How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

[Cerebrum123]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]47157[/ATTACH]

I'll have to remember "skytazed" it's pretty funny.

[Whateverman]

I'll have to remember "skytazed" it's pretty funny.

I thought so too :)

[seer]

Where's your biblical definition of "objective"?

An objective standard that can't be seen, and whose existence we're suppose to accept on the basis of faith alone - isn't objective.

Well we can't see the laws of logic. They are universal and objective - correct?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I take it that you see history repeating itself with what the BLM/Antifa rioters are doing now.

I do not see any rational connection between a fifth century Christian Patriarch and BLM/Antifa.

[Ronson]

Well we can't see the laws of logic. They are universal and objective - correct?

That's dangerous ground. It leads back to what is "obvious" and what isn't.

Whateverman says that necessity is "obvious", presumably because it is based on logic (i.e. it can't be seen but it is innate knowledge). Logic is learned and is unique to each individual, and is therefore subjective.

Just saying.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What evil did the councils do?

I suspect the belief is held that the First Council of Nicaea was merely a "rubber stamp" on an existing orthodoxy. The historical reality, of course, was quite different.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If someone chooses to live near a river for whatever reason, and the river floods and destroys his home, how is that not ultimately a consequence of his choices? Looks like you have some explaining to do.

Yet all the great civilisations of the world originated in river valleys. The Euphrates/Tigris, Nile, Indus, and Yellow. Hence we find flood myths. The earliest of course, from Sumer.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well you certainly have not made the case. Not logically...

I have, extremely briefly, outlined some of the arguments. You simply repeat dogma and personal opinion.

[Sparko]

It is according to the dictionary. I recognize that dictionaries are effectively kryptonite to Christian apologism, which seeks to redefine words in order to bootstrap its doctrine into validity. However, I'm not obligated to accept those creative redefinitions.

The most relevant definition for the term "objective morality" is that the morality is not dependent upon minds. God has a mind, which says "I am the standard", which makes His morality Not Objective.

I didn't think there could ever be a member who rivaled JimL in stupidness. Yet here you are.

Objective morality doesn't rely on God's mind but his nature. It is built into the universe innately. Objective morality means something is good or evil no matter who believes it. Like I told you in your other thread: Torturing babies for fun is wrong, no matter if everyone in the world thought otherwise. That is objective morality.

You either need a better dictionary, or need to learn how to read it more betterer.

[Sparko]

That's dangerous ground. It leads back to what is "obvious" and what isn't.

Whateverman says that necessity is "obvious", presumably because it is based on logic (i.e. it can't be seen but it is innate knowledge). Logic is learned and is unique to each individual, and is therefore subjective.

Just saying.

no it's not. Logic is objective. There are fundamental rules/laws of logic that can't be changed and don't depend on what people know or think.

Like "A cannot be the same as Not-A in the same way at the same time"

[seer]

I have, extremely briefly, outlined some of the arguments. You simply repeat dogma and personal opinion.

But you didn't get there deductively did you. It is a logical possibility for a good God to allow temporal suffering for a greater, eternal good. Even if we don't know the reason(s) that possibility exists and undermines your argument.

[Whateverman]

I didn't think there could ever be a member who rivaled JimL in stupidness. Yet here you are.

Ooh, a personal attack in lieu of a salient point! Nicely done.

Objective morality doesn't rely on God's mind but his nature.

... which is invisible, and whose existence we can only accept on the basis of faith alone.

aka. not objective.

[seer]

no it's not. Logic is objective. There are fundamental rules/laws of logic that can't be changed and don't depend on what people know or think.

Like "A cannot be the same as Not-A in the same way at the same time"

Right and I maintain that the laws of logic are born from God's rational nature. Like His moral law is born from His moral nature. Both I think could be called objective, though I prefer universal.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Allow me to dismiss your opinion like you just did my evidence that gave you exactly what you asked for.

What I presented is based on known evidence of early Christian communities.

I assume you know the origin of the word bishop? I also assume you know that in the late first century such titles [likewise PopeThe Soul introduces the concept of Traducianismperson [and body] of Christ, but again, I am quite certain I do need to tell you anything at all about any of that

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But you didn't get there deductively did you. It is a logical possibility for a good God to allow temporal suffering for a greater, eternal good. Even if we don't know the reason(s) that possibility exists and undermines your argument.

You have yet to lay out your argument. Why so coy?