Maybe so. It’s probably unanswerable.
All I know is “Be still and know that I am G-d,” is a pretty good reason to go on a hike and sit on a rock with a view.
2 Likes
I tend to agree. It’s a waste of time.
At least my branch of Judaism teachers that G-d chooses who gets to believe and follow Him (be it a Jew or a gentile). It is an honor that is wholly undeserved by the one who gets to believe.
The only area of persuasion I see worthwhile is those who are chosen, and believe, but chose not to follow.
Now, that is a waste of a different kind.
1 Like
That is pretty much how I see it too. In fact, I have a hard time relating to people that have never had a crisis of faith. In certain environments people are loath to admit something like that, but I see it as a wholly human experience to have doubt, anger, or any range of personal obstacles with what they believe- then over come them.
When I run into someone that has never doubted or had any type ax to grind with their own beliefs I can’t help but think “You’re either lying or have lived an absolutely charmed existence.”.
2 Likes
Bishop Barron on faith.
1 Like
With regards to myself, and @Lonnie123 , in reference to the scientific method and how it pertains to what we’re talking about. You posted that video which tells me you didn’t understand what was discussed. Its all good man.
Yes, I understand that you think I have erred. I am asking you to explain to me exactly how. And I do thank you for your patients.
I will paste a defense of the premises. Like anything even logic itself rides along a causal chain. Each premise to an argument is a conclusion to another. If I were to lay it out in proper form with proper prose it would be pages and pages and mind numbing shit most people would not read.
But no, burden of proof shifts once I have made the arguments if we’re dealing in proper etiquette. I could have chosen to expand on the premises, or not. Then the respondent is required to provide at least one objection that could render the premise false and the argument hence untrue. Then I would mount a defense according to his objection. And that’s how the arguments get properly fleshed out.
Leaving it open, as I did, gives me the chance the analyze what direction the respondent is going to take in his objection without trying to assume anything about how he would respond.
I do not intend to do this, it takes way to much time. I have done it many times here and other places and besides the experts have done it already and can probably explain it better than me anyway.
I am not going to vomit information on you, you can look at it or not. But I will leave it to up to you.
I will leave it to Dr. William Lane Craig to explain. If you are unfamiliar with his work, it’s vast. I think the best endorsement for his work is a quote from Dr. Sam Harris who called him the one man “…who puts the fear of God in to my fellow atheists”.
If you want more, you can feel free to ask, or peruse his site on your own, (it has tons on info).
No. It’s not like that at all. Christianity isn’t “Fire insurance”
I read the link; thank you.
Fair enough. Re the premise “Objective moral values do exist”: The qualifier objective means ‘existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real; based on observable phenomena; empirical.’
To date, no evidence meeting this standard concerning the existence of moral values has ever been proffered. Therefore, the premise is unsupported.
If the existence of God was a logical inevitability, it would be a given. (And faith would no longer be required, BTW.)
1 Like
And it’s certainly a meta-ethical concern for at base there is no definition of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ unless in comparison to something else. In the negative analysis, it isn’t a problem with what’s right with objectivism, it’s what’s wrong with it’s antithesis, subjectivism. Subjectivism breaks down at the extremes and it’s inherent weaknesses are exposed.
For is there ever a time or moment where it’s morally ok, even if the agent thinks it’s ok and society tolerates it, to rape, torture and murder an infant or toddler? The obvious answer is no. But under a subjective morality there has to be a point where the answer to the question is ‘yes’ or subjective morality is false, by default. Hence, morality cannot be subjective then is must be objective which means that by some measure an act of will can be judged. And that is the key, that the agent of an act cannot also make that act ‘good’ or ‘bad’ as a matter of his own will.
Hence, if you can take it, I submit to you Kant, whose writing style is murder, but this is a summary of the arguments he puts forth. So it’s not as bad.
Torture though he may be to read, he also tends to be right. And people have tried to argue against him.
1 Like
An arguable point. But at any rate, you are conflating the universality of moral repugnancy with its objectivity.
Again, you are conflating universality with objectivity. But even if we assume the existence of a universal moral imperative, it’s easy to imagine how it could arise via natural causes (ie, evolution). That is, the existence of a universal moral imperative does not require a Universal Moral Imperative Author.
I am surprised you would appeal to Kant, as his main point is that objective morality does not require an appeal to God (to put it in vastly oversimplified form).
Thank you for sharing that.
I have a hard time describing a lot of what I’ve experienced, and it would take way too long. Between mixed messages, bad experiences, and faulty conclusions I don’t know how I came to believe in anything, other than to say that believing in nothing didn’t work. In fact, it failed badly.
2 Likes
I’m atheist for the same reason I don’t believe the tooth fairy, santa, and the easter bunny are real.
I am always glad to see someone bring up Pascal’s Wager though. “Wouldn’t it be better to fake that you worship something that may or may not be there? I mean if he is there and this book is actually true you will burn for all eternity in a lake of fire so you should really at least fake believe to save your own ass. What do you have to lose?”
Although always good to see an all powerful and all good god who would give people free will (which logically leads to doubting the existence of something with no proof) and then feel free to torment them for all eternity if they did not bow down. Makes a lot of sense!
SMH has already blown off the doors of the inconsistencies of it though and much clearer than I can. I suggest people look up old threads if they are interested. He was really the philosophical master of these debates with no match despite valiant efforts by some opposed to his conclusions.
I’d like to lose a few lunch hours reading those, any idea what they’re titled?
1 Like
I think you can find some others if you search. Can’t do it right now really but look for the original proof of god thread
You havent “made the argument” though, you’ve merely asserted a claim without evidence. This is classic Russels Teapot… It isn’t up to me to disprove the teapot is there, its up to you to prove that it is. Simply saying something doesnt mean you have “made the argument” as an argument is made up of both claims and evidence to back up those claims.
This is akin to a “Gish Gallop” where you simply assert claim after claim after claim and then declare yourself the winner because the respondent hasn’t disproved them all.
Yes, and he is correct. It exists as it’s own entity, but he also authored a moral argument for God’s existence. People always harp on the one and forget to mention, conveniently, the other.
I made 3, with supporting premises. I didn’t merely make a claim. If you should decide they are not true you are welcome to object.
Well you offered 3 conclusions, but in my opinion you didn’t support the premises, you merely asserted them as facts.
The burden isn’t on me to disprove them, you have to provide evidence for your premises which can then be evaluated and accepted/rejected.
I did provide more back up in further posts, upon request. Please see my responses to @EyeDentist for more details if you are curious.