SkepticalOne

The opinion I was referring to is that man is made in the image of god. 

The biblical God described exhibits many of the same traits that human beings do but animals lack, but to a greater degree. We can conceptualize, unlike any animal can. We can communicate like no animal, expressing complex ideas. We can use logic to solve problems that animals cannot. We experience life differently from animals. We can know abstract things to a greater degree, unlike animals. We can know and speculate on the good and evil of what is done.

There is not "should", only what is, and this is easily explained by natural selection. Fairness contributes to the individual (and the population) being more fit for a broader range of environments and more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass on successful traits including fairness (or a proto-fairness).

Exactly, so you don't get an ought from an is. 

Fairness in whose mind? The Nazi mind? Kim Jong-un's mind? Your mind? Why is surviving, passing on traits, reproducing 'good' in a universe oblivious to goodness?

I don't consider this a valid point. We're not talking about extremes, but your average persons. Even still, I think you can find such people have a concern for other persons, but that that concern is stunted or the in-group is very limited.

Extremes? They're not extremes to large portions of the world's population. They are the norms. 

People have a concern to an extent, yes. My belief regarding this is because they are made in the image and likeness of God so they can't escape this [...]

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god

Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 

Extreme examples addressed above. Since you've not addressed it, how do you explain morality in non-human (not created in the image of God) animals? 

Are animals moral or just instinctively protective of their own? 

Some individuals may be able to commit immoral acts without justice, but in the broad picture this is insignificant. Moral actions have a net positive

affect on humanity, and immoral actions a net-negative. Also, there is justice but it, much like its purveyors, is not perfect.

It is not insignificant to those who have been wronged. Someone like Hitler, in your scenario, will not be brought to justice in the same proportion that he inflicted injustice.

Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure. 

Disagree. Can you show me on a thermometer where I can find "Hot"? Hot is a subjective qualitative label, nonetheless, it's generally agreed upon.

You are confusing personal preference and subjective opinion with moral right and wrong.

I think that view is misguided and demonstrably false in the age of science. Scientific methodologies allow for there to be no "best knowledge" while unquestionably move away from ignorance 

I don't think the question is whether there is a best but whether we can achieve or recognize the best.

Best in relation to knowledge would be a complete and accurate understanding of the thing known. 

C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God

That's your opinion - not to be confused with an objective basis for morality.

It was C.S. Lewis' opinion, but I agree with it.

In most any culture or sub-culture there is a sense of fairness. The question is why should it be there based on evolution?

Not really. If someone doesn't think human life is special, then they likely have been or will be removed from the human population through self inflicted or societal exile/death.

Take a look at all the dictators and oligarchies around the world that do just fine by exploiting and devaluing human life. 

Evolution doesn't build morality, but through it our nature has been shaped. Actions which contribute to well being of the individual and/or group make it more likely for an individual within a social species to reproduce. Continue this for millennium and it's not hard to see how a social species can revere beneficial acts and a proto-morality begins to form. We can observe these proto-moralities in other primates, dolphins, canines, felines, etc., and I bet you'll not argue these were made in the 'image of god

Well-being in whose mind? Kim Jong-un's? 

Ok. So what? Morality is not law. It is a description, not a prescription.

Without justice, what is good about it?

It is not necessary to know what the 'hottest' bath water you can tolerate is before you can know too much heat to your bath is bad for you. In other words, no best or worst is needed to understand good and bad.

Again, hot and cold are not moral issues. They deal with quantitative values, not qualitative. There is a fixed measure. 

Back as far as Plato and Aristotle, both recognized the objective best was how the good was measured. The measure of morality if it is relative is not fixed. How you get to objective morality from a subjective mindset with no outside directive is beyond me. 

C.S. Lewis did provide a list, loosely based on The Ten Commandments that he identified as operational in almost all societies that appear universal (applying to every culture) in its nature. I have an answer why. We are made in the image and likeness of God

Once we agree? The problem is agreeing.

How can it (evolution) build it (morality) in when there is no intent to do so? 

For one thing, there is no ultimate justice.

Without God why is your opinion the best so that we should not end our life? 

[...]if there are no absolute objective moral truths then everything becomes manipulation, charisma, and force to get others to think as you (generic for whoever the leader is) do. 

There may be no objective basis for morality - so what! Moral actions can be objectively known once we agree human life (and life is general) is special and worth preserving. Anyone who does not agree to this has no place in a legitimate discussion on morality.

What's more, I think our evolutionary heritage has built into us our appreciation of life. If so, morality has an objective basis.

I think you get too caught up on your subjective desire for an absolute, objective being to realize one is not needed for morality and that there is possibly a much more plausible objective basis if you must have such a foundation.

Really cringeworthy.

If you are not a hard working, law abiding citizen, you should vote for a Democrat.

I guess I f*cked up then - I voted straight Dem!  ;-)

What do you have from the time period that says otherwise? 

I have no good reason to doubt that the apostles were martyred, and every good reason to believe they were.

I will say that every single one of Jesus' apostles was executed or tortured to death in some cruel way.

It is only church tradition that holds this statement to be true, and if we get into specifics, church tradition will have apostles dying in multiple ways. Suffice to say, this tradition is unsubstantiated and dubiously held in high regard by the uninitiated.

It's not impossible to prove a negative? Please demonstrate by proving there is no Russell's flying teapot.

I have to say, I agree with the OP and your defense of it. Although, your opponent is correct that *sometimes* a negative can be proven. For instance, 'there are no married bachelors'. The terms married and bachelor conflict and cannot exist in a single entity at the same time, thus a married bachelor is a logical impossibility and does not exist.

I think you should qualify your statement to avoid this irrelevancy.

Well, my faith is not in my understanding, but God, which is certainly above and beyond my understanding.

It always amazes me when people pretend to not know what truth or reality means. If you don't believe in truth and reality, there is no amount of explaining on my part that will make things clear to you.

You have adopted the identity of the skeptic. I tell you that it takes just as much thought to believe something on hearing as it does to reject something on hearing.

I am not making a tautology. You are being obtuse

It Is That It Is

This is still a tautology, and no new information has been provided by the repetition. I remain in the dark about what this is meant to say.

To distinguish that which is real in a contingent sense from that which is eternally real.

I said whatever The Ultimate Reality is that is The Ultimate Reality.

If there is one reality, The Ultimate Reality would be it. If there are many realities, they exist vecause of The Ultimate Reality, and they have no existence apart from it.

It is really hard to teach people who already think they know.

Firstly, I am talking about God, not god.

The fact that you have a nickname ("God") for your god does not mitigate anything I've said.

It is a reality that Donald Trump is the president of The United States of America. Before he took office, this was not reality. After he leaves office this will not be reality. The Ultimate Reality always is reality, it isn't time dependent.

Reality is dynamic just as you describe the Ultimate reality. When Trump is no longer in office reality will no longer be "Trump is president". It will change as existence changes.

Not relevent?

You aren't very perceptive are you?

The concept absolutely is universal, and there is a reason why one of the major overarching themes of the New Testament is that "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life"

What does the NT have to do with the god you advocate? Nothing in "Ultimate reality/Truth" suggests a god-concept  of any specific religion. The leaps you make are logically unfathomable. 

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned

Unless you're adding "God is Nirvana" to your definition, this is irrelevant to your argument.

 do not have a unique definition for God, you only say that because you are uneducated in these matters. This God has been taught for thousands of years.

If God is the subject of theology, you don't poo poo away theology as being irrelevent to this discussion.

Yes, God is universally recognized as being The Ultimate Reality, and this is an understanding that crosses the divide of cultural and religious tradition. 

For you to poo poo it away as if you had even a basic level of education regarding the subject is assinine, because that is what we are discussing. If you won't accept the basic premise you are wasting your time. Believe whatever deluded thing you want to about God if it confirms your own silly superstitions concerning the subject.

The only atheist argument against God is to redefine what God means. Otherwise, denial or even uncertainty regarding the existence of God is revealed for what it is. Manifest foolishness.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.

If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong. 

You don't know what you are talking about. You don't even respect the subject matter.

The reason you should accept that The Ultimate Reality is God is because this is how the concept is understood in theology. Should the scholars of geology define the language used by mathematicians? Of course not.

The Ultimate Reality is That which is Ultimately Real. The realest reality. The Truest Reality. 

It is true by itself, it is not contingent on anything else to be true. It is eternally true, never not true. It is The Truth itself.

Whatever The Ultimate Reality is, that is God

What is Ultimate reality (and how is this different than reality) and why should we label this "God"? I see no legitimate reason to accept there is something above reality or that a god (any god) should be conflated with it or reality as it can be observed.
 

If you don't believe this God, you aren't standing on anything

All you need, out of every claim that has ever been said, is one person that is a positive. The implications of just one person witnessing paranormal phenomena is pretty huge. 

The problem is every claim is made by persons who have no doubt their claim is true, the claims are not compatible, and we have no way to test the claims for truth. Couple this with the fact that there are many ways the human brain can be decieved (fatigue, drug or alcohol use, seizures, mental illness, lack of oxygen, etc.) and it starts looking very likely that these experiences can be explained in very natural ways.

So, testimony of experiences with god or the supernatural  should not be accepted as evidence personal or otherwise, imo.  ...present company excluded, of course! 😉😉😉

You're still addressing the question incorrectly....you ARE evaluating the evidence (weak or strong

we have more testimonial and documented evidence for spirituality than any one could ever study in a lifetime.

the concept of a Creator is not comparable to believing in gnomes

We invent the hypothesis absent observation and then seek evidence to confirm it or refute it.

 Ok, but this has not been done for god and that brings us back to the OP. Why should we accept god as real and not the other mythical beings?

 I don't think that that definition is defining God into existence. It is saying that God is X, and now X must be logically demonstrated.

So, I agree that we're not saying that WIMPs and GIMPs definitely exist.

What you (might) mean is 'if someone has an experience that they believe involves gnomes, would that be evidence of gnomes?'

I'd say it was.  

Consider an explorer  who comes back from Africa and says he discovered a new species of elephant; ie he 'had en experience of a new species of elephant'.

[...] my contributions in this thread were designed to show that the possibility of God's existence cannot be as easily disposed of as the OP believes 

The OP does not believe this. The OP questions why existence of god is accepted on a quantity of evidence which is not sufficient to accept the existence of other special beings.

In order to have an idea of what God is, you're saying, we must first prove that God exists (such that we have evidence about God).

 The KCA is based on the observation that all things have a cause, so why shouldn't existence? 

In some sense we may not be able to genuinely appreciate such an entity as it is, but that does not prevent us from sketching it out. I knew what a lion was before I saw it, just from definitions, but I only truly appreciated its majesty once I saw it.