We all have faith in something: world views take faith.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The rejection of miracle claims in history is a philosophical bias.

You have to understand my point of view though. I cant take the bible seriously when the bible is almost the same as the Greek Mythology full of "miracles", superpowers, etc.

now lets go to the second part.

- who ultimately determines right and wrong?

I would say each person. I see murder as wrong, most of us who are mentally healthy see murder as wrong. But some people are missing a function of their brain that gives compassion and empathy, we call them psychopaths. They dont see killing as wrong. Thats why I think every person determines right and wrong. Another example is that some guys see it wrong to hit a girl, but others dont see it that way.

you'll notice you reject miracle claims in history based on your world view(no god exist).

I reject them because they dont fit with my reality. I also want to make this clear, I never said "no god exists". It would be illogical for me to say that.

In the same way God is an agent to the universe. We can see the mechanisms he's created, but why would you expect the creation to have a physical piece of evidence of the creator.

I understand your view, which i think is similar to Issac Newton's. The universe is big machine. I accept that, i dont believe it but i understand this view. I also wouldnt expect a "creator" to show himself, thats why i always say that i dont know if a "creator" exists.

If humans have no value, do you have a problem with someone who thinks its fun to gas jews? If so, why?

Yes, because they have feelings just like any human.

My philosophy on life is basically to "Live your life like you want to live it without hurting anyone physically or mentally."

Killing jews or anyone is wrong to me because this could be the only life we have and we shouldnt take it away from anyone.

So from that perspective if someones purpose in life is to be a thief and date-rapist BRAVO or if someones purpose in life is to be like Mother Teresa BRAVO.

The thief and rapist will go to jail if he gets caught. But criminals mostly didnt make it their life purpose to become a criminal, they live in the moment with no thoughts on the consequences or their future.

Some of us makes our life purpose to help people as much as we can. Others make it their life purpose to become rich, buy a mansion, vacations, etc. Others make it their life purpose to have a family, kids, and see them grow and become successful. Others made their life purpose to follow the Koran/Bible so they can reach salvation and go to heaven after death (according to their beliefs).

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And if she gave you food would you chemically analyze it? What about the last time you picked up fast food did you chemically analyze it? Actually have you ever chemically analyze your fast food, or any food given to you for that matter?

Let me ask how do you jump to having to chemically analyze food.

Your definition of faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

So either you are redefining what your own definition is or you are being absurd.

I didn't ask if you had a faith that love never failed, but rather that love exist at all.

Love can also be explained as chemical reaction. So my answer still stands I don't have faith in it as you define it.

You do know that there have been cases where people have had brain injuries which changed their chemical makeup and I am sure those that were close were left wondering what happened to the love as well.

Ok but there are only two options. Either from intelligence or Cosmic Accident.

Accidents happen all the time cosmic intelligence not so much. Anyway who told you those are the only two options?

The only honest answer is I don't know so I will stay honest and still say I don't know.

By uniform nature of the universe I mean things like the gravitational constant, electric constant, Planck constant. If the world is a random accident what sustains the uniformity we find all the way back to the first Planck time?

How do you know gravitation is a constant some of the best minds are still debating that. Are you saying you know better than them? You see uniformity I see chaos but it looks pretty.

I was indeed using the ethical definition of intrinsic value.

Do People have an inborn degree of importance?

You need to either answer how I asked or give the definition you are using because when I looked it up there was more than one ethical version to go by.

Now according to this world view you would have to view Martin luther king, Gandhi, Harriet Tubman and anyone else who went against the cultural norm as moral monsters. Do you see understand why I say that?

That is pretty narrow minded of you and I definitely disagree. The culture or community. You noticed the "or" maybe I should have said either or.

I wonder are you operating from some playbook because I honestly don't know how you are coming to these conclusions.

My moral experience personally contradicts that. People have moral experiences just like we have physical experiences. When I jump off a building and break my leg I have physical experience. When someone steals my wallet likewise I have a moral experience. At no point time would someone stealing my wallet produce a moral experience in which I felt that stealing was only subjectively wrong .

That is subjective to the culture which is why I said culturally maybe which is what you seem to be equivocating it to inn your experience.

I said cross culturally worldwide no. There are cultures past and present that would have no problem stealing your wallet on moral grounds. I have been to a few of those countries. But to give you a historical reference to show you how far it can go(it probably has gone even further).

Most know from the movie 300 the spartans would send their kids out as a test of manhood into the wild but if you investigate further historically it went much further.

Not only would they send them out but they were expected to steal and murder during that right of passage. They were sent out with nothing but a knife and had the task of killing as many state-owned slaves (called helots) as they could. They had to do it undetected only after that would they be considered a man.

In present day there are still tribes of cannibals which doesn't need explaining.

Maybe you can think of some moral rule that applies to everyone across the world because I can't.

a reply to: danielsil18

You have to understand my point of view though. I cant take the bible seriously when the bible is almost the same as the Greek Mythology full of "miracles", superpowers, etc.

I understand were you are coming from for sure, but really the only question I am asking of you is to examine the four Gospels and come up with a test that you can apply to any ancient document to see if it is accurate historical knowledge and apply it to the 4 Gospels.

I mean you must also understand that if someone did witness these events writing was the only form of communication to the future they had available. You must also understand that historical knowledge is a legitimate form of evidence.

The historical evidence points to the fact the hercules and achilles were not real people for example. Not just the literary style of the works but archaeological evidence as well. Jesus not so much.

Historical evidence of Muhammad points to the fact that he was real and we do have what He taught. Are his teachings reliable? I personally don't think so but thats for you to decide.

I reject them because they dont fit with my reality. I also want to make this clear, I never said "no god exists". It would be illogical for me to say that.

you might not have said it, but the way you interpret history shows that when it boils down to it thats how you choose to interpret data.

I understand your view, which i think is similar to Issac Newton's. The universe is big machine. I accept that, i dont believe it but i understand this view. I also wouldnt expect a "creator" to show himself, thats why i always say that i dont know if a "creator" exists.

It's similar, but I believe God to be personal. Meaning I think he cares about us. Again though that would go back to Jesus, and his message.

Yes, because they have feelings just like any human. My philosophy on life is basically to "Live your life like you want to live it without hurting anyone physically or mentally." Killing jews or anyone is wrong to me because this could be the only life we have and we shouldnt take it away from anyone.

Thats a great philosophy, but if humans don't have value why should that matter? You say hurting humans feelings is something you have a problem with, but if you truly believe humans don't have value you why is hurting a human's feelings something a person should attempt to avoid?

Again I am going to have to ask if humans don't have intrinsic value why is taking the only life someone has a big deal?

The thief and rapist will go to jail if he gets caught. But criminals mostly didnt make it their life purpose to become a criminal, they live in the moment with no thoughts on the consequences or their future. Some of us makes our life purpose to help people as much as we can. Others make it their life purpose to become rich, buy a mansion, vacations, etc. Others make it their life purpose to have a family, kids, and see them grow and become successful. Others made their life purpose to follow the Koran/Bible so they can reach salvation and go to heaven after death (according to their beliefs).

I agree, and if someone decides their purpose is to wipe the world clean of those who are not of the superior Aryan race? Would you say there purpose in life is just a valid life style as say one of love and compassion?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

but if humans don't have value why should that matter? You say hurting humans feelings is something you have a problem with, but if you truly believe humans don't have value you why is hurting a human's feelings something a person should attempt to avoid?

I think i didnt explain myself clearly about the values. I didnt mean humans are worth nothing, i meant to say that i dont give values to humans (a handicapped person "worth" less than a normal one). I believe life is precious because we might have only one.

With the feelings I meant that we all basically have the same feelings and should ask ourselves "how would i feel if i were in his shoes".

I agree, and if someone decides their purpose is to wipe the world clean of those who are not of the superior Aryan race? Would you say there purpose in life is just a valid life style as say one of love and compassion?

If they made that their life purpose then thats their life purpose but i dont agree with it because it involves killing people.

I would agree with it if it follows the philosophy I mentioned. Do what you want as long as you dont hurt anyone physically or mentally.

I guess I don't understand the point of this thread, which isn't all that surprising since I don't understand the concept of god, but what are you getting at, OP? Why are you asking questions and then berating people for the answers they give?

a reply to: Grimpachi

"Anthropic principle" That is a philosophical consideration = not evidence for god.

Barrow and Tipler's Strong Anthropic principle(Source Wiki):

"The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."

They proposed three elaborations of the principle:

" There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers' "

"Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."

"An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."

Your right this is a philosophical consideration you and I both have to take in to account. Which of the three elaborations has the most evidence supporting it?

I obviously am stating there is one universe and it was designed with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'. Now why do I state the Anthropic principle as evidence of a God? On a simplistic level the conditions we observe for life to exist has a very small range for change. What we observe appears designed. Science is the study of processes.

Wiki:

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by ancient civilizations such as the Greeks, Egyptians, and Sumerians. Later during the middle ages the Catholic church was responsible for saving much of the scientific knowledge from these civilizations, thus allowing the scientific method to develop in Europe during and after the Renaissance and through the enlightenment period.

I post that to show you that Science came about thru religious people. Now I personally don't claim to follow a religion. I follow what I feel is an accurate interpretation of Scripture. I don't claim to have faith when it is defined as belief without evidence. As I said earlier Science is the study of processes. Processes is defined as a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner, or a systematic series of actions directed to some end. Science starts with the presupposition that the world operates in a systematic manner.

Systematic
done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Now lets look at the definition of design:
a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made, or purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.


So to me Science if Science works the universe is most likely designed in a systematic manner, as order doesn't come from randomness.

Randomness is defined as proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern. Systems like the water cycle have pattern and randomness does not produce pattern.

The Big bang shows that time and the matter we observe today had a beginning. Anything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe has a beginning therefore the universe had a cause.

Sorry but you struck out again there is nothing there about a sky god.

My God is not in the sky God so why would I care if you find evidence lacking of a sky God.

"The rational human mind" what about it can you be more vague?

Observational evidence shows that the rational only comes from the rational. The irrational never produces rational. If you believe it does please produce evidence.

"DNA" again can you be more vague? So far not so good for evidence of a god.

I'm going to keep say this in a very simple format:

Information- what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things
DNA=Density packed information
Encyclopedia Britannica=Density packed information

In observational experience density packed information always comes from intelligence, regardless of the material used to create it. So whether I see symbols carved in a rock or glued and printed on paper to a piece of wood I still recognize the input of intelligence.

In our DNA there are 61 codons for coding amino acids and 3 stop codons but only 20 different translated amino acids. If you don't have one of these codons 61 you don't get an amino acid when the code is read. These are not just chemical reactions. DNA is used by the cell exactly as language is used by humans.

"The historical resurrection of Christ" Ah the story that must be true because the book it is in says it is true.

First I never said look at the Bible as the word of God. Second I never referenced a story. I told you to look at ancient documents and determine if they are historically accurate sources. My point was that the historical evidence points to the fact that Christ was really raised from the dead. This is a historical claim based on 1st century documents(Matthew Mark Luke and John). I suggest you do your own research(as you would be an idiot to take my word for it) and decide whether these documents are historically reliable not based on your philosophical bias but based on the historical and textual evidence at hand. Another point I would like to bring up is the Bible is not one source. If I reference Luke thats one source. Matthew is a totally separate source, as is Luke and Mark. These are all separate documents not one book. These are all separate accounts of something the writers are claiming happened in history. .

Seems to me moral absolutes would be evidence a biblically defined creator doesn't exist.

If there is no God please explain to me how you can have an objective moral standard?

"Life doesn't come from Nonlife in my observational experience" So your saying that because you have never observed abiogenesis or such is evidence for god....hmmmm Remember this?

So by using your measure the fact that I have never seen or witnessed a god in my obsevable experience must be adequite evidence one does not exist. Check mate.

Nice try but this is a strawman. Philosophically speaking If life comes from nonlife we should see that observed in the physical reality. If God exist however you shouldn't expect to see him inside his creation unless he wants you too. I'll revert back to my if a man builds a car and you study the care for 2000 years at what point will you see the man? Never, you will only see evidence of the systematic processes he designed. Same with God. The two situations are entirely different.

Funny that you ask. Yes I do distrust my perception on a daily basis you see I am blind in one eye so when I drive or even go to pick something up I can't trust what I perceive because I lack depth perception.

I think you are being a bit facetious here. Blind people perceive reality just as much as you and I. The only possible way a person would have no perception of reality is if they had absolutely none of their senses. You are telling me you cannot trust your sense of touch. Your sense of smell. your sense of hearing.

Faith is a pathetic crutch for the spiritually destitute.

Hope, the wisdom of fools.


a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You make some good points. Let me see if I'm understanding this aspect:

The single observable universe couldn't exist without observers?
The universe itself is proof of a system with rules & set applications (IE all planets circle a sun), thus there is a God? (Oversimplified, here's my point)-
An unknowable amount of Suns explode & wipe out & unknowable amount of planets & potential life on said planets. Is this proof of a working system? Or just an erratic existence & unexplainable universe?
Don't get me started on the Big Bang..

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If there is no God please explain to me how you can have an objective moral standard?

What is an "objective moral standard"? Can you give me an example of "objective morality", because I don't believe such a thing exists.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If there is no God please explain to me how you can have an objective moral standard?

What is an "objective moral standard"? Can you give me an example of "objective morality", because I don't believe such a thing exists.

Evil is evil, pure & simple. It is unnatural. Just because the existence of poverty & wage disparity force a moral flux doesn't mean right & wrong ever change.

Selflessness & devalue of materialism are examples of objective morality to me.

Faith is a byproduct of a cruel, unnatural world, where the innate understanding of "Good" is constantly warped by "necessary evil"
web.photodex.com...

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Evil is evil, pure & simple. It is unnatural.

What is evil? How is it unnatural? I really don't understand.

Selflessness & devalue of materialism are examples of objective morality to me.

I don't know what that means. Can you explain it in simple terms?

a reply to: windword

Gnosticism describes a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world created by the demiurge and embraced the spiritual world. Gnosis (knowledge, enlightenment, salvation) may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.
In Gnosticism, the world of the demiurge is represented by the lower world, which is associated with matter, flesh, time and, more particularly, an imperfect, ephemeral world. The world of God is represented by the upper world and is associated with the soul and perfection. The world of God is eternal and not part of the physical. It is impalpable and timeless.

85 people have more money than 3.5 billion.
www.infowars.com...

"Pandoras Box" doesn't need to exist. There is truly no reason for "evil" other than the need for survival & the fact that need has been threatened by TPTB since the beginning of time. Its all long term conditioning and greed driven by materialism.

web.photodex.com...
Plz watch this. I assert that not only is evil unnatural, our entire existence is.

10 year cost to end world hunger: $3 Billion
10 year cost TO US TAXPAYERS to support prison industrial complex: $4 Billion

Can you tell me how "evil" is natural? Why *really* is there evil?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I am familiar with Gnosticism, but that still doesn't give me an example of "objective morality" or an "objective moral standard".

Can you tell me how "evil" is natural? Why *really* is there evil?

A spider "seems" evil, but it's natural. Can you tell me what evil is?

a reply to: windword

I don't understand what you don't understand about objective morality. Don't do bad things to other people? What don't you get about my post?

What in the name of Jesus makes a spider seem evil?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Can you define "objective morality?

To me it means that there is a universal morality that applies to everything, an empirical "good and evil". I don't see any evidence for such "objective moral standard" being in place.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Can you define "objective morality?

To me it means that there is a universal morality that applies to everything, an empirical "good and evil". I don't see any evidence for such "objective moral standard" being in place.

The lack of application by the general human populace is itself the proof; acts of atrocity and evil are so prevalent & widely accepted as "the norm".

Just because Objective Morality is very rarely practiced/observed doesn't mean it isn't there.

You're telling me you don't understand the basic difference between right & wrong? That's not being a sociopath, that's being a fluoridated ignorant moron, which we all know you are not.

In my opinion, we are forced by situation to choose right or wrong, & almost always in the sense of self preservation. There would really be no reason for wrong doing if we didn't have to pay for water, food, & electricity/gas.

The drive for having more resources than someone else at the cost of that person stems from basic human failings & broken economic policies.

The biggest example, to me, of Objective Morality, is the fact that Evil is so very prevalent in our world.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

You're telling me you don't understand the basic difference between right & wrong? That's not being a sociopath, thats being a fluoridated ignorant moron, which we all know you are not.

Right and wrong are subjective. What is right for me isn't necessarily right for others.

Just because Objective Morality is very rarely practiced/observed doesn't mean it isn't there

Can you give me an example of its rare practice or observance?

The biggest example, to me, of Objective Morality, is the fact that Evil is so very prevalent in our world.

What is evil and why is it evil? Isn't evil subjective?

a reply to: windword

I grow weary of your repetition & refusal to acknowledge basic principles of good and bad. Keep on voting.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

do you understand the difference between subjective and objective?

There is no such thing as "objective morality",a universal morality, as far as I can see. No one has ever been able to give me an example of it. If there was an objective moral standard, we'd see it, in my opinion.

a reply to: TheArrow

You are talking about a matter of your faith in a claim that is not falsifiable and you are accusing me of speculation and no facts? I can't prove your "god" doesn't exist because one cannot prove non existence.

I never once asked you to prove anything about God. I asked you to give me evidence that Jesus never existed as that was what your previous post insinuated. Historical knowledge is a legitimate form of knowledge if you don't believe it is I really hope you didn't pay for a college degree.

That is simply nonsense and doesn't actuallymean anything. You might at well say, "I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It doesn't mean anything real, and adds nothing to the discussion.

Again you have produced another logical fallacy. First the argument from incredulity.Now you have produced a strawman.

You produced a sentence with logical contradictions in it. Here I will give you a big long list of things that define the concept of God as I understand it. I will define each word. If you still cant grasp the concept of the sentence then I am afraid my hopes are lost with you.

God is an eternal(without beginning or end), transcendent(outside the material world we observe like a simulator outside his simulation), perfect(without flaw in all attributes), omnipotent(all-powerful), omniscient(All-knowing), omnipresent(Capable of being all places at once), rational(logical) mind(something with consciousness ).

Now none of these are logical contradictions,and they are all attributes that can conceived of by any normal human. If you cannot understand these words I suggest you buy a dictionary.

And just because you assert that it is a philosophical concept, doesn't mean make it so. Much like your concept of god, this is merely your idea, not weighted or meaningful within the context of the discussion.

This is just your concept of Truth so its not weighted in any meaningful discussion. You arguments are lazy. If you wanna have a meaningful conversation ok, but these are just silly I don't wanna use my head arguments.

Why do you believe Jesus was "God" Because it says so in the Bible? Why does the bible matter? Because it was the word of God? That's circular.

I agree this is circular, and I never once put that argument forth. Why do I believe Jesus was God? Because we have 4 1st century documents that record the teachings and death of this historical person. This person claimed to be God in the flesh and died on cross forgiving the people who put him there. According to these 1st century documents written in the style of historical narrative Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead. There are many many reasons to take this information as honest information rather than something that was written to deceive. One example, The first people to witness the resurrection of Christ was a group of women. Women's testimonies were not considered reliable in the 1st century, so if the Bible was a fabrication it would make more sense to have men witness a fabricated Jesus.

Again you shouldn't take my word for the historical reliability of the Gospels but do the research and just be open and honest to a theistic world view as you read.

You are saying God is God because he is God. The Master of the simulation is the master because he created the Simulation of which he is the Master.

Man strawmans are really your thing huh. I never once said God is God because he is God. You asked me to define the philosophical concept of God not tell you why God is God. The simulator and simulation analogy was never used to make the point of why God is the Creator of the universe. So I never said the master of the simulation is the master because he created the simulation. I used that analogy to express God's relation to the creation if God exist...

a reply to: windword

Right and wrong are subjective. What is right for me isn't necessarily right for others.

This is the basis of your world view, but do you live this out? When someone wrongs you do you have a subjective or objective moral experience?


I steal your wallet and claim it as mine because I think it has a cool design on it. I do this in front of you. What would you say to me?