Take Back Our Country

[seer]

I'm curious...why did you delete the second half of his question?

The answer would have been that same - no God, no universal moral truths. But if this new god had all the properties of the old God then universal moral truths would still exist.

[Tassman]

Carp, that does not follow. The law of God (universal) certainly would have meaning. Just as the laws of physics or the laws of logic are universal and have meaning.

Just what is this "universal law of God". You keep talking about it but you have never shown us what it is.

[seer]

Just what is this "universal law of God". You keep talking about it but you have never shown us what it is.

Sure I have Tass, a number of times with you. Just read the teachings of Christ and the New Testament in general.

[carpedm9587]

Then stop bringing up the stupid subjective thing.

But of course it is a creation; "In the beginning God..."

An appeal to a book of mythology/legend is not going to help your argument.

And you have once again proven that your cognitive abilities have been twisted by sin, same old story.

And I think we have come to our end-point, Seer. Rational conversation is not possible when one of the two believes the other is irrational. Any argument I might make will be summarily dismissed as "irrational." The exercise is somewhat pointless.

It was good talking with you. Last word is yours, unless you ask a direct question I have not answered before.

[seer]

An appeal to a book of mythology/legend is not going to help your argument.

And you can demonstrate that the life and teachings and resurrection of Christ is myth - how?

And I think we have come to our end-point, Seer. Rational conversation is not possible when one of the two believes the other is irrational. Any argument I might make will be summarily dismissed as "irrational." The exercise is somewhat pointless.

It was good talking with you. Last word is yours, unless you ask a direct question I have not answered before.

That is the bottom line Carp, from your point of view I am irrational, believing in an illusion, a mere myth. In my worldview sin has twisted your cognitive abilities, you should intuitively, and naturally, recognize the hand of your Creator in creation. Therefore there can never be a meeting of the minds on this particular issue.

[Sparko]

I was merely pointing out the end-result of the path you were traversing...



Except there is no god, and you cannot demonstrate that there is. You also cannot demonstrate that there are absolute laws of morality. So you are asking us to take your word for it that such things exist, that you know what they are, and that we should all be lining up behind your understanding of what these laws are. But you cannot show any of these things to be true. And sorry, Seer, if there is no god, then there is no god-centered morality. So yes, it all does collapse, leaving us with exactly what I described.

But you are doing the same thing. Asking us to take your word that there is no God and that morals are relative while not being able to demonstrate that they are.

Here is one place I think we all might be talking past each other. I think I and Seer can agree that people all have their own views on what is moral or not. That is not in dispute. You might think that homosexuality is fine, and I think it is wrong. So there is no dispute about "relative" views of morality. The question is are they in reality relative, or is there an objective standard behind it all, so that if someone thinks murder is fun, they are wrong, even though their "relative" morality says it is just fine?

We can't prove there is, and you can't prove there is not. Yet there are certain morals that all human beings as a group have agreed on throughout time. Unjustified killing is wrong, for example. That human life is valuable. That humans should love and care for each other.

Now we think it is built into every human as a conscience given by God. It is not always perfect but it is there unless something causes it to be twisted or destroyed (mental illness, trauma)
Tassman would even agree here, but claim it is "evolution" that causes this sense.

As Christians we believe this conscience coincides with God's nature. God is good and loving, and he made us to be the same way. We were messed up in the Fall, when sin corrupted us, but that sense of what is right and good still remains.

[carpedm9587]

And you can demonstrate that the life and teachings and resurrection of Christ is myth - how?

I said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth. You quoted form Genesis, which is a mythological/legendary text.

That is the bottom line Carp, from your point of view I am irrational, believing in an illusion, a mere myth.

No. That you believe in a myth, yes. That you are irrational no. You have accepted as evidence for your beliefs things I would reject. That does not make you irrational.

In my worldview sin has twisted your cognitive abilities, you should intuitively, and naturally, recognize the hand of your Creator in creation. Therefore there can never be a meeting of the minds on this particular issue.

I never thought there would be a meeting of minds, Seer. I just see no purpose in continuing a discussion with someone who thinks I am irrational. What would be the point?

[carpedm9587]

But you are doing the same thing. Asking us to take your word that there is no God and that morals are relative while not being able to demonstrate that they are.

To the first, no. I am under no illusion that you will ever believe god does not exist. You might, someday, travel the road I've traveled, but I'm not expecting it. As for relative/subjective morality, I have more than adequately shown its existence and operation. That you think otherwise is not really my concern.

Here is one place I think we all might be talking past each other. I think I and Seer can agree that people all have their own views on what is moral or not. That is not in dispute. You might think that homosexuality is fine, and I think it is wrong. So there is no dispute about "relative" views of morality. The question is are they in reality relative, or is there an objective standard behind it all, so that if someone thinks murder is fun, they are wrong, even though their "relative" morality says it is just fine?

I do not hold beliefs in things that cannot be shown to be true. No one has every demonstrated the existence of an objective/absolute moral standard, nor even shown why one is necessary, ergo I do not believe in such a construct.

We can't prove there is, and you can't prove there is not. Yet there are certain morals that all human beings as a group have agreed on throughout time. Unjustified killing is wrong, for example. That human life is valuable. That humans should love and care for each other.

Yes there are, and these are easily explainable in a relative/subjective moral framework.

Now we think it is built into every human as a conscience given by God. It is not always perfect but it is there unless something causes it to be twisted or destroyed (mental illness, trauma)
Tassman would even agree here, but claim it is "evolution" that causes this sense.

As Christians we believe this conscience coincides with God's nature. God is good and loving, and he made us to be the same way. We were messed up in the Fall, when sin corrupted us, but that sense of what is right and good still remains.

And yes, we are probably going to continually talk past one another. Your perception requires the existence of a god you cannot show exists, and an objective/absolute framework you likewise cannot show to exist. You are correct that I cannot "prove" it does not, though I can show fairly clearly that such a construct is not required for morality to work. Ergo, I am not going to "hitch my wagon" to something no one can show exists. The danger of doing so is that I will subjugate my moral decision making to nothing more than the relative/subjective moral framework of someone else, giving them control over my moral decision making.

From my worldview, this is what you and Seer and others like you have done. If god does not exist, as I believe, you have locked your moral decision-making to your subjective interpretation of the relative/subjective perspectives of men who lived 2-3.5K years ago, in a different culture. You have no original version of what they wrote, and what they wrote was in a completely different language and culture. The fragility of this entire edifice is...well...it has significant dangers. We need only look to the LGBTQ mindset to see this in effect.

[seer]

I do not hold beliefs in things that cannot be shown to be true.

Of course you do, you can not show that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality.

[Charles]

Of course you do, you can not show that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality.

So the same goes for your claims? You cannot show anything of what you say to be true?

And you do note the irony of stating with certainty that Carpe makes assumptions about reality while also claiming that we cannot show that what goes on in our mind corresponds to reality. If you really believed that you would not know if Carpe exists and thus have no knowledge about his assumptions. And if you claim you believe he exists though it cannot be shown it also follows that you can only believe he makes assumptions about reality. Simple logic, seer.

[carpedm9587]

Of course you do, you can not show that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality.

First, I think you just destroyed your own claims about knowledge of god.

Second, if you want to live in that space, you are more than welcome to. The "you cannot prove what is in your head corresponds to reality" schtick falls into the class of things my old philosophy professors identified as promoted by the "out-of-touch philosopher" who he described as "a person who will argue with you for an hour on the non-substantiality of the walls, and then leave the room by way of the door."

My experience of the universe is repeatable, serves as a basis for me to live my life, and guide my decisions. That dynamic is more than enough evidence for me to accept that what is in my mind about the universe is "real," with the acknowledgement that we can sometimes be in error. I cannot "prove" it to anyone else, but I think those who spend their time questioning it are largely wasting their time and delving into the land of "extreme skepticism." It's not where I live.

And those same senses tell me that the idea of god is a human contrivance - not something that actually exists.

[seer]

First, I think you just destroyed your own claims about knowledge of god.

Nope...

Second, if you want to live in that space, you are more than welcome to. The "you cannot prove what is in your head corresponds to reality" schtick falls into the class of things my old philosophy professors identified as promoted by the "out-of-touch philosopher" who he described as "a person who will argue with you for an hour on the non-substantiality of the walls, and then leave the room by way of the door."

My experience of the universe is repeatable, serves as a basis for me to live my life, and guide my decisions. That dynamic is more than enough evidence for me to accept that what is in my mind about the universe is "real," with the acknowledgement that we can sometimes be in error. I cannot "prove" it to anyone else, but I think those who spend their time questioning it are largely wasting their time and delving into the land of "extreme skepticism." It's not where I live.

And those same senses tell me that the idea of god is a human contrivance - not something that actually exists.

Right, and if you were living in the Matrix you could make the same observations. The fact is Carp, you take things by faith, without deductive or empirical justification.

[carpedm9587]

Nope...

Seriously, Seer? You think you are somehow exempt from the human condition?

Right, and if you were living in the Matrix you could make the same observations. The fact is Carp, you take things by faith, without deductive or empirical justification.

I never said I don't accept things by faith. We ALL live by faith because we can never achieve perfect certainty. That is a far cry from not being able to prove/trust anything we believe. We can offer reasonable evidence, and should follow that evidence where it takes us. The evidence tells me that gods are the construct of human beings, so that is where I go. You apparently follow different evidence, or accept as evidence things I do not, or interpret evidence differently.

I have, so far, not found the evidence you provide particularly compelling. Your arguments and "proof" are definitions, and your reasoning from them is simply not very well constructed. Ergo, they are not beliefs I can accept as "true."

[seer]

Seriously, Seer? You think you are somehow exempt from the human condition?

No, I never argued that we don't take things by faith...

I never said I don't accept things by faith. We ALL live by faith because we can never achieve perfect certainty. That is a far cry from not being able to prove/trust anything we believe. We can offer reasonable evidence, and should follow that evidence where it takes us. The evidence tells me that gods are the construct of human beings, so that is where I go. You apparently follow different evidence, or accept as evidence things I do not, or interpret evidence differently.

What evidence are you talking about? Why is your limited, finite experience a standard for anything?

I have, so far, not found the evidence you provide particularly compelling. Your arguments and "proof" are definitions, and your reasoning from them is simply not very well constructed. Ergo, they are not beliefs I can accept as "true."

Right, and I do not accept your conclusions since I see your reasoning are severely limited and tainted by sin. So I guess we are even.

[carpedm9587]

No, I never argued that we don't take things by faith...

Nor have I. But if that "lack of proof" means nothing I know can be trusted, the same is true of you, right?

What evidence are you talking about?

Evidence of history, of science, of human psychology, and archeology, etc.

Why is your limited, finite experience a standard for anything?

No more or less so than yours...

Right, and I do not accept your conclusions since I see your reasoning are severely limited and tainted by sin. So I guess we are even.

Seer, dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "tainted by sin" is not an argument. When you cannot deal with the arguments (as you have failed to do now for hundreds of posts on morality), clinging to the beliefs is simply not justified. At least, that's the way I try to live: believe what I find adequate evidence for, dismiss what I find adequate evidence against, and make no judgment on what I do not have adequate evidence for or against. It is the way I believe we all should live. Seems fairly self-evident to me - but (of course) I won't be able to "prove" it to you.