Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
You ask a lot of questions that seem to be without any purpose.
The purpose behind these questions is to put emphasis on my belief that none of these things matter without God validating it (E.g. your life) I thought it would be more beneficial for you to say it then me but you keep diverging to something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
The list is legion for it is many.
Well in that case we’ll start with most important, what’s ONE agreeable thing about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
I think I have been largely fortunate, although there have been a few ups and downs it has been mostly ups, so life for the most part has been pretty agreeable.
What’s agreeable about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Regarding the value of human survival as a concept, I think that may be a personal thing and different people may put different values on their existence.
Why do you value yours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Suicide and neglect are necessary to protect
There’s nothing protective about suicide and/or neglect, that’s counterintuitive.
letting the survival of the fittest continue without being hampered
Again counterintuitive because there’s nothing fit about being hampered.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
My mistake...it's not distraction you suffer from...its dishonesty.
For arguments sake what does that have to do with the example you used?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Survival is the basic driving force for all living things, as to why, probably because it is encoded in the DNA of all species.
Then how do you explain the suicidal and/or neglectful?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
It seems you are easily distracted. 😂
Distracted by your example you want to call irrelevant, interesting logic 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
On that note of agreement perhaps we should leave it there.
Theirs still a point of contention that should be addressed and that’s
They were the product of evolution through natural selection and they helped maximise human fitness to survive. There is no need for God.
How do you justify the value of survival without God?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I assure you, it is not a fact (I can't perfectly imagine my back yard), but that is irrelevant to the point
It was your example dude not mine 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
This is sometimes referred to as a “Damascus moment” after the biblical story of Paul, who converted to Christianity while travelling the road to Damascus (Acts 9).
Well in that case I guess God does interfere, I was told on judgement day God gives sinners one last chance to redeem themself (I assume by doing so he makes Himself known in the way your alluding to) and go to heaven (albeit more difficult) I guess that’s another thing to consider.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
might be a fact
It either is or it isn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
What about those without faith who have an epiphany moment, where God suddenly makes himself known.
I would ask for more details.
The threats of eternal damnation exist very much in this life.
I thought the general notion was the afterlife was eternal not this life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Okay, I’ll accept that but perhaps if you had said that “he doesn’t interfere in people’s beliefs” rather than the all encompassing “he doesn’t interfere” that would have been clearer.
Okay, but originally I made that comment as a follow up to a more “contextualized” statement https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6115-arguments-regarding-god?page=5&post_number=116
Many claim that God has made himself known to them
Yes, AFTER the faith in Him is already there.
Secondly wouldn’t threats of punishment in an afterlife for not believing also constitute as interfering?
I thought the narrative (and you’ve made this clear verbatim) was this life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Let’s put this in context.You stated that God doesn’t interfere and my reply was, “Then that would make praying to ask for God’s help pretty pointless.”
Context? Funny how you say this but you don’t contextualize interference. Now if the narrative is you questioning why God doesn’t make everybody believe in Him and my response is He doesn’t interfere then “CONTEXTUALLY” speaking that’s in reference to beliefs meaning He doesn’t interfere with peoples beliefs, so any argument pertaining to praying to Him for help and that being pointless is “simply dismissive” of the narrative being currently discussed and a non sequitur because you were arguing under the pretense of those who don’t believe so a more than appropriate response was to counter that with your own logic by asking why are you praying to a God you don’t believe in, since “CONTEXTUALLY” speaking you were arguing under that pretense.
I really hope I helped bring this full circle.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
it is still dependent on a mind and still subjective.
The redundancy isn’t getting us anywhere so let’s try this, are facts objective?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your rebuttal makes no sense. Love and desire (what god wants) would be subjective.
Once you add proof into the equation that’s when something is objective so if theirs objective proof that you should have a goal (heaven) that proof overrules any subjectivity.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
They cannot exist without a mind, and, as such, they are not objective.
Not anything you haven’t said before, so what your just going to ignore my rebuttal?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Calling your argument incoherent is not the same as being Skeptical. It is more a comprehension issue.
When did I conflate the two?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Incoherent =/= clarity.
Are you going to explain yourself or not? Because you can’t expect me to agree with you by simply just calling my argument incoherent, so what are you trying to accomplish here?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That discussion was over the definition of subjective.
Which we clearly disagree on, making your
*subject to*
emphasis meaningless.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉
No, I just expanded on it for clarity 😉
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
which definition of "objective" are you using ?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Of the two definitions provided, love and desire qualify as objective exactly zero times. You're 0 for 2, my friend.
Well I disagree, you see how easy that was 😉
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i agree, and this is why love is not considered "objective"
Science isn’t the only objective standard.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
*subject to*
Double_R how many times do we have to go in this circle, this isn’t the 1st time you’ve made this argument that I already refuted.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you propose we measure love, you know, scientifically
Not sure you can.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?
No
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
love and wants are personal feelings and not objective.
They are if theirs an objective presence supporting them.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What you find pointless is irrelevant.
Except what I find pointless is a part of your argument that I’m questioning (that you still haven’t answered, wonder why 🤔) so yes that makes it very relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Here is the argument yet again.
Not the argument I was alluding to which was
Then that would make praying to ask for God’s help pretty pointless.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Objective means 'not dependent on mind
Which conflicts with the definition “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”
because you can’t consider and represent facts without a keyword MIND.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How is love an objective standard?
Because the God I believe in wants us to love.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Love is an emotion. Well being is an assessment of the state of one's existence. These are not the same thing.
I didn’t say they’re the same thing, I’m saying that assessing the state of your existence is pointless if you don’t love yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
I’m not sure there is a ranking of pointlessness, I would say they are equally pointless.
Then why are you making a pointless argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Then that would make praying to ask for God’s help pretty pointless.
Not as pointless as praying to a God you don’t believe in.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I reject your moral standard and assert 'well being' as the standard of morality.
That’s not really a rejection as far as I’m concerned because “well being” falls along the lines of love, I mean why would you be concerned about your well being if you didn’t love yourself first?
Created:
-->
@Avery
It is amorphous.
Which is one of the many reasons why it doesn’t exist, do you know what it means when something cancels out? It means it’s nonexistent, just like subjective morality which you conceded
Yeah I agree that it's a problem
Created:
-->
@Avery
I'm arguing objective morality doesn't exist. You're arguing that objective morality is better than subjective morality. We're not on the same page.
Stating the obvious doesn’t help anything. I’m not saying anything is “better” I’m saying theirs reasonable doubt regarding “subjective morality” and not once have you argued against it in fact you’ve agreed to the self-refuting illogical nature of it, and no that’s not consistent with subjectivity in the slightest.
Created:
-->
@Avery
You didn't counter. You argued that subjective morality doesn't exist because it can contradict (which of course it can -- it's subjective).
Saying “it’s subjective” isn’t any more of a counter argument it’s just redundancy. When two diametrically opposed forces come together they cancel each other out, the cancelling out is equivalent to nonexistence. That’s how logic works.
intersubjectivity
Inter subjectivity is irrelevant to the narrative being currently discussed, you conceded as much when you say
won't be 100% consistent
Created:
-->
@Avery
Perfectly.
Okay, but what’s your retort? Because being redundant in your position after I already countered it isn’t really advancing anything.
Created:
-->
@Avery
I'm not arguing that subjective morality is consistent. I'm arguing that there is no objective morality.
I know your argument, question is have you been paying attention to mine?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
And what is your objective moral standard?
Love
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
As already mentioned, it's explicit meaning isn't taken as an absolute by the deity or its followers within the Bible itself.
Except none of those excerpts you mentioned in The Bible pertains to suicide.
The context of that comment was in regards to your dismissal of my earlier criticism.
The only thing you criticized was The Bible in which I conceded I was no expert on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Unless you state what those conditions are that is pretty meaningless.
He doesn’t interfere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
By offering so many options we have a diversity of conflicting beliefs.
Not on this end you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Besides this commandment being rather flexible
How do you know it’s flexible in regards to suicide?
The point being, ignorance of your holy book isn't a defense to legitimate criticism of your religious position.
My religious position? Aren’t you the one that said
I'd be happy to hear your views
Well I guess theirs nothing to hear since you seem to know me better than myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Then he doesn’t want everyone to believe in him.
Or He does conditionally.
Created:
-->
@Avery
Yeah I agree that it's a problem. It's compounded by the fact that it's impossible to be impartial.
It’s more than just a problem, it’s enough to cause reasonable doubt. The simple fact that your view of morality contradicts itself is enough to come to the conclusion that it’s nonexistent. Judging by your definition of morality one can have no logical concept of fairness leaving no choice but impartiality. The only way morality makes sense is if it’s objective.
Created: