good to kill innocent human beings, would you willingly allow you and your family to be the next ones to be killed? The point: you can agree to many things, but you can't live experientially with such thinking. Justice must be equally applied for something to be just. Equality must be applied for all, or else there is no such thing operating. Once you make a law that discriminates and dehumanized one group of humans (i.e., Hitler with the Jews; abortion with the unborn human being), there is no longer fairness there (it becomes unlivable for whoever they want to villanize). Furthermore, such thinking does not pass the logical consistency test. Good = Good. Good has a specific identity. What is good cannot at the same time be bad regarding the same thing. Good, then loses its identity. It can mean anything depending on who thinks it (moral relativism and postmodernism, in which all values are deconstructed and rebuilt).
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
PGA2.0 in OPThis topic is mostly aimed at or addressing SkepticalOne (but other atheists may join in by defending their belief as reasonable as opposed to Christianity or the biblical God). I am looking for his justification for his belief, myself thinking what he believes is unreasonably based. I also understand that SkepticalOne is what I term an agnostic atheist. That is the nature of skepticism, the 'I don't know,' yet in not knowing Skepticism seems to put all his eggs in one basket, that of mythological naturalism.[1] By default, one who claims to be an atheist would look for explanations that exclude God or gods.[2][1] You are the one putting all your eggs in the basket of a mythical, invisible sky magician.SkepticalOne is open to anything supported by evidence.
Thanks for your assertion and opinion.
Are you speaking for SkepticalOne now?
[2] Why would that be? Skeptics follow the evidence, wherever it may lead.
Because they dismiss God or gods, therefore they look for explanations in the natural realm. They are left with mindless naturalism.
Skeptics follow their worldview presuppositions. No one is neutral.
PGA2.0 in OPAtheists, as people who have thought about existence, often make the claim that Atheism is an absence of belief in God or a deity. Does that argument work?[3] I say no. I could claim theism is a lack of belief in atheism or an absence (not the presence) of the denial of God or gods.[4] In either position, both the atheist and theist hold lots of beliefs about God or the lack thereof. An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as their cause, yet something about God too in their denial of Him.[5] You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.[6] It examines life's most basic questions and comes to a conclusion from a standpoint lacking God.[7] It is a belief system in its own right usually with philosophical or methodological naturalism as one of its cornerstones or core tenants.[8] But is atheism as justifiable or as reasonable as a belief in the biblical God? I plan to examine this in a number of areas. This topic is about one area of atheisms reason - morality. Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?[9] That last statement is a nutshell of the topic of debate.[3] A claim is not an argument.
The argument is that atheists have thought about existence and God or gods displayed when they say something about such a being. The argument is that atheists make claims such as atheism is an absence of a belief in God or gods (some other deity). I have heard atheists say such things. How do they know God does not exist? They don't; they assume it.
And arguments may hold many reasonable claims.
"Claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence are called arguments."
I say no. I could claim theism is a lack of belief in atheism or an absence (not the presence) of the denial of God or gods.[4][4] I could say a cup of coffee is the lack of the absense of a cup of coffee, but I prefer not to complicate things.So what?
Okay? So what?
When claiming something, it needs support, reasons. I have given lots of reasons. I say the atheist denies God/gods, but their initial presuppositions by denying God are not reasonable. As simple as that. And I have gone into depth on that in several areas, including this topic.
When you deny nothing, then what exactly are you denying? The atheist who denies God, what exactly are they denying?
In either position, both the atheist and theist hold lots of beliefs about God or the lack thereof. An atheist not believing in God as Creator would have to believe something else as their cause, yet something about God too in their denial of Him.[5][5] That doesn't follow. He or she can be agnostic on the issue. However, most atheists believe that nature did it and indeed, no atheists knows everything about it, which, in the atheistic worldviews, is to be expected.
What does not follow? What issue - God? Even being agnostic, the unbeliever looks to a naturalistic framework for the reasons of existence, as you confirm.
Yes, not knowing all things is to be expected from limited subjective beings. Thus, looking for a purely naturalistic explanation has no guarantees, but if God exists and is revealed as per the Christian framework, we can know it as a certainty. So God, once again, has what is necessary for certainty.
You can't deny something you have no idea of and SkepticalOne definitely has views about God. Thus, atheism is a worldview.[6][6] That doesn't follow. Atheism is an attribute of worldviews that lack a deity.
They understand the God they deny while claiming there is evidence for Him. They refer to the Bible, which says it is God's revelation to humanity. They also treat Him as a real being, claiming that God is unjust and immoral. How can a non-existent being be unjust and immoral? They hate this God? Why are they hating a non-existent being? So, their worldview is inconsistent.
[7] What are those life's most basic questions atheism examines and reaches conclusions from?
Atheists answer the same question religious believers do.
What exists? (Metaphysics)
Atheist: Nature, the universe.
Christian: The natural and supernatural.
What am I?
Atheist: We are a biological bag of atoms, a living organism.
Christian: I am a creation of God with a physical body and spirit, a living soul.
Who am I? (Identity)
Atheist: A highly evolved animal that traces a common ancestry back to a singled celled ameba.
Christian: A special creation of God, made in His image and likeness, different from animals, created to their own kind.
Why am I here/why do I exist? (Ontology)
Atheist: Without God or gods, you are a cosmic accident, and there is no reason for your existence.
Christian: God made me for a purpose. I am here for a reason.
How do I know? (Epistemology)
Atheist: Through empirical verification, I can know.
Christian: God has revealed, and we have been created in His image and likeness. Thus we are capable of reason and discovery. When we think His thoughts after Him, we truly know something. The natural universe displays His mighty power and reveals Him further. Thus, we think His thoughts after Him. We discover laws; we see beauty and order; we find self-evident truths.
What difference does it make? (Axiology)
Atheist: Nothing, ultimately. The universe is meaningless, and we pretend there is meaning by making it up for a short period of time, then return to the meaningless void of nothingness where nothing matters.
Christian: We were created for a purpose, and if we find that purpose, we find true and everlasting life with God.
What happens to me when I die? (Destiny)
Atheist: I die. I cease to exist.
Christian: If I believe, I live with God as a joint heir with Christ forever where the joy I experience eclipses anything else I have ever experienced.
[8] I think that is more what you would want it to be than what it really is.
Why should I believe you? How reliable is your mind in determining what really is?
Can atheists reasonably justify morality in comparison to Christianity/Judaism?[9][9] Is justify the right word, or do you mean explain?
Yes.
Definition of justify
1a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable trying to justify his selfish behavior I shouldn't have to justify myself to them. justify the ways of God to man— John Milton
b(1): to show to have had a sufficient legal reason
(2): to qualify (oneself) as a surety (see SURETY sense 3) by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2a: to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation God justifies with his forgiveness and grace the man who comes to him— Will Herberg
b archaic: to administer justice to
c archaic: ABSOLVE
3a: to space (lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin
b: to make even by spacing lines of text justified margins
I use it in the 1a sense here.
If I understand correctly, you are unwilling to have your worldview examined the same way as the atheist's worldview, correct?
Where did you gather that conclusion from? The purpose of this thread is to find which of the two worldviews better explains morality.
If you draw conclusions about your worldview from the problems from the naturalistic ones, I will assume not.
I conclude both from the Christian worldview and by the lack of explanatory power of other worldviews. Once God [or gods - necessary being(s)] is denied, you would fall on the sword of naturalism and chance happenstance as the root cause of your existence. By following the causal tree to its roots, you find that an atheist cannot justify what they have built their beliefs upon. It is not reasonable, and it does not make sense.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Aren't miscarriages proof that God is pro-abortion? The Hebrew Bible doesn't mention miscarriage much — except for one particularly nasty part, when a husband believes his wife might have been running around on him. The trial to determine her faithfulness? She must drink a concoction of "bitter water" (presumably some kind of herbal production) and wait. If she then miscarried, she was unfaithful; if she didn't ,she was true. Miscarriage as punishment for infidelity? Now that's just mean.
I almost missed this post since there was no recipient.
No, miscarriages result from original sin, God's judgment through a natural disaster, an accident by the woman or other human choices and conditions. What verse are you referring to, and what is the context?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.So what caused god to exist?
God is eternal. He has no beginning, so the premise does not apply to Him.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
...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.
You are comparing apples to oranges again. How is chess a moral issue unless I cheat?
The fixed standard is too complicated for us to know every possible outcome. We would have to think countless moves ahead to determine the best outcome for every move. There are probably millions, if not billions and trillions the further into a game you go. But on any particular move, you make I can think ahead four or five moves for the possible computations and determine within that limited scenario my most logical response, short term. I have not done the computations, but each move presents additional scenarios. If I start with P-K4, there are only a handful, perhaps a hundred possible responses (I did not count them), and most of those lead to a quickly compromised position. The quicker you expand your options by freeing pieces, the more options available.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
I am going to have to break your post into sections. There is too much information to cover with one post, and your words all run together and make it difficult to read. Maybe you should check your copy apt. Somehow the information becomes jumbled together when you copy and paste. Please correct that for further communication.
Also, we have had long discussions on Debate.org (in some cases over a thousand posts) in which nothing was accomplished because you swamped me with more than I could handle in each post, a habit we are both guilty of doing. (^8
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay. Which opposing social norms are the true right? Are you saying that they both are?Neither are inherently "right."
Then your system of thought is irrational and illogical, as I have explained before. I don't think I can reason with you.
They're just what we've agreed upon works for the species. As we dominate all resources on the planet, it's worked out well.
Who agreed to? Are you arguing the fallacy of Ad Populum?
You demonstrate you have nothing definite and universal to pin 'wrong' on, no fixed measure, just personal opinion and preference which makes nothing right, just liked. You can't determine the best so your ideas are blurred not by right but by desires and wants. Good is always changing if you have no best to compare it with. It can be likened to anything you like.
That means that you can't really say something is wrong, just not preferable. Do you really believe that?I can absolutely say I think something is wrong.
Sure, you can SAY it, but can you prove it is absolutely wrong? Again, you are making it personal by such a statement - your opinion—big deal.
So you are saying that there is no such thing as 'right'; nothing is absolutely wrong, like raping women for fun or torturing little children for fun? So, when someone chooses to torture you for fun, there is nothing wrong with that; you perhaps don't like it.When someone chooses to torture me for fun, I will defend myself, because I find that's the moral thing to do, and I feel the people acting to harm me ire in the wrong.
That is just my point, wrong in whose idea? You said, "Neither are inherently "right."
And notice you once again avoided my question. Is it wrong to torture LITTLE CHILDREN FOR FUN?
So if they like torturing you, no big deal except you don't like it - tough. They have the power; you don't. Hitler did in Nazi Germany. The problem is you can't say anything is inherently evil or wrong; all you can say is "I like or don't like it."
You can't live by your own system of thought because as soon as someone turns it on you, it becomes unlivable. In any rational proof, livability is one of the considerations of sound thinking.
So then it becomes not a moral issue, it becomes a survival issue. I suspect you're conflating "wrong" and "morally wrong" with "illegal." Keep them distinct as one has nothing to do with the other.
Torture is a moral subject. Keep this in context, please.
God designed humans with a will, volition. That means we can choose. God also told humanity what was good and what was evil in relationshipsEverything in this post is irrelevant. Why would god design homosexual people if he abhors the way he makes them? You're doing another great job of winning Wordiest Idiot.
Your escape and avoidance clause. Bye!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
They have to construct scenarios they cannot prove but theorize...THAT'S CALLED, "ACKNOWLEDGING EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS".
Okay, so?
Only a fool would claim to know things that they don't have any way of validating.
All evidence of origins is interpreted. No one was there to witness origins. No one can repeat the process of origins. The data needs to be interpreted. The evidence does not come with the phrase, "happened 13.8 billion years ago." So, depending on where you start depends on your thinking because ideas are built upon core beliefs. That is why atheist thinking is naturalistic and materialistic. They exclude from their thinking God or gods as a workable reason for anything. They try to analyze everything via nature, which, incidentally, I contend, points to God.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You see, you can't be consistent in your thinking once you say words in context have no meaning, and words do not convey a specific meaning.We have similar experiences and therefore understand similar words similarly.My point is that even though we have similar understandings of some words, that doesn't mean that the MEANING of those words is "set-in-stone" (as you seem to believe).
Think of what you are staying, will you?
Do words in context convey a specific meaning or not?
When you look in a dictionary, the possible word usages are given, the contexts in which a word is used one way or another.
You say no; words don't have meaning in a context that is set in stone. They can mean whatever a person wants them to mean. These dictionary definitions mean nothing. Thus, in your opinion, in those contexts, they can mean whatever the person wants them to mean. Please note, I am not saying word meanings do not change over time. I am saying that what words mean in context are defined and set until a new meaning catches on; then, the dictionaries change/add to reflect and include the new contextual meaning.
So, words in context do have a specific meaning. The biblical words have specific meanings, and sometimes those meanings have to be understood as used by the culture of the time because new meanings for the word have arisen and do not reflect the original context.
I.e.,
Definition of context
1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs: ENVIRONMENT, SETTING the historical context of the war
Above, two meanings are given for the word 'context,' and you can inquire and decide which word usage fits the word's use as I use it. Since I speak in terms of words and their meanings, the first definition is more fitting than the second. In some cases, with words, the use in context is even more apparent.
So, your statement is a deliberate attempt to blur meaning. It is a common tactic used by those most influenced by postmodernism, IMO, because they deconstruct the given meaning and read into it their own, which means they don't bother to find out what the author truly meant but change such meaning to suit their tastes (like you do with you example about the baseball bat and the restaurant).
So, if you said, "The grass is a green colour," I could say, "No, it is orange, don't you know that green really means orange?" Word meanings become absurd when the meaning is lost, and there are no specific definitions for that word. 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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is why God has given us a standard that we may know the difference, so we don't get hurt.Why did God make so many painful and dangerous things?Everything was 'very good' until Adam sinned.Somebody should talk to that boy's parents.
That is the danger of allowing a creature free-will. He walked with God (had a close relation) but chose not to learn further from God but go his own way. He chose to let his narrow, limited mind to be the arbiter of good and evil. Thus, humanity has never been the same since that time. God is letting us see the effects of living without His presence and influence in our lives. How well do you think we are doing? Look around you at the US elections and the cheating by Democrats for power. They will do anything to sway your vote, including altering the rules to favour themselves. Power is the name of the game. When you reject God and ignore His word (the Bible), you choose a relative, subjective human system to rule over you. Injustice results everywhere.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why does God kill off one parent and leave the other to raise their children alone?I'm pretty certain that an all-powerful, all-knowing god could have insured each and every human is guaranteed a mother AND a father if that was TRULY their intention.
Sin brought judgment upon the world of human beings. God promised that taking of the fruit of the tree of good and evil would bring judgment and humans would learn to understand the impact of such an immoral thing as doing what was wrong. Death was the penalty, spiritual alienation from God (they were not allowed to eat of the tree of life and live forever in His presence) and also a physical limitation, physical death as a curse or consequence of sin.
19 By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Until you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”
So God gave human beings a limited amount of time to experience life and decide whether they wanted to know Him or not.
THE FACT that many children grow up without two loving parents pretty much PROVES that an all-powerful, all-knowing god designed it exactly that way "for a reason".
Again, the reasons are because of original sin in which God subjected the good creation (now marred by sin and evil) to limits to show humanity what it is like to live without His presence in our lives and because of human beings' bad choices. A burglar chooses to break into your house to rob you and, in the process, then kills your wife, who discovers his wrongful actions. She is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Thus, evil affects your children because of the actions of a burglar who broke two commandments, stealing and murder.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, what is ideal, the best?I'M BEGGING YOU TO TELL ME.You already know yet choose to ignore the best - the biblical God.Oh, right, the biblical God who orders their followers to slaughter the children of non-believers.
If God let Israel be influenced by other wicked nations that practiced child sacrifice and idolatry, Israel would not follow His good decrees and judgments. If those other nations in the Promised Land (which God owned) decided Israel was not going to stay in the land and decided to kill all the Israelites, then God's sworn plan of redemption in which the Messiah, the Saviour, would come through the bloodline of these people, Israel, would not happen. Thus, God judged the evil and punished it through Israel. But Israel was not obedient to God's plan and left many unbelieving residents in the land that constantly perverted Israel's thinking and caused them to do wrong.
As for the children, any innocent children would be restored to a better place by God - His presence.
That's your ideal-best-perfect-unchanging-universal-true-north-pole?
Is it good to punish evil?
And your ideal best is to do nothing to address wrongful actions?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
This seems slightly coercive.You have a will, and you are aware of the consequences. Are you interested in what is best, or will any standard do?You can freely choose to go to any restaurant you wish.However, if you go to one I don't like, I will beat you with a baseball bat.
So, you feel it is morally permissible to beat someone up if they go to a restaurant you don't like. So morality to you is doing whatever you like, and if anyone interferes, you enforce your standards of like on them by using your bat. So someone who can use their fists or bats better than you is morally justified in beating your face to a pulp? Dog eat dog!
But don't let that FACT interfere with your free-decision-making.
Now, if I bring a gun to your bat fight, then you will go to that restaurant whether you like it or not unless you want to face the consequences, and you will buy the meal for both of us, and I will decide what you will eat. How do you like my "morals" and company now?
Many factors govern your decision-making, but largely by what you like and dislike, the consequences of your actions through trial and error and social restraints. From an early age, you have been influenced by those around you to think a particular way. Thus, in that sense, your free-decision is not free but influenced. What is free is the fact that you still choose to do things and make decisions.
How is your personal choice to beat me with a baseball bat morally good? You materialize a standard out of your mind based on personal tastes. Why are your personal tastes morally good?
Now God's commandment not to eat of the tree of good and evil was morally good. Since Adam was the only human being other than Jesus Christ not to be influenced by other people's choices (he was a blank slate), he chose to set the course of human history. He had the initial two inputs, God's commandment to him (before Eve was created) and Satan's counter through Eve to him - the two choices he was completely free to choose from. When Eve took of the fruit and offered it to him he made a bad choice.
Just pick the one you like best.
I did, my gun in opposition to your baseball bat. You will do what I say, but you are "free" to choose! Weigh the consequences well!
How does that answer the question, "Are you interested in doing what is best, or will any standard do?" (morally speaking)
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hell is the absence of God's presence where any evil goes.Wait.What happened to "omnipresent"?
God chooses not to make His presence felt. When God's shekinah glory departed from the temple that does not mean God was no longer there, it means those who had a relationship with and access to Him no longer did. They can no longer be present with Him in a relationship.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I have admitted the thought of being the only one is absurd.Which Church flavor do you subscribe to?
I am non-denominational. I believe the body of Christ is not an organization or a building but those who believe in Jesus Christ and what He says and did.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...ement. Because of one police officer's wrongful act, the whole police service was demonized, defunded in many locations, and the country had a huge price to pay. Mass violent mobs of anarchists descended on cities destroying private property and inflicting harm on these communities' resid...When your neighbor's children run naked in the streets breaking things, who do you blame?
First, do you think these mobs are right in doing what they do and do you think it is okay to defund the police?
Both parents and children should be accountable if the parents knowingly allow this behaviour.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you have a strong survival instinct (AND) hope for a better future (THEN) you will do anything in your power to protect yourself (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your family and loved ones (as it serves priority #1) (AND) you will do anything in your power to protect your property (as it serves priorities #1 and #2) (AND) if you are convinced that priorities #1, #2, and #3 are secure, ONLY THEN are you capable of truly free COOPERATION with others (otherwise you are COERCED).Where did you get those ideas from? Is it the norm??? Perhaps with the Christian framework?Do you agree that this is a universal and unchanging moral framework?
What I mean is with the Christian framework you have what is necessary for determining right and wrong, what should be.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Have they considered what atheism is doing to the mind in closing itself to Inana, a Sumerian goddess of fertility and war?
Who are they? If you mean Christians, they would agree that these false gods need to be shown for what they are.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because God is love. Injustice concerns Him.I've seen Christians do this before, but I still can't figure it out,LOVE =/= PUNISHMENT
A justice and righteous Judge would not be good and loving if He left a wrong unpunished.
If you loved and wanted the best for someone would you let them do something that hurt others then say, "That's okay." If you see Antifa go into your neighbourhood and burn down your neighbour's house after they have robbed it and beating them up would the loving thing be to do nothing? Or would it be loving to seek justice for a wrong?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What you think deep down so often reflects and directs your actions.Now you're starting to sound like Napoleon Hill.
Don't know him or what that means.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Words have the power of life and death. Some have a harmful effect on others. They can be used in destroying people through bullying them. They can tear down a positive image and replace it with a negative one. I believe in speaking my mind, but if someone is bullying, there is a point where enough is enough. Some things need to be said, but it should be gentleness and respect where possible. Directness is one of my faults.Yeah, yeah, yeah.You fix this "problem" with ONE RULE, "NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS".And no "enforcement" mechanism is needed except for you to tell them, "NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS".It's shockingly effective.
It works whenever someone points the finger at someone else and is guilty of doing the same thing themselves (Darn, you did it again). (^8
Sometimes it is very sneakily done, or indirectly, and I do it with irony and sarcasm to make a point very often.
Created: