Philosophy defends God

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

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."

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.

reply to post by Sulie


premise 2 if they exist God exist

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

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.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


even cannibalistic cultures do not eat there babies

reply to post by dpeacock

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

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.

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?

reply to post by dpeacock


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

reply to post by Wertdagf


I have noticed you can not defeat the arguement.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


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

thats sick man

If you can defeat the arguement feel free to try, but lets stay on topic.

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.

reply to post by dpeacock

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.

Double post, nothing special.

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...