Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolute objectivity requires, nay, demands absolute certainty -- which is something that life does not afford us. The mere fact that our intellectual and perceptual equipment are imperfect means that even if a deity handed down something 100% certain and correct from somewhere on high, it would still be subject to our perception and understanding and thus less than 100% certain TO US.
Bingo! Exactly! You actually proved Gods existence right there.
Lol -- no, as a matter of fact, that was neither my intended nor unintended point. My point is that everything is subjective, including your claims about your morality, and your morality itself. To be clear, I'm saying there is no objective morality; you just want / need / prefer there to be objective morality so you simply assert it. However what you do not do is substantiate it. In fact in this case you're "hearing" my argument through some sort of eldritch filter that turns it into what you perceive as an argument in your favor!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
The whole point of objective morality is that it can NOT come from anything on earth, the only plausible possible argument is that is comes from something absolute and unchanging, and that can only be a God. Period.
That is the point of your imagined objective morality but I'm talking about ACTUAL morality that is right here with us in the Real World (tm).
As I said -- even IF there WERE a 100% objective morality, the perception and interpretation of it would be wholly subjective anyway. God would have to take full charge of perception and understanding by "baking in" a universal morality and insuring that everyone understood it exactly the same. Given the thousands of Christian denominations and the dozens of other major religions, not to mention the various areligious and irreligious viewpoints, this is clearly not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
What about societies that think [murder is] ok?
What about them? Those societies (e.g., the Mayans you use as an example) are failed societies that did not endure. Although I don't think the Mayans endorsed murder carte blanche anyway; you're probably referring to ritual human sacrifice, which just an unfortunate religious expansion of the exceptions we have in our own society, e.g., killing in war, capital punishment, self defense and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
The fact that society (or different societies) can’t agree on what ‘s good and what’s bad is the whole basis behind apologetics and the fact only a God that’s unchanging can provide that.
Apologetics isn't just arguing for a theistic morality but for the existence of god himself, and for construction of theodicies, and indeed justifying the whole set of self-reinforcing memes that constitute Christianity.
That said, yes, the imperfect agreement of different societies and members within societies concerning benefits and harms is speciously used as an argument against the effectiveness and utility of societal morality and in favor of an argued superior morality asserted to be handed down by god. That by no means makes the argument compelling, though. Apologetics must first and foundationally present substantiation for god's existence, which it utterly fails to do, even a little; and then it must substantiate that morality as asserted by Christian orthodoxy (leaving aside the question of whose orthodoxy) is is of divine origin and makes a superior claim to societal morality; and in your case, it has the further burden of demonstrating itself to be objective.
I would say that the imperfect agreement mentioned above is simply the very process by which societal morality is formed. It is an organic, ongoing negotiation of terms between cooperating persons, families, tribes and organizations and ultimately cooperating societies. Often the question of "best" is not 100% clear or reflects competing interests. This is not rocket science, nor unexpected. That does not mean that an adequate workable consensus cannot be had and that society can not function. It just makes some moral choices difficult.
You are terribly hung up on the need for objectivity and I concede that there would be some nice benefits to your asserted objective morality -- but also there would be some real problems with it. One way morality is enforced is via the law. But law is a blunt, inflexible instrument. No law cast in advance can foresee and handle all possible real world situations nor can it be unambiguously applied in all real world situations with zero unintended consequences. This is why we have courts and legislatures, so that the application and adjustment of laws can be finessed as a clearer picture emerges of harms and benefits in particular situations -- as well as applying our experiences with sustainability of particular strategies. Immutable frameworks on the other hand simply present the same mindless brick wall to every situation, and cannot adjust for profound injustices that can arise.
I'll give you one example. Our concept of gender equality was very poor until the last few generations. Your holy book adjures women to keep silent in church, that it's unseemly for them to speak, and to not submit to their husbands in all things. Most Christians ignore this commandment, choosing not to cherry-pick it, because we as a society have moved way beyond such patriarchal concepts. So much for objectivity and immutability.
Since we can not disprove God's existence, we can not say this is valid.
However, I do for fact I have felt God. I was in a very anxious, horrible place a few years ago, and dove deeper into God and His word. During a very deep moment in prayer, an intense and very physical rush came over me. It was unlike any adernaline, any love or lust, or any other sensation I had ever felt. It was immediately calming and soothing, and flat out metaphysical. That's pretty intense if you ask me.
That leads to growth through suffering, and the root cause of pain to begin with. We will have trials, and things will happen until a person has no other reasoning except to look up and ask "why". This is a way God has to bring people closer to Him, until they give up on all earthly things and think of nothing but Him. Then the new growth through Him can begin.
Quote:
Following a book in order to not receive punishment in an afterlife would not prove they are "good". If there were followers of the devil, they could very easily use this method to follow the rules to infiltrate and cause havoc once in your heaven
The Word is complicated, and I often struggle myself, but who doesn't? There is no sin or pain in Heaven, so it's impossible for infiltration. We are saved by God's grace upon belief, and no work on earth can "get you in" but there are blessings. And while possible, that Hitler could have been on his death bed and asked for forgiveness, God is the final judge for that.
Quote:
Pointing to a book, as proof of the same book, is perhaps the most illogical statement anybody could make.
Actually, it's the Resurrection in the book that is the basis of Christianity. In 1000 years, they are not going to pull up DVD's of WW2 and say it was a made up movie, or if they did it would be foolish. Same goes for the account of Christs resurrection.
Quote:
Now what does that say about your god for flooding the earth simply because he made an imperfect creation rather than a perfect one?
We've covered this. The world is fallen to sin. He will not directly intervene (although He can), so that He can be loved truthfully and willingly.
If your wife was a robot under your control, you would become bored. Same goes for us through God. Jesus said the Church is His bride. He gives you JUST enough to come searching but not enough to be convinced directly as a result of Him.
Apologetics must first and foundationally present substantiation for god's existence, which it utterly fails to do, even a little; and then it must substantiate that morality as asserted by Christian orthodoxy (leaving aside the question of whose orthodoxy) is is of divine origin and makes a superior claim to societal morality; and in your case, it has the further burden of demonstrating itself to be objective.
Fails? It's whole point is to substantiate, and it does an excellent job. Let me be honest with you, I have to know when to concede because things go beyond my comprehension. I did not major in theology, but am associated with people who did and did it quite well, such as some of the speakers at the AMP conference last weekend. I wish I had their knowledge right now.
Quote:
Your holy book adjures women to keep silent in church, that it's unseemly for them to speak, and to not submit to their husbands in all things.
This is a very common misconception and easily explained.
Bottom line - I find non-Godly views to be quite material and selfish. I have explained why there is no worth or value without God, and why human concepts of worth and value have failed century after century. I wish you the best in your quest of finding what it is you need to, and will happily pray for you
It is probable that 909er is beyond reaching (although you never know), but explaining this repeatedly from different angles IS helpful to some of the folks reading these posts, especially lurkers and people who will pull these things out of the archives when doing their own personal research. Despite the entrenched, blinkered notions of some of our interlocutors here, there ARE people who have doubts and who are looking to free their thinking from dogma.
I hope that's true, but I'm doubtful. The vast majority of us posters on this forum are probably already skeptics/agnostics/atheists. Sure, we get the occasional person having a 'crisis of faith' we might be able to sway, but most of us are either secular, or religionists like 909er who are looking for a place to pontificate.
Well, either way, I respect your perseverance in trying to be rational with someone who isn't and probably never will be. When someone makes statements like "Since we can not disprove God's existence ...
However, I do for fact I have felt God". How do you explain to someone that a 'feeling of god' is not the same as knowing it exists when he/she is convinced they are one and the same? It seems futile to me.
I don't mean to offend with this question 909...but is English a second language for you? I am not certain if there is a bit of "lost in translation" occurring here but it seems as if you are using words that don't mean what you think they mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
Since we can not disprove God's existence, we can not say this is valid.
This is another fallacy. Ability to disprove existence does not provide proof of existence.
Otherwise, you cannot prove I am not god.
Quote:
However, I do for fact I have felt God. I was in a very anxious, horrible place a few years ago, and dove deeper into God and His word. During a very deep moment in prayer, an intense and very physical rush came over me. It was unlike any adernaline, any love or lust, or any other sensation I had ever felt. It was immediately calming and soothing, and flat out metaphysical. That's pretty intense if you ask me.
That leads to growth through suffering, and the root cause of pain to begin with. We will have trials, and things will happen until a person has no other reasoning except to look up and ask "why". This is a way God has to bring people closer to Him, until they give up on all earthly things and think of nothing but Him. Then the new growth through Him can begin.
The feeling you experienced is more likely a feeling of self-discovery, self-awareness, or some similar (non-divine) revelation than of some divine entity choosing YOU out of all the work to be done in the universe.
This is the narcissistic tendency of belief in the supernatural...that an entity would violate its own "free will" experiment to inject you with some sort of "feeling" because you are more special than everybody else.
Quote:
The Word is complicated, and I often struggle myself, but who doesn't? There is no sin or pain in Heaven, so it's impossible for infiltration. We are saved by God's grace upon belief, and no work on earth can "get you in" but there are blessings. And while possible, that Hitler could have been on his death bed and asked for forgiveness, God is the final judge for that.
If there is no pain or sin in heaven, then what type of control does your god enslave the imperfect beings which entered? Because asking for forgiveness before you die does not result in being infallibe.
Quote:
Actually, it's the Resurrection in the book that is the basis of Christianity. In 1000 years, they are not going to pull up DVD's of WW2 and say it was a made up movie, or if they did it would be foolish. Same goes for the account of Christs resurrection.
Christianity piggybacks upon the OT. It may contradict it but then...it contradicts itself as does the OT.
Would that suggest to you the books themselves are likely not divine?
Quote:
We've covered this. The world is fallen to sin. He will not directly intervene (although He can), so that He can be loved truthfully and willingly.
If your wife was a robot under your control, you would become bored. Same goes for us through God. Jesus said the Church is His bride. He gives you JUST enough to come searching but not enough to be convinced directly as a result of Him.
So....why wouldnt an all-knowing god already have known the outcome of creating man would lead to a sinful world? How could a god be perfect if they could make such a blundering error of (gasp) judgement?
And boredom? Thats the reason for not creating a perfect version of man? And you accept that as reason to follow unsubstantiated claims of divinity?
Just think about that last word. Divinity....a very serious claim. It doesn't matter if somebody is a "good" person...to proclaim speaking to, interacting with, seeing, or certainly "being" divine...is quite an extraordinary proclamation. It isn't like proclaiming to be the best soccer player, or proclaiming to be knowledgeable of a subject when you are not....it is quite the proclamation and one should be skeptical of such a proclamation. Especially a 1000 year old proclamation which cannot be replicated.
Last edited by MartinEden99; 03-02-2015 at 01:02 PM..
Since we can not disprove God's existence, we can not say this is valid.
We cannot disprove the existence of an All Knowing Giant Earthworm who controls everything in the universe from a distant galaxy. We really can't!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
However, I do for fact I have felt God. I was in a very anxious, horrible place a few years ago, and dove deeper into God and His word. During a very deep moment in prayer, an intense and very physical rush came over me. It was unlike any adernaline, any love or lust, or any other sensation I had ever felt. It was immediately calming and soothing, and flat out metaphysical. That's pretty intense if you ask me.
You have had an emotional / psychological experience which you do not understand. Therefore you just know that it was "God." Some native Americans use mind-altering drugs to experience "God." It's almost like the human brain is hard-wired to attribute awesome and mysterious phenomena to a conscious, supernatural agent (ie God or gods). 1000 years ago, lightning was an awesome and mysterious phenomenon, so everybody knew that it was God at work. Then science came along and proved that lightning is just a really big spark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
That leads to growth through suffering, and the root cause of pain to begin with. We will have trials, and things will happen until a person has no other reasoning except to look up and ask "why". This is a way God has to bring people closer to Him, until they give up on all earthly things and think of nothing but Him. Then the new growth through Him can begin.
Or you can try to understand the universe with the scientific method and discover the real root causes of pain and suffering in the world: competition for limited resources, bad design of the human body via evolution, overpopulation, infectious micro organisms, social inequality, corruption, the lust for money and power, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
The Word is complicated, and I often struggle myself, but who doesn't? There is no sin or pain in Heaven, so it's impossible for infiltration. We are saved by God's grace upon belief, and no work on earth can "get you in" but there are blessings. And while possible, that Hitler could have been on his death bed and asked for forgiveness, God is the final judge for that.
I don't know what you are trying to say here. It sounds like you are repeating some of the standard Christian ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
Actually, it's the Resurrection in the book that is the basis of Christianity. In 1000 years, they are not going to pull up DVD's of WW2 and say it was a made up movie, or if they did it would be foolish. Same goes for the account of Christs resurrection.
If Christ rose from the dead he should be walking among us today. He should be appearing on all of the afternoon talk shows and getting his message of salvation out to the world. But of course this is not the case. The Risen Christ is nowhere to be found. He was conveniently taken back to a non-existent place called "heaven" just like the Golden Plates in Mormonism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
We've covered this. The world is fallen to sin. He will not directly intervene (although He can), so that He can be loved truthfully and willingly.
Well...how convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
If your wife was a robot under your control, you would become bored. Same goes for us through God. Jesus said the Church is His bride. He gives you JUST enough to come searching but not enough to be convinced directly as a result of Him.
Again...how convenient. I must say, you are an expert at turning a lack of evidence into "evidence."
Parent: "Johnny, the reason we can't see Santa Claus is that Santa Claus likes children to have faith in him. How could children have faith in him if they actually saw him?"
Fails? It's whole point is to substantiate, and it does an excellent job. Let me be honest with you, I have to know when to concede because things go beyond my comprehension. I did not major in theology, but am associated with people who did and did it quite well, such as some of the speakers at the AMP conference last weekend. I wish I had their knowledge right now.
Your honesty is admirable & appreciated. But if you are standing on the convincing argument of others...then you are not as knowledgeable of the subject as you probably should be to formulate your own logical conclusions.
I would not ask you to follow my path and "not believe" along with me...but I would ask you to be skeptical of anybody who does want you to follow without evidence of their argument. And if you discover that, in the end, the faith is what you prefer to practice...then do so but realize you are practicing faith, not some factual account of god.
Born and bred American, graduated top 10% of my class, in one of the best school systems in the country. Shall we discuss digital theory or electro-optics?
Quote:
Ability to disprove existence does not provide proof of existence.
It doesn't disprove it either.
Quote:
The feeling you experienced is more likely a feeling of self-discovery, self-awareness, or some similar (non-divine) revelation than of some divine entity choosing YOU out of all the work to be done in the universe.
That, or it was a great sign that I appreciate to this day.
Quote:
If there is no pain or sin in heaven, then what type of control does your god enslave the imperfect beings which entered?
Hell. Which is not a firepit, it's an absence of God and His love. So whatever that may be, doesn't sound pleasant to me.
Quote:
So....why wouldnt an all-knowing god already have known the outcome of creating man would lead to a sinful world? How could a god be perfect if they could make such a blundering error of (gasp) judgement?
And boredom? Thats the reason for not creating a perfect version of man? And you accept that as reason to follow unsubstantiated claims of divinity?
God experienced the cruelty of the cross as if He was a hardened criminal just so He can make a payment for man's sins. Buddha had no solution for the penalty of man's sins. Mohammed offered no real solution either. Catholicism, although claiming to be Christian in beliefs, still gives man a big responsibility in saving himself. The New Age movement can only suggest something that will make you focus on the "here and now" so that you'll not be burdened with what's ahead in eternity. This makes Christianity unique. It offered a solution. Jesus was the solution. God turned evil to good by transferring all of man's evil on His beloved Son so He could pay for them. The chains of sin on us were broken because Jesus let himself experience the evil of men.
God still uses evil in our time to bring out good. How many people have turned to God for assurance of life in Heaven after they've realized how fragile and short life is through the death of someone they know? I believe you and your other Christian friends can name some. God uses natural calamities like the tsunami in Japan and the big earthquakes that rocked major cities early this year to bring to the minds of people that there is a powerful God that they should fear, or better yet, be reconciled with. Crimes around us, heavy and petty crimes alike, show how man has gone low in their morals, and therefore, disqualifies them from the future joys of Heaven. Your own offense of God's Moral Standards, the Ten Commandments, should bring you to the realization that you're not a good person, that's why you need Jesus' perfection to be transferred on you to enter into His Kingdom. For Christians, God uses circumstances to bring out new strength from us so that, we, in turn, can also be used by Him to strengthen others. He also uses sufferings to re-focus ourselves to Him so that we can enjoy Him even in this world.
In conclusion, God gave man free will even if He knew it will cause problems through man's wrong use of it because He also knows the solution to it... Jesus.
Quote:
You have had an emotional / psychological experience which you do not understand. Therefore you just know that it was "God."
I do.
Quote:
Or you can try to understand the universe with the scientific method and discover the real root causes of pain and suffering in the world: competition for limited resources, bad design of the human body via evolution, overpopulation, infectious micro organisms, social inequality, corruption, the lust for money and power, etc.
And that completely disproves intelligent design. Oh wait...
Quote:
I don't know what you are trying to say here. It sounds like you are repeating some of the standard Christian ideas.
I am Christian.
Quote:
If Christ rose from the dead he should be walking among us today. He should be appearing on all of the afternoon talk shows and getting his message of salvation out to the world. But of course this is not the case. The Risen Christ is nowhere to be found. He was conveniently taken back to a non-existent place called "heaven" just like the Golden Plates in Mormonism.
And we will all find out eventually.
Quote:
Well...how convenient.
Yes.
Quote:
must say, you are an expert at turning a lack of evidence into "evidence."
I hope that's true, but I'm doubtful. The vast majority of us posters on this forum are probably already skeptics/agnostics/atheists. Sure, we get the occasional person having a 'crisis of faith' we might be able to sway, but most of us are either secular, or religionists like 909er who are looking for a place to pontificate.
I can only tell you that once upon a time I was a believer who had doubts and would have appreciated coming here (surreptitiously at first, no doubt) and seeing systematic rational arguments laid out for my consideration. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort.
Sometimes I lose track of whether I'm responding to an A&A thread or an R&S thread as we unbelievers are somewhat dominant on R&S too. The only real difference is that theists who post here in A&A usually think their command of apologetics is sound (though, invariably, they fail to make rational substantiated arguments) and in R&S it is more we who are saying, "now, wait just a minute, here ... that's a logical fallacy". In some ways, interactions with theists on A&A are "purer" because they are asking for it; no one is raining on their parade.
God experienced the cruelty of the cross as if He was a hardened criminal just so He can make a payment for man's sins. Buddha had no solution for the penalty of man's sins. Mohammed offered no real solution either. Catholicism, although claiming to be Christian in beliefs, still gives man a big responsibility in saving himself. The New Age movement can only suggest something that will make you focus on the "here and now" so that you'll not be burdened with what's ahead in eternity. This makes Christianity unique. It offered a solution. Jesus was the solution. God turned evil to good by transferring all of man's evil on His beloved Son so He could pay for them. The chains of sin on us were broken because Jesus let himself experience the evil of men.
God still uses evil in our time to bring out good. How many people have turned to God for assurance of life in Heaven after they've realized how fragile and short life is through the death of someone they know? I believe you and your other Christian friends can name some. God uses natural calamities like the tsunami in Japan and the big earthquakes that rocked major cities early this year to bring to the minds of people that there is a powerful God that they should fear, or better yet, be reconciled with. Crimes around us, heavy and petty crimes alike, show how man has gone low in their morals, and therefore, disqualifies them from the future joys of Heaven. Your own offense of God's Moral Standards, the Ten Commandments, should bring you to the realization that you're not a good person, that's why you need Jesus' perfection to be transferred on you to enter into His Kingdom. For Christians, God uses circumstances to bring out new strength from us so that, we, in turn, can also be used by Him to strengthen others. He also uses sufferings to re-focus ourselves to Him so that we can enjoy Him even in this world.
In conclusion, God gave man free will even if He knew it will cause problems through man's wrong use of it because He also knows the solution to it... Jesus.
So....god knew he created imperfect beings, created items which he forbid, knew the imperfect beings would use the forbidden items, and punished the imperfect beings anyway. And the solution to this "problem" (of his very own doing), was to send his son to earth to repent of sins that have (a) been punished by god already & (b) have yet to be committed but he knows WILL be committed and yet refuses to prevent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
