[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
So disregard for the well-being of creatures, which is an objective feature of the Biblical god is good?[/quote]
I’m sorry, you don’t believe in God.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.
[/quote]
Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…
[/quote]
And no, you’re self-imposed standards don’t make it reality.
[/quote]
God’s self-imposed standards don’t make it a reality. They are no less subjective.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
I chose to define it that way. Your choice is “the boss says so.” My choice is, let’s see what actual effect actions have on conscious entities.
[/quote]
That statement said nothing. I caught a fish, and put it up on the dock. It died. I saw the effect. Again, it died.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
I chose to define it that way.[/quote]
And that makes it reality, Mr. Empiricism?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
So disregard for the well-being of creatures, which is an objective feature of the Biblical god is good?[/quote]
I’m sorry, you don’t believe in God.[/quote]
So we can’t describe attributes of characters in literature? By what logic?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
I chose to define it that way.[/quote]
And that makes it reality, Mr. Empiricism?
[/quote]
God choses to define it that way. Who cares? It’s still subjective.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.
[/quote]
Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…
[/quote]
And no, you’re self-imposed standards don’t make it reality.
[/quote]
God’s self-imposed standards don’t make it a reality. They are no less subjective. [/quote]
You said the Holocaust was evil, in reality, because you defined it that way. Doesn’t sound very empirical to me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
I chose to define it that way. Your choice is “the boss says so.” My choice is, let’s see what actual effect actions have on conscious entities.
[/quote]
That statement said nothing. I caught a fish, and put it up on the dock. It died. I saw the effect. Again, it died.[/quote]
Don’t get any pets.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
So disregard for the well-being of creatures, which is an objective feature of the Biblical god is good?[/quote]
I’m sorry, you don’t believe in God.[/quote]
So we can’t describe attributes of characters in literature? By what logic?[/quote]
There are no moral characteristics to ascribe, remember.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
I chose to define it that way. Your choice is “the boss says so.” My choice is, let’s see what actual effect actions have on conscious entities.
[/quote]
That statement said nothing. I caught a fish, and put it up on the dock. It died. I saw the effect. Again, it died.[/quote]
Don’t get any pets.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^If that’s how you feel than that’s how you feel. [/quote]
It’s a feeling backed up by experience and knowledge of how the world really works. People get deluded. People hallucinate. Even today there are miracle stories that YOU don’t take seriously. Why should we take miracle stories that take place 2000 years ago any more seriously than you take many today?[/quote]
I think actually what he was addressing at the time was the stated notion that Jesus never proved he was God WHILE assuming all the things he did in the Bible did in fact happen. In other words the person that made the original comment–which he was replying to–was making the comment while assuming the Bible was telling the truth about his actions (I.e. reliable witness) This is different from the conmment that the Bible is unreliable after 2000 years, or that it was never reliable in the first place.
Assuming the Bible was telling it accurately, he raised the dead in front of a few dozen at least, maybe a hundred grieving witnesses, wine was for a large wedding, fed a couple thousand people, all while directly claiming he was God’s Son. In still other words, all the miracles were done in public with multiple witnesses and combined with statements, but this still doesn’t seem to be proof according to the original contention.
This is a different criticism from saying there is no reliable account of the actions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
So disregard for the well-being of creatures, which is an objective feature of the Biblical god is good?[/quote]
I’m sorry, you don’t believe in God.[/quote]
So we can’t describe attributes of characters in literature? By what logic?[/quote]
There are no moral characteristics to ascribe, remember.
[/quote]
Changing the subject. Typical lack of intellectual honesty. Disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures. I did not say immorality was an objective feature. I said disregard of well-being.
Next time, try not to be intellectually honest. It’s striking that people who say they have objective morality on their side don’t exercise it in debates.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
I chose to define it that way. Your choice is “the boss says so.” My choice is, let’s see what actual effect actions have on conscious entities.
[/quote]
That statement said nothing. I caught a fish, and put it up on the dock. It died. I saw the effect. Again, it died.[/quote]
Don’t get any pets.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
Because you don’t think the well being of conscious creatures is a moral good.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.
[/quote]
Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…
[/quote]
And no, you’re self-imposed standards don’t make it reality.
[/quote]
God’s self-imposed standards don’t make it a reality. They are no less subjective. [/quote]
You said the Holocaust was evil, in reality, because you defined it that way. Doesn’t sound very empirical to me.
[/quote]
Did I explicitly state that?
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because the universe comprises matter/energy that must’ve be set in motion - i.e. the Big Bang. The singularity, or whatever came first must have been created by something/someone immune from infinite regress. The matter/energy cannot be immune from infinite regress due to the first law of thermodynamics: matter/energy cannot be lost or created in a closed system.[/quote]
None of these arguments can be made without assumption, and few of them can be made without special pleading, which is why you will not find credible theist philosophers (Platinga, Craig, etc.) referring to their conclusions as proved, but rather “argued” or “strongly argued,” or “it is reasonable to believe X” and the like.
It is even possible that God exists and yet He exists beyond the reach of human reason and cannot be logically “proved” without assumption.[/quote]
Craig? Credible? LOL
[/quote]
Perhaps my assumption is wrong, but your posts give the strong impression that you do not see ANY theist as credible (I am not speaking of the CvE debate, this is philosophy), so singling out Craig is rather silly and you should just come out and say “all theists” like you said “all abrahamic religions” in another thread. Not thzt there’s anything wrong with that…but it does mean you can’t single one guy out.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
So disregard for the well-being of creatures, which is an objective feature of the Biblical god is good?[/quote]
I’m sorry, you don’t believe in God.[/quote]
So we can’t describe attributes of characters in literature? By what logic?[/quote]
There are no moral characteristics to ascribe, remember.
[/quote]
Changing the subject. Typical lack of intellectual honesty. Disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures. I did not say immorality was an objective feature. I said disregard of well-being.
Next time, try not to be intellectually honest. It’s striking that people who say they have objective morality on their side don’t exercise it in debates. [/quote]
Intellectually dishonest? Wow. Pot calling the kettle black. I’ve answered the question with a resounding “God decides.” Period, end of story. He could wipe this sphere clean tomorrow, and it would be “Good.”
Your skeptical, empirical, high-intellectualism turned into “the Holocaust was evil–in reality–because I said so based on emotional feeling I get.”
I feel God’s presence at mass, do you accept that “reality?” Is God now real to you? But, but, I felt something!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.
[/quote]
Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…
[/quote]
And no, you’re self-imposed standards don’t make it reality.
[/quote]
God’s self-imposed standards don’t make it a reality. They are no less subjective. [/quote]
You said the Holocaust was evil, in reality, because you defined it that way. Doesn’t sound very empirical to me.
[/quote]
The bottom line is there doesn’t seem to be any way for there to be objective morality.
Saying god says so, just moves the goalpost without proving objectivity.
Again, it’s the Euthyphro Dilemma. There is no resolution to it. Morality is subjective, and we’re stuck with it that way.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
I chose to define it that way. Your choice is “the boss says so.” My choice is, let’s see what actual effect actions have on conscious entities.
[/quote]
That statement said nothing. I caught a fish, and put it up on the dock. It died. I saw the effect. Again, it died.[/quote]
Don’t get any pets.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
Because you don’t think the well being of conscious creatures is a moral good.
[/quote]
It’s not in a godless universe. It’s either competition, a resource, or an ally to obtain the first two. It isn’t? Prove it! Empiricism!
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
Your worldview is no different than saying if Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would have been a moral good.
[/quote]
Your worldview is that the Holocaust wasn’t, in reality, an evil…
[/quote]
And no, you’re self-imposed standards don’t make it reality.
[/quote]
God’s self-imposed standards don’t make it a reality. They are no less subjective. [/quote]
You said the Holocaust was evil, in reality, because you defined it that way. Doesn’t sound very empirical to me.
[/quote]
The bottom line is there doesn’t seem to be any way for there to be objective morality.
Saying god says so, just moves the goalpost without proving objectivity.
Again, it’s the Euthyphro Dilemma. There is no resolution to it. Morality is subjective, and we’re stuck with it that way.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to prove it. I take it on faith that there is good and evil. Faith is human and reasonable to me.
But, in your worldview, you’re supposed to be the one seeking empirical proof for good and evil. Of course you circumvent that by somehow defining what is reality (holocaust IS evil) , when you don’t actually believe that evil exists in reality. Because, emotional stuff.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
If I define evil is total disregard for the well-being of conscious creatures I can. [/quote]
Now show me that rule of the universe through a telescope. Can’t? Then you created your own fable. And you don’t even believe in your own fable.
[/quote]
I chose to define it that way. Your choice is “the boss says so.” My choice is, let’s see what actual effect actions have on conscious entities.
[/quote]
That statement said nothing. I caught a fish, and put it up on the dock. It died. I saw the effect. Again, it died.[/quote]
Don’t get any pets.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
Because you don’t think the well being of conscious creatures is a moral good.
[/quote]
It’s not in a godless universe. It’s either competition, a resource, or an ally to obtain the first two. It isn’t? Prove it! Empiricism!
[/quote]
It’s not in a godly universe either.