Are elephants people?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Because men, in their sinfulness, can and do reject the truth.

Who is to say that your religion is the true one? Those of other religious persuasions would make the same claim for their beliefs.

Nope...

There are different concepts of deity presented in the Bible.

Right, and babies share. I have three young grandchildren. So you have both behaviors.

Indeed humans show both qualities. We can be profoundly altruistic and also profoundly cruel and callous.

Read the teachings of Christ, the Son of God. Try praying in true humility and hope...

Thank you for your advice but I am perfectly content as I am.

[Mountain Man]

Who is to say that your religion is the true one?

Stop pretending you don't know the answer when this has been covered in previous debates with you: the truth of Christianity is proven by the historical fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead. If you want to know the particulars, then refer to previous threads where this matter was discussed.

(Here's a good thread to start with: How can we know that God is? - TheologyWeb Campus)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Stop pretending you don't know the answer when this has been covered in previous debates with you: the truth of Christianity is proven by the historical fact that Jesus Christ was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead. If you want to know the particulars, then refer to previous threads where this matter was discussed.

That is your belief.

And those who belong to other religions would declare their faith and their stories to be as valid as yours.

Question: So who holds to the only true religion?

Answer: No one. It is all a matter of belief and opinion.

[Stoic]

Well moral reflection would be grounded in ones social conditioning.

Partly. I doubt that Kant grounded his Categorical Imperative in social conditioning. Same with John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance.

[Stoic]

If it's merely an opinion, then you concede the debate.

And I'm not the one mixing worldviews. You keep trying to figure out ways to make moral obligation a part of atheism despite the fact that there is no logical way to connect "atheism is true" to "therefore, moral obligation exists". You try to make an end run around this problem by claiming that it's just an opinion, but that is effectively no different than stating that it doesn't really exist since everybody can have a different opinion, and even your own opinion on the matter can change. And yet it seems that you still can't shake the intuitive sense that moral obligation must exist as an objective truth despite the fact that it can't exist if atheism is true. I think on this basis alone, you have a good reason to doubt the truth of atheism.

Well, I have good reason to doubt your reasoning ability, anyway.

You keep implying that there must be an argument starting with "athiesm is true" and ending with "therefore, moral obligation exists", when it could easily be the case (as I think it is) that moral obligation exists whether or not atheism is true.

And you act as if morality can't exist if it's just an opinion, but that's something from your worldview, not mine.

[Mountain Man]

Well, I have good reason to doubt your reasoning ability, anyway.

You keep implying that there must be an argument starting with "athiesm is true" and ending with "therefore, moral obligation exists", when it could easily be the case (as I think it is) that moral obligation exists whether or not atheism is true.

And you act as if morality can't exist if it's just an opinion, but that's something from your worldview, not mine.

No, I'm not implying that the argument you describe must exist; rather, I am saying (not implying) that such an argument can not exist if we assume that atheism is true.

Like Starlight, you are failing to distinuish between morality, and moral obligation. As I said, morality could exist, in theory, as a brute fact of nature, but without an ultimate moral law giver, we would have no obligation to act morally. The fact that this obviously doesn't sit well with you despite being a logically necessary conclusion of your worldview is your problem, not mine.

[seer]

Partly. I doubt that Kant grounded his Categorical Imperative in social conditioning. Same with John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance.

Kant grounded it in reason and God....

https://www.philosopher.eu/texts/kan...ument-for-god/

[Stoic]

No, I'm not implying that the argument you describe must exist; rather, I am saying (not implying) that such an argument can not exist if we assume that atheism is true.

You can say it, but you can't give a cogent argument for it.

Like Starlight, you are failing to distinuish between morality, and moral obligation.

I think moral obligation is a subset of morality.

As I said, morality could exist, in theory, as a brute fact of nature, but without an ultimate moral law giver, we would have no obligation to act morally.

I don't think morality exists as a brute fact of nature. I believe it exists in the minds of human beings. Whether we have a moral obligation is, to me, ultimately a matter of opinion.

The fact that this obviously doesn't sit well with you despite being a logically necessary conclusion of your worldview is your problem, not mine.

The fact that you don't understand my worldview is why your opinion of my worldview is worthless.

[Stoic]

Kant grounded it in reason and God....

https://www.philosopher.eu/texts/kan...ument-for-god/

I don't believe your source says that Kant grounded the categorical imperative in God.

Reason, though, is certainly a part of moral reflection.

[seer]

I don't believe your source says that Kant grounded the categorical imperative in God.

Reason, though, is certainly a part of moral reflection.

He grounded it all in God, God was absolutely necessary when it came to morality.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant devised an argument from morality based on practical reason. Kant argued that the goal of humanity is to achieve perfect happiness and virtue (the summum bonum) and believed that an afterlife must exist in order for this to be possible, and that God must exist to provide this.

Rather than proving the existence of God, Kant was attempting to demonstrate that all moral thought requires the assumption that God exists.^[7] Kant argued that humans are obliged to bring about the summum bonum: the two central aims of moral virtue and happiness, where happiness arises out of virtue. As ought implies can, Kant argued, it must be possible for the summum bonum to be achieved.^[5] He accepted that it is not within the power of humans to bring the summum bonum about, because we cannot ensure that virtue always leads to happiness, so there must be a higher power who has the power to create an afterlife where virtue can be rewarded by happiness.^[6]

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...-people/page15

[Stoic]

He grounded it all in God, God was absolutely necessary when it came to morality.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant devised an argument from morality based on practical reason. Kant argued that the goal of humanity is to achieve perfect happiness and virtue (the summum bonum) and believed that an afterlife must exist in order for this to be possible, and that God must exist to provide this.

Rather than proving the existence of God, Kant was attempting to demonstrate that all moral thought requires the assumption that God exists.^[7] Kant argued that humans are obliged to bring about the summum bonum: the two central aims of moral virtue and happiness, where happiness arises out of virtue. As ought implies can, Kant argued, it must be possible for the summum bonum to be achieved.^[5] He accepted that it is not within the power of humans to bring the summum bonum about, because we cannot ensure that virtue always leads to happiness, so there must be a higher power who has the power to create an afterlife where virtue can be rewarded by happiness.^[6]

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...-people/page15

That's all well and good, but unless you really want to get bogged down in the details of the argument, it seems a little off topic.

[seer]

That's all well and good, but unless you really want to get bogged down in the details of the argument, it seems a little off topic.

You brought up Kant.

[Stoic]

You brought up Kant.

I brought up his Categorical Imperative, as an example of the result of moral reflection.

[seer]

I brought up his Categorical Imperative, as an example of the result of moral reflection.

But in Kant's reasoning it all must be grounded in God... Or it all falls apart. And he is correct....I'm sure that the Stalinist and Maoist had their moral reasoning too...

[Stoic]

But in Kant's reasoning it all must be grounded in God... Or it all falls apart. And he is correct....I'm sure that the Stalinist and Maoist had their moral reasoning too...

I'm happy to concede that moral reflection for some people starts or ends with God.