It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Philosophy defends God

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Premise 1 If God does not exist then absolute morale values do not exist

premise 2 If Absolute moral values exist then God exist

Ok so an absolute moral is a moral that remains the same all the time.

The only way to try and defeat it is to accept relative moral values which is like saying it is moraly equivelant to eat a deer as it is to eat a baby




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dpeacock
Premise 1 If God does not exist then absolute morale values do not exist

premise 2 If Absolute moral values exist then God exist

Ok so an absolute moral is a moral that remains the same all the time.

The only way to try and defeat it is to accept relative moral values which is like saying it is moraly equivelant to eat a deer as it is to eat a baby


Moral values exist. They have nothing to do with anything, except for how you treat your human family.

One rule exists for all cultures, and faiths. It's call "The Golden Rule."

Plain and simple. "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by dpeacock
 


Point one: moral values are a human invention. Before man arrived on this world (however that happened) morals were nonexistent. Morals are a result of higher thinking.

Point two: philosophy doesn't defend "God". It defends the idea of any concept creating a positive effect in how one manages their life. It's the difference between a helpful lie and a harmful truth.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Sulie
 


premise 2 if they exist God exist



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


if they are just a human invention then they are relative.
if they are relative there is nothing wrong with eating a baby



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dpeacock
 



Originally posted by dpeacock
Premise 1 If God does not exist then absolute morale values do not exist

premise 2 If Absolute moral values exist then God exist

Ok so an absolute moral is a moral that remains the same all the time.

The only way to try and defeat it is to accept relative moral values which is like saying it is moraly equivelant to eat a deer as it is to eat a baby


I've read your post several times trying to get the gist of your point and I still don't...

Maybe that's because I don't agree with your premises and I also don't believe in absolute moral values. Morals are an individual thing. Each person knows what THEY think is right and wrong.

Eating a deer and a baby may not be the same to you and I, but to a cannibal, I doubt there's any moral difference.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


even cannibalistic cultures do not eat there babies



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dpeacock
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Absolute moral values exist because God does, and we can prove God exists because absolute moral values exist?

Premise 3 - No matter how hard you try, you can't reason your way via logic to a belief in God. Or as the Christians put it -

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned
1 Corinthians 2:14




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 8/20/2012 by yeahright because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


the existence of God has been a major philosophical argument and this is the axiological arguement. People on this site have tried to argued against God logicaly and just like there is scientific proof of God, there is also logical arguements that can be made for God
edit on 20-8-2012 by dpeacock because: mistype



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dpeacock
 


There is scientific proof that "God" is probable. That's what we're pinning the intelligent design to. The next question is, what is "God"?

And that's where SHTF.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Sam harris Actually schooled William Lane craig who used the same argument that you do In the "the God Debate 2"

That without god there are no absolute moral values. If you would like to hear an expert on the subject id do a youtube search for "Sam Harris The Moral Landscape."

The problem is that you have to provide proof that god exists so we can start to define how it affects reality. Not you or any of the religious ive seen have been able to do such a thing.. just more word play and blatant ignorance.

If tacos exist then so does wal-mart... WTF?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dpeacock
 


Wanna send your son or daughter to a cannibalistic tribe and test that theory?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


I have noticed you can not defeat the arguement.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


so you are saying that it is ok to eat babies?

thats sick man



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
If you can defeat the arguement feel free to try, but lets stay on topic.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dpeacock
 


There is no proof and never has been. You cant make gap claims and force people to prove negatives because that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

probability isnt evidence.... repeatable experiements and physical proof are.

Theres as much proof for god as there is that Trans-dementional purple unicorns steal my underwear. Just because i lose a few pairs of undies and dont know where they went.. doesnt mean i can assume that some sort of enitity outside of reality is taking them.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dpeacock
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I agree that there are arguments that can be made for the existence of God. However, I believe what you've employed is circular reasoning, which is not only insufficient for proof, it isn't even a good logical argument.

Nothing personal, just my observation.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dpeacock
 


Your deflective tactics are hilariously transparent.

There is no such thing as absolute moral. Any philosopher will tell you this with utmost certainty.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Double post, nothing special.
edit on 20-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Try Googling "odds of the earth forming".

The mathematics involved are enough to make even the most stalwart gambler have third thoughts...

EDIT: Here, I did it for you. You may thank me at your own leisure. Before you begin, I humbly ask that you read the whole thing. If you have any questions, again, Google is there to assist you, not to look pretty. It does look pretty good though...


www.evolutionfaq.com...
edit on 20-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join