The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[Roy]

Well we should at least be stoning to death all the homosexuals and witches/magicians amongst us, no?

No Jim, I am not a Jew living under the Mosaic civil code.

So do you mean to say that murder is not objectively immoral, but is either moral or immoral, dependent upon the subjective whim of god?

What? What murder?

Are you deliberately playing dumb seer? Your god ordered that homosexuals and witches/magicians be stoned to death/murdered because of their immoral behavior. If that is an objective moral imperitave, and not a subjective and arbitrary command, then the only moral thing to do is to murder all acting homosexuals and magicians. No?

Nonsense Jim, witchcraft and homosexuality are still sin, and just because Christians are not mandated to exercise judgement towards them presently does not mean that they won't face the death penalty when God judges all men.

Yeah, seer is deliberately playing dumb. He just did it again by deliberately equivocating between people stoning witches vs divine judgement against them.

He's an apologist for genocide who has no apologia available, and who has no compunction against evasion, hypocrisy, and outright lying to cover up that fact. His standard response re Biblical genocide is to blame naturalism for religious atrocities. He supports universal objective morality while denying any moral codes apply to him. He simultaneously argues that child-killing societies deserve to be wiped out, and that he belongs to one. He habitually misrepresents others, and demands more than he is willing to provide himself.

He is an excellent reason for not joining his own religion. I don't know why the other Christians here put up with his antics.

[seer]

Yeah, seer is deliberately playing dumb. He just did it again by deliberately equivocating between people stoning witches vs divine judgement against them.

He's an apologist for genocide who has no apologia available, and who has no compunction against evasion, hypocrisy, and outright lying to cover up that fact. His standard response re Biblical genocide is to blame naturalism for religious atrocities. He supports universal objective morality while denying any moral codes apply to him. He simultaneously argues that child-killing societies deserve to be wiped out, and that he belongs to one. He habitually misrepresents others, and demands more than he is willing to provide himself.

He is an excellent reason for not joining his own religion. I don't know why the other Christians here put up with his antics.

I did not equivocate in the least. I made it clear that Christians are not under the Mosaic civil code to apply those penalties. I believe most Christians here would agree. And Tass and Thinker have made it clear time and time again that everything we do is DETERMINED. So yes if there is no freedom of will then naturalism or, rather nature, made us do it. But since I do not believe in naturalism then yes I do believe that God ordered the destruction Of the Amalekites. I'm not hiding from that fact at all. And where did I use the term "objective" morality?

[Roy]

Torturing babies just for the fun of it is objectively wrong because this moral value applies to all people in all places at all times.

Unsupported assertion.

It is something that all cultures must adhere to.

Many historically have not. Several societies have engaged in child sacrifice, often by painful methods. Many tribal societies considered members of other tribes, including captured children, as being disposable. Despots throughout history have considered their subjects as property to be used and abused at whim. Few slave-holding societies considered mistreatment of slaves, even child slaves, as being immoral.

""My marster had a barrel with nails drove in it that he would put you in when he couldn't think of nothin' else mean enough to do. He would put you in this barrel and roll it down a hill. When you got out you would be in a bad fix, but he didn't care. Sometimes he rolled the barrel in the river and drowned his slaves"."

Many cultures have not adhered to what you claim all cultures must.

Your argument fails.

[Tassman]

So what, monkeys live together in community, without abstract moral concepts or understanding of moral principles. You again are assuming.

The primates instinctively live together in community for the same reason we do...survival. And just as we have our rules of behaviour, so do they...albeit less sophisticated.

I will - leave them in the the hands of God that is.

See there you go - forcing your moral view on others.

No, you have the right to hold any moral beliefs you want, you do not have the right to discriminate against others based on that belief.

[Tassman]

I did not equivocate in the least. I made it clear that Christians are not under the Mosaic civil code to apply those penalties. I believe most Christians here would agree.

Moral laws have demonstrably changed over time and are no longer based upon the primitive tribalism of Moses et al. They have adapted to changing social mores and this is reflected in the deity, who has unsurprisingly has had to adapt along with them.

And Tass and Thinker have made it clear time and time again that everything we do is DETERMINED. So yes if there is no freedom of will then naturalism or, rather nature, made us do it. But since I do not believe in naturalism then yes I do believe that God ordered the destruction Of the Amalekites. I'm not hiding from that fact at all. And where did I use the term "objective" morality?

[seer]

You say I play dumb then you confirm that determinism is the order of the day! In your world everything we think do our say is determined, of course nature made us do it, there is nothing else!

[seer]

The primates instinctively live together in community for the same reason we do...survival. And just as we have our rules of behaviour, so do they...albeit less sophisticated.

But that was not the point Tass, which was your claim that primitive man understood moral concepts millions of years ago.


Of course it was gracious to the Hebrews who were saved from their constant attacks. Just as destroying Germany was gracious towards those they enslaved. Just as trying to destroy ISIS will be gracious towards those they seek to dominate - and both those are acceptable in your modern era.

No, you have the right to hold any moral beliefs you want, you do not have the right to discriminate against others based on that belief.

Are you really this slow? Your belief that it is wrong to discriminate is a moral belief. I mean you have the right to hold any moral belief you want, just stop trying to force it on the rest of us!

[Tassman]

You say I play dumb then you confirm that determinism is the order of the day! In your world everything we think do our say is determined, of course nature made us do it, there is nothing else!

OK! So all you have to do is explain how it could be otherwise. Please explain how libertarian free-will overrides your subconscious thoughts and desires acquired over a lifetime of social acculturation and experiences. Still waiting!

[Tassman]

But that was not the point Tass, which was your claim that primitive man understood moral concepts millions of years ago.

Primitive man demonstrably understood acceptable and unacceptable behaviour within the group, i.e. morality, otherwise there would have been no functioning groups.

Are you really this slow? Your belief that it is wrong to discriminate is a moral belief. I mean you have the right to hold any moral belief you want, just stop trying to force it on the rest of us!

Freedom from discrimination is a civil right for ALL law-abiding citizens. And ALL law-abiding citizens require protection from interest groups that demand special privileges for themselves at the expense of civil rights for all.

[seer]

Primitive man demonstrably understood acceptable and unacceptable behaviour within the group, i.e. morality, otherwise there would have been no functioning groups.

Acting on instinct, like apes Tass, does not mean you understand moral concepts - like you suggested. So no, moral law does not necessarily go back millions of years.

Freedom from discrimination is a civil right for ALL law-abiding citizens. And ALL law-abiding citizens require protection from interest groups that demand special privileges for themselves at the expense of civil rights for all.

That is your moral "opinion" There is nothing in our Constitution that says we are free from discrimination in all cases. And what about your right to freely associate with whom you please or not ? In all areas of your life? So again, you have no problem forcing your moral opinion on others, so please spare me your feigned outrage when we do it.

OK! So all you have to do is explain how it could be otherwise. Please explain how libertarian free-will overrides your subconscious thoughts and desires acquired over a lifetime of social acculturation and experiences. Still waiting!

So you agree that everything we think do or say is determined - and nature actually did make us do it! Thanks.

[Roy]

The seer technique

Seer: Bananas are purple
Honest person: Interesting. I like skiing in Colorado.
Seer: So you agree that bananas are purple. Now, in your worldview giraffes eat hedgehogs.
Honest person: uh, what? And how do you justify purple bananas anyway?
Seer: So you agree giraffes eat hedgehogs. Thanks! But giraffes are smaller than hedgehogs, so your worldview is wrong and Amelekites deserved to be slaughtered.
Honest person: But giraffes aren't smaller than hedgehogs.
Seer: So you agree that genocide is justified. God is great.
Honest person: <gives up in disgust>
Seer: I win!

[seer]

Seer: Bananas are purple
Honest person: Interesting. I like skiing in Colorado.
Seer: So you agree that bananas are purple. Now, in your worldview giraffes eat hedgehogs.
Honest person: uh, what? And how do you justify purple bananas anyway?
Seer: So you agree giraffes eat hedgehogs. Thanks! But giraffes are smaller than hedgehogs, so your worldview is wrong and Amelekites deserved to be slaughtered.
Honest person: But giraffes aren't smaller than hedgehogs.
Seer: So you agree that genocide is justified. God is great.
Honest person: <gives up in disgust>
Seer: I win!

Now you are just breaking wind Roy...

[Tassman]

Acting on instinct, like apes Tass, does not mean you understand moral concepts - like you suggested. So no, moral law does not necessarily go back millions of years.

That is your moral "opinion" There is nothing in our Constitution that says we are free from discrimination in all cases. And what about your right to freely associate with whom you please or not ? In all areas of your life? So again, you have no problem forcing your moral opinion on others, so please spare me your feigned outrage when we do it.

The 14th Amendment addresses the equal protection of the law for all people. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964, grounded in part in the 14th Amendment, rules against ALL discrimination in public accommodations...including cake shops.

So you agree that everything we think do or say is determined - and nature actually did make us do it! Thanks.

[shunyadragon]

Seer: Bananas are purple

There are purple bananas. A variety of banana in Central America

Fortunately I have never heard of or experienced carnivorous giraffes.

[seer]

So you agree that the understanding of moral concepts do not go back millions of years. That as a matter of fact we only have evidence that our understanding of these concepts goes back thousands of years.

The 14th Amendment addresses the equal protection of the law for all people. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964, grounded in part in the 14th Amendment, rules against ALL discrimination in public accommodations...including cake shops.

That is nonsense, a baker refusing a service has nothing to do with equal protection under the law, that is about how the law is applied by the Government. And the Civil Rights Act says nothing about discrimination based on sexual behavior. So again, you have no problem forcing your moral view on others. It makes no difference if your view is codified in law, the result is the same.



I agree that if determinism is true you could have no idea is you were determined to speak the truth above of a falsehood. grmorton has an excellent post on this here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post396328