Craig is so deadly boring to listen to, that I enjoy playing snake while he blathers.(press pause, then start.. then the up & right arrows simultaneously)
I have a page listed at the bottom of the description box on my channel that tracks upcoming debates of William Lane Craig. If you want to know upcoming debates of other Atheists/Theists then you'll probably just have to visit their website if they have one (ie. go to Dinesh D'Souza's site for his upcoming debates, etc etc).
imagine Laters a child being told " do not go by the lake"( perhaps because of crocodiles) by her mother. Imagine a bunch of kids being told the same thing. Naturally the kids will assign some moral value to that injunction. Some " bad " kids will sneak out to the lake. Some of these will not return. It quickly becomes " wrong" to visit the lake...These assertions of right and wrong, associated with guilt, are biolgically adaptive.
but of course,what is the real authority behind " do not go down by the lake " . Well, it is some authority, like a parent or a society. Now what if a priest consults the Gods about this. We humans, you see, have been speaking for the God's for thousands of yrs. We project up to them our morality, and when it returns we give it cosmic authority. And the cosmic dictums that return reflect the morals of the culture that sends it.
finally. Even if there is a compass endowed to us, humans subjectivelty read it.The compass is evidently imprecise and cannot help us with the most imporatnt issues facing us today. We are going to have to call upon the factors listed below. And there are some people who we may have to come to blows with because the compasses are incompatable. His compass says he is going north where mine says he is going south.You simply need a moral compass to exist,otherwise God cannot judge us.
The freewill defense is proposterous. How does human freewill explain small-pox, malaria,psunamis,draught, predation and animal suffering?Why would a good god allow innocent people to suffer immeasurably for someone elses freewill. Also, Humans generally grossly overestimate their freewill. WLcs response to the problem has always been a non-answer. "There are good reasons", although he doesn't tell us what they are.Apparently God has good reasons for not telling us the good reasons
Well, they are giving positive reasons for believing that theism is true. There are no positive reasons for atheism to be true. All the atheist does is think up problems for the evidence for God, or point out contradictions in our perception of God. These don't prove anything.
Atheism is just being difficult to a ridiculous degree. Hope you're enjoying yourself
Yes in fact we must be committing 'evil' by believing and promoting such disinformation before the almighty jesus christ or whoever/whatever you believe in. Since morality is 'objective' and all...
That's my point: the arguments they give have been so handily discredited so many times, that all they REALLY have to fall back on are rather overt logical fallacies: special pleading, question-begging, appeals to emotion, strawmen, and so on.
The person making the truth-claim always has the burden of proof. Think there's a God? Provide compelling evidence and arguments.
Atheism is simply the default position: if there are no good reasons to believe in God, then disbelief is justified.
Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie, born of a virgin, who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
These Christian panelists have the intellect of 8 year olds. Its embarrassing to even see them try and debate intellectual heavyweight Hitchens ( who wipes the floor with them)
Its like they are mentally challenged:) ( no offense intended)
Hitchens never actually addressed the arguments for God but only brought up his own arguments against God
---------------------------------------
Well folks, you have two different interpretations of the debate (if FeralCr watched the whole thing). Use the thumbing system to vote on the correct interpretation.
Iit's called burden of proof. These debate formats don't fit well with either the breadth or complexity of issues involved.
But to say that "people rarely address the theistic arguments" is quite a claim. There's an enormous literature out there. Maybe it's because you haven't looked it up (fallacy of selective attention).
The literature and/or positions go back thousands of years. Choose a belief system (eg, Judaism, Australian Aborigines) and it will contradict another (eg, Christianity).
Veritas you are correct. People dont be dismayed. What is at hand is not Morals, which comes from the greek "Moray" which means "what is" like a social pattern or trend of right and wrong. But what is at hand is Ethics, which in greek means "What ought to be" so therefore proving that morals are subjective and not concrete but Ethics are. Ethics lay the ground work for Gods existance. If God Doesnt Exist neither do ethics, but i proved ethics exist, therefore God exists.
Oh how I wish there was more of this debate! The is a little difficult to understand however at certain points. I really hope you can post the rest, Christianjr4. Still, thank you for posting this all the same.
Imagine that the world has no religion and no gods today. Abraham comes along with his tablets, JC with his virgin mom, Noah & his ark, and the bible comes out at the book store.. How many people in this day and age would actually fall for that BS? RIght. None. So why fall for it because the characters are 2000 years old? Same bull - different day.
If Christian deism is true, then why do Christians feel sad when a loved one dies? Shouldn't they rejoice out of happiness in that case for that person supposedly is in paradise?
Moreover, shouldn't they be anxious to die themselves since according to the Bible, life on Earth doesn't really matter anyway since it's the kingdom of God that really matters.
thats true, but the problem of death has become this great image of society which no one wants. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. Death is a separation of peoples, thats always a sad thing, of course in the back of our minds we try and keep that in mind, but we are still saddened by death, as is everyone. And no no one has to be anxious to die. Life is a wonderful experience, and its all part of the big plan as some say. But we don't have to be anxious to die.
Switch-a-roo? Hitchens did nothing but call him out on his arrogant position that he could possibly know what the creator of the universe wanted and thought. Great point at the right time. How other christians don't see the utter arroganace of this leaves me in disbelief.
Actually Hitchens always tries to button the existence of evil in the world together with the assumption that God does not exist. Problem is that the two don't logically follow. And, Dr Craig pointed that out. There's nothing arrogant about point out the flaw in someones reasoning - in fact I think that's what they're meant to do isn't it?
Insecure people often mistake confidence for arrogance.
God is non-falsifiable, and most religious people don't have the will to over come their fear of damnation or lack of eternal life (heaven) to use reason and logic when thinking about things like this.
Its not the existence, its the source that provides the proof for the existence of God. Dr Craig does prove evil exists - unless you think rape & murder are ok? And therefore God is the only satisfactory author for our morality. Dr Craig always provides good positive arguments in his debates unlike the atheists who just deny & complain about it. Your lot dont seem to know how a debate works or even how to frame an argument. You need to stop living in your own little bubble world!
Dont take my word for it & dont be stupid. The existence of Absolute Moral Values is just as unequivocal & undoubtable as the existence of the physical world. The more that you study the subject the more you will realise that every culture around the world, throughout human history have all shared a remarkably identical moral code. Why? Because it was placed in them by their creator!
No condescension here sorry. Just a reality check for those of you who prefer to deny the obvious.
You tried to say that evil doesnt really exist in the world. Then you implied that Dr Craigs arguments could be easily refuted... by you? And you now try to avoid the reality of Absolute Moral Values - I cant even begin to comprehend such stupidity.
Go ahead, stay in your little dream world if it makes you feel better. We'll be here in the real world when youre ready to grow up.
Right, looked at it, dont see a problem with anything I wrote. Sorry if I pinched a nerve but denying absolute moral law is like trying to deny 2+2=4. If you actually do some real study into the subject you will see the error of your ways.
If you honestly think you could beat Dr Craig in a debate because he uses such flawed & farcical arguments, why dont you actually debate him? Go for it. That would be the ultimate decider on whos right or wrong in this discussion.
You state a genetic fallacy. It is more plausible that Dr Craig would beat you because he is right & you are wrong not just that he is a better debater. He is the "new darling" because he has done the necessary study to prove that logic & reason affirm Christianity - something most people simply take on faith.
Absolute morality is not a niche subject. It is an empirical proof for the necessary existence of God. To deny absolute morality is to deny reality.
Dont make assumptions. I had to work through Dr Craigs material to grasp what he was saying.
His arguments are, in essence, flawless. Seeing as no one has been able to refute them thus far. Dont you think, of all the prestigious & learned people Dr Craig has debated over the years that 1 of them might have just pointed out his arguments use circular reasoning & won the debate hands down?
Take your head out of your arse for a sec. The only 1 spouting "silly ramblings" here is you!
Sorry if I pinched a nerve there buddy but you are being arrogant. 1. Dr Craig doesnt use circular reasoning - if he did it would be supremely easy to overcome his arguments + he wouldnt get support from other Theist debaters. 2. I actually do like hearing from Atheist speakers - I see many flaws in their arguments but they are almost always eloquent speakers, vehemently precise with their words! Christopher Hitchens is one of the best examples of that.
Im glad you can admit that youre arrogant - thats the 1st step - well done.
As to the rest of your post: Let me get this straight. You believe that all the prestigious and well learned Atheists & Agnostics Dr Craig has debated over the last 10 years have been too slow or stupid to recognise the simple circular reasoning in his arguments? They couldnt see it but you can? Do you realise how pathetic that sounds? Honestly, you need to get a grip buddy!
And, theres a difference between a man like me and a scared little boy like you holding onto his little Atheist security blanket cause he really wants to believe that it can solve all his problems & give him the answers to life. Problem is your little fairy tale is powerless under real scrutiny.
No one has ever refuted Dr Craigs argument from morality. I think you need to get a grip. Once again if you think youre better than Craig & Smith go ahead debate him & show him he's wrong!
I guess you just ran out of constructive things to say for this one...?
Scientific inquiry. Whats that got to do with our conversation about Dr Craig & morality? Gee, I think I really rattled you there huh buddy? Hey its ok, I didnt mean to hurt your feelings there little fellow. We can still be friends. I'll let you come over to our house & you 'n' my sister can braid each others hair?
... so what was your point again... Oh thats right you dont have one.
There is nothing to be learned here because you dont want to learn anything. The only arrogant thing around here is you.
Atheism is non-coherent. They state something that they believe they can not know. Dr Craig makes positive statements supporting Christianity & all his opponents give is "I don't like it" & "I dont believe it". No 1 debunks Dr Craigs points because all they come armed with belligerence & sarcasm. Morality is absolute - so, yes science does agree with that!
"Morality is absolute - so, yes science does agree with that! "...this is your problem Laters.You have made a presumption without evidence( morality is absolute), then claimed science does agree with that. Please provide some objective evidence that there is a cosmic morality known to all humans. Condemnation of Murder and theft are necessary conditions for societies easily explained without cosmic moral compasses. the confusion is argument against a moral compass. Please provide evidence.
Even if there was a moral compass built into our DNA, all you will ever have is your subjective "interpretation' of it. It is subject to interpretation...therefore it is pragmatically SUBJECTIVE.
That means (to me) that there is a standard of behaviour that we are all under. If you & I were playing a game, I might cheat, which could lead you to do the same. So between the 2 of us we modify the game to suit ourselves but outsiders will say that we're not playing the game properly. Thats the reason you can spout on about ancient Rome & Israel because you know inside that the standard that applies to us also applies to them too. Hence I believe what is right & wrong dont change.
1)humans have always had a sense of right and wrong
2) humans have always thought murder and theft are wrong
3)humans have a moral compass endowed by God
4)morality must be grounded in a supernatural being
re # 1-humans are social creatures that do better in gps than individually. Humans must balance individual needs w gp needs. Children are instructed as to appropiate behaviour by their culture. A sense of "right" and "wrong " develops.
re #2-people in societies learn that "murder" and "theft" are wrong. Without these injunctions, the society would necessarily collapse. Humans have not always thought that killing is wrong or theft under all circumstances. Societies recognise that actions have to be considered in circumstance. Some cultures have thought that slavery and human sacrifice was morally fine.
Might does not determine what is right. Just because America has the greatest army does not mean they get to determine what is right or wrong.
I also find it funny that you are speaking of circumstances where murder & theft are acceptable.
I also find in amusing that you would try to say that murder etc lead to society collapse - America is an example where murder/rape/theft going on all the time & it doesnt seem to be collapsing?
re # 3)there is no evidence of a moral compass written into the dna or brain hardware by a supernatural being. Our sense of right and wrong though is connected to what we call conscience. If we break what we believe to be society's rules, we feel guilty( except psychopaths). We naturally feel empathy and therefore understand that other humans can feel pain like we do. We also have a natural tendency to solidarity towards our own family, tribe and species.This is the basis for human morality.
re #4-why do theists think morality has to be grounded in a spernatural being(s). For Romans and Greeks, the Gods had nothing to do with ethics. They had philosophy for that. Our shared human subjective experience in the world governed by impersonal physical laws is the foundation of human ethics. We all want to survive, there are limited resourses, I understand you to be human with similar needs..this is the basis for developing standards of behaviour.Compases endowed by Diety( which deity?).
For morality to be binding to all peoples at all times, it can not be subjective. ie It can not be me (or I) & it cant be you because that would produce a bias & lead to disagreement. It also cant be Us because the ultimate version of that would be Universal Morality which is what youre trying to disprove. Ultimately the only thing that fits all the necessary criterion is a supernatural, personal, transcendent being. I have a belief who it is but that isnt needed to prove this point.
There is no evidence for any cosmic morality binding people..What does bind us is common values and goals. We all want to live, to be happy, to avoid suffering, to protect our property. The laws of physics have determined this.But some things are not determined by physics...I value womens freedom, so I think it is immoral to force women to wear burkas..others think burkas are completely moral. This conflict must be evaluated against other values, like wanting to live. This is how ethics works
On the contrary I think what I have presented shows theres quite a case for a "cosmic morality binding people". As Ive said before, appealing to peoples greed & promoting nihilism will destroy any society you promote it in. Ethics, or how particular cultures maneuver around moral law, is not the point. Because if there were no moral law we wouldnt need any ethics.
Morality is absolute. Morality is objective. And most importantly: Morality is knowable.
again,"Morality is absolute. Morality is objective. And most importantly: Morality is knowable". this is an assertion only.If there was an unequivical moral law written into our DNA we would not need ethics Laters.We would just consult our compasses. But reality obviouly doesn't work that way, so we are going to have to appeal to common interests and values and work it out for ourselves. No one is promoting nilhilism Laters.
Im sorry if youre finding it hard to follow the discussion. My assertions are based on my example & on Dr Craigs presentations. If you dont want to accept the examples, thats your choice but that doesnt mean my arguments are not validated or corroborated cause they are. Unlike the examples you have given which have all failed under examination.
Ethics is brought about by the need to navigate around moral standards while still doing what we want to do & yes, that does lead to nihilism
Morality is not determined by "I" or by our own personal level of pleasure or how I feel. If what youre trying to say was true we would have complete anarchy as everyone did whatever suited themselves at the time. Every society would self-destruct as peoples greed triggered others to violence etc.
Again, if what youre saying is true how can we make any pronouncements of morality of any kind - because "that" was what they thought was right at the time?
please provide evidence for 1 and 2 beyond just an assertion.( you capitalise DO-this is a forceful assertion, not evidence). I have not proven that it does not exist, but have given historical evidence that humans differ on what they consider to be moral.your syllogism above can be used to argue for any God(s).
my myself..I never said 2 or 3 at all. i did say morality is subjective and varies from society to society, but have acknowledged that most societies necassarity agree upon some things.
as for #4-god may have revealed himself, but alas his revelation competes with a bunch of false revelations. His revelation is nebulous and since we humans are so adept at believing false revelations and prone to false "interpretations" we must take a skeptical attitude when anyone claims to have THE objective truth.reason and science will have to be authoritative.
This is exactly what I told you you would say, haha.
Problem is, if you talk about Reason youre supposed to use it. Just because there are lots of different options, that does not logically follow that all the options are wrong. It also does not logically follow that because its hard, or because we have made a mistake in the past, that the task is impossible.
I agree you did not say #2 or #3 but thats exactly what you meant, even if you dont know it. Ive studied this subject for a long time & can pick those arguments a mile away.
#2 Is Totalitarianism. Just because I have a gun pointed at your head doesnt make what I say moral.
#3 Is Nihilism. Which if people believe in this, leads to chaos. As nothing can be proven to be wrong - everything is subjective.
Problem is certain things ARE really wrong & I dont know why you choose to deny it
#2,I don't believe might is right. The poetic passages of Job seems to suggest that YWHW thinks he can do anything because he is mighty. I know what I mean when I say it Laters!
#3. you suggect that I think what is right is whatever is pleasurable Not at all. I will do what is unpleasurable to do what I think is right.
Actually "might is right" or "society determines morality" was explicit in the #2 response you made. And I have no problem with Job seeing as if my Worldview is true God would be the arbitrator of morality & therefore gets to do whatever He wants.
Likewise "Individual determines morality" was explicitly conveyed in your #3 response. But that ultimately becomes nihilism as every individual holds to his/her own standard. The only answer to this problem is an external standard.
1. If God doesnt exist then there is no absolute standard by which ALL people at ALL times are bound to follow. Because God is the only entity able to fulfill the requirements of the an absolute standard or law.
2. It is plainly obvious that there is a standard of behavior that ALL people at ALL times are accountable to.
Therefore it follows logically that God does exist. Giving God a name & a denomination is not important at this stage. Although I do have a personal opinion on it.
If God does not exist, there is no cosmic standard.correct. the laws of physics do ensure that actions have consequences. They force us to develop rules of behaviour that have not been completely consistent.
"It is plainly obvious that there is a standard of behavior that ALL people at ALL times are accountable to.'
just yet another forceful ASSERTION. Because humans have a sense of right and wrong, does not prove a cosmic moraity..even if you choose to project this onto the cosmos.
Moral actions are not based on physics (although this conversation would be a lot easier if they were). Morality is not physical. So its not a case of "if theres no evidence then theres no foul". Because whats wrong is still wrong even if theres no evidence of it
Problem for you is that all humans DO have the same moral code (murder is always wrong no matter what place or time you go). And the only logical explanation for this is one external standard to which we are all applicable.
no Laters..don't you see, murder is going to be adaptively considered to be wrong because societies that think it is right are not going to survive.Many societies have considered slavery to be morally correct ( I gave you a quote from John adams arguing that slavery has been ordained from God). Many societies actually thrived because of slavery...Romans,egyptians,colonial powers,southern USA. they did not consider slavery to be immoral.Our sense of right and wrong is adaptive.
On the contrary you are the 1 who can not see the short comings of your worldview. If your worldview is true then we could change our laws to kill, rob & destroy and that would mean those things are alright. Why cant you see the flaws in that?
Slavery was abolished by Christians, who through a better understanding of the Bible disregarded the heresy spouted by supporters of slavery. It is by the Bible that they understood that no man may have control over another bar his will.
If groups or societies determine morality then there can be no objection to what the Nazis did in WW2. If what youre saying is true we cant really say that the genocide in Stalins Russia or in Darfur is really wrong, only that it is socially unacceptable at the moment. Your world view would tell us that we have no right to complain because that's what works for them so we cant object. But that is obviously false because morality is absolute & objective.
It is not obviously false-you have not shown that morality IS objective. That is why there are wars. If I cannot appeal to common values and goals with Hitler or Stalin...or if I simply cannot live knowing that they are murdering( to hitler it was not murder) jews, it may lead to war. Killing Jews or Malachites is not murder to some ( Nazis or YHWH)
Actually wars are mostly predicated on greed & maliciousness not on moral disagreements.
But thats not the point:
Societies do not set morality or there would be no way of saying the Holocaust was wrong! But we can & do say that that was wrong. Despite the fact that the Nazi Germany Society of 1939 decided that exterminating Jew etc was right.
That is proof positive that 1. Society doesnt determine morality. & 2. There is an absolute & objective moral standard applicable to ALL!
the fact that one out of the two societies say that the holocaust was WRONG is not PROOF POSITIVE of a cosmic morality. Even if all cultures agree that ,say murder, is wrong this does not prove any cosmic morality Laters. It just shows that humans agree on this point...do you think Laters that if suddenly there was no God or Bible, society would suddenly think murder was okay?I think it is wrong because it is counter to my values,the nazis think it is right because it is consistent w theirs
Sorry buddy ALL societies say the holocaust was wrong. Thats proof of an absolute & absolutes are proof for the existence of God.
Yes but why do they all agree? And if 1 didnt agree would you just accept that thats how they do it there & not object? Of course you would object. But by what authority?
When people ignore or stop believing in God they do whatever they feel. What would you do if you thought you'd never get caught?
it is evident that all societies do not agree on every issue...ie human sacrifice,killing malachites(including pregnant women),slavery....It is simply untrue that there has been universal agreement wrt morality..where there is agreement, there are obvious adaptive reasons Laters. I don't think killing jews is wrong because of a cosmic authority..I believe it is wrong because it causes suffering.because I value human life.
Is that so? Well would you kindly list the countries that condone murder & theft for me please? Nah, just kidding. I wouldnt make you waste your time by trying to find things that dont exist.
Hmm, so you can kill Jews as long as they dont suffer? Is that what youre saying?
No, morality is absolute. The behavior we see is simply maneuvering to appease cultural & social requirements.
Question: Why is valuing human life better than not valuing it? And why do you think that is?
"Hmm, so you can kill Jews as long as they dont suffer? Is that what youre saying? ".
..only one thing to say,and you deserve this Laters; you're as ass!
"No, morality is absolute'...great! another assertion..
"Why is valuing human life better than not valuing it? sigh..talk about nilhilism..are you saying that humans need a cosmic overseer for this..really. I AM HUMAN,MY KIDS ARE HUMAN,MY TRIBE IS HUMAN,MY SPECIES IS HUMAN, it is natural for me to value human life.even your.take care.
I think you mean 'an arse'. And, nice of you to take so long to not address either question. You should take up politics.
NB: They were rhetorical questions on your position - something you obviously failed understand.
If all I have is assertions, then it should have been easy enough to construct a response based on your own idea that quashes my assertion & shows the truth of the matter. But you utterly failed to do that.
NB: Dr Craigs argument from morality has never been refuted.
"so you can kill Jews as long as they dont suffer?"....is this your rhetorical question? You obviously do not really read my posts...I am wasting my time.
Do you not understand what rhetorical questions are? They are used to make a point. If you cant grasp, what is a very simple example, then there may be no helping you?
BTW; FYI I have carefully read & replied to every comment you have made to me & responded in kind. I think the only 1 not doing that here is you adstanra. Is it because you dont understand the argument? Feel free to post something on my page if you need more space?
Well you're old enough to tell. But, then again, you should also be old enough to realize the truth when you see it too. But, obviously you've missed the boat on that one. So, I guess you'd probably fail at distinguishing between mature & adolescent.
I admire your patience on this, but I can't see LatersOw ever saying anything of worth at this point in your ongoing debate. He merely turns every argument presented inside-out and then hopes it all makes sense. Apart from pulling a few quotes out of the bible, he hasn't really contributed anything of thought provoking significance and no acceptable evidence whatsoever for his assumptions, while stating constantly that you must present some. As you well know by now...
Ok, I believe that everyone everywhere, throughout all of human history has or had the same moral standard. ie Nowhere is murder, theft etc acceptable. I minister to jail inmates and even the murderers say that what they did was wrong (they often try to justify it) bubt they still say it was wrong. Thieves will complain if they have things stolen form them, even if they stole the items in question. To me that points to a universal standard...?
Dr Craig provides ample quotations & cites plenty of references to substantiate his arguments - which btw are alway in the positve, unlike all the other debaters Ive seen him face who just complain & try to denigrate Dr Craigs arguments (ie nothing in the positive). Unfortunately for them that doesnt work because denigrate an opponents argument is a genetic fallacy. Im affraid the onus Is on the Atheist to give good reasons why that position is true - problem is none come.
Did I say it was wrong? Sorry bub, Dr Craigs arguments are always based firmly in logic and are always phrased in the positive. No wishful thinking here, just the end of Atheism as a realistic worldview. Its going to take you a lot more than flapping your lip to disprove Dr Craigs arguments.
Hmm, thats convenient. Dont mention how the "religious" have helped countless of millions of poor, starving, lost, needy, diseased, homeless people all over the world for the last 2000 years!
Haha, the old ad homeniem attack - the sign of a desperate little man.
Im sure that Christianjr4 is a very smart & talented man. And if you want to take these issues up with him, you dont need to ask my permission to do that. But the fact remain that you commented on a stream I have simply been correcting you since.
But I would like you to stay around, hopefully you might learn something?
Another great step forward for you bill. First you can admit that you are arrogant and secondly you can admit that you use the fallacious technique of personal attacks rather than addressing the issue.
"I didn't"
Yeah, I think you did buddy - I guess that will have to be item number three.
"Okay, what do you actually know?
Well, from our conversation, quite a lot it would seem. I know that morality is absolute & that Dr Craigs argument from morality has never been refuted.
I wholeheartedly disagree that morals are absolute. Since morals are defined by different cultures, morals change. Morals are man-made. They existed before religions were created. What would make you think morals are absolute? Thank you.
Ethical choices are made in different cultures but moral standards of right & wrong are pretty much universal in all places & all times. That lines up squarely with Christian doctrine of origins & the nature of God.
What would make me think morals are absolute?
In no civilization anywhere has murder, theft or rape been okay.
Why does that stuff happen? Only with some form of fallacious justification to try & remove or get around the absolute theyre trying to avoid.
Thanks for the response. Do you really think that morals have been consistent throughout all cultures throughout time? Do you realize that when African Americans were slaves, they were regularly murdered by their masters. Society didn't look down upon those acts. We can then imagine what it was like for the different class systems in earlier times. Do you think primitive man had these same morals we experience today? Slaves were raped by their masters also and that was accepted by society. cont.
Morals have always been situational and never absolute. There are some very immoral acts done by god and in his name. The struggle of gays to marry the person they love is a moral issue to me and it is theists that have consistently been immoral about it.
Doesn't christian doctrine of origins also state we were created 6,000 years ago in the form we currently know? The nature of god seems very vindictive and boasts of being prideful and jealous.
Atheism is the belief that is non-coherent: they make a claim that by their own standard of belief they can not know! While Theism could be said to be a delusion, you dont think the 4 - 4.5 billion theists on Earth could all be deluded at the same time, do you?
I have never heard a successful refutation of Dr Craigs argument from morality. If 1 exists show me. Or if you think you could do it? Why not debate Dr Craig on just that subject?
Right or wrong Christians claim to be able to contact & communicate with the supernatural (or something outside of nature). So to claim to know something more (or outside) of nature is well within their worldview. Atheism on the other hand claims to know (absolutely) that there is nothing outside of our natural senses which in non-coherent with their belief because if there was something supernatural, they could not know it. So they cant say "theres no God".
There is a plethora of information out there that will show you that I'm right if you would care to get off your but and see for yourself - I ain't doing your homework for you buddy. The individual statistics may be different but the idea will still be the same no matter where you go. There are a lot more people who believe in the supernatural than those that don't. And its not too likely their all crazy - at the same time.
If you cant even find world population by religion on the web Im afraid theres no hope for you son.
Youre the only one running on public opinion buddy. Youre the one claiming to know something that you cant know. If you think you know more than all those who have debated Dr Craig then Ill stand aside
You cant see any point in the conversation cause you cant follow a progression of ideas.
Most of the worlds population claims there is a supernatural of some kind. And therefore the idea needs to be considered.
As far as Atheism is concerned, I cant see how you can claim that it is rationally based - as it cant even substantiate itself, let alone make proclamations about anything else?
I guess youll just have to help me see how your idea is rational & mine is contradictory?
No, I wouldn't say progressive. I would say honest & truthful - like The Eagles. The main sign of your immaturity is that you cant stay to the facts or address them without trying to taunt others.
"Well I've heard some considerations"
Oh yeah, like what?
"That would be like trying to make an anvil realise it's heavy"
Well, if that is true then it should be easy for you & I dont know why youre wasting your time with this banter???
"I am an atheist because I consider the supernatural a waste of time issue"
All this coming from the guy who just sent me (a Christian) four responses on a video entitled "Christian Book Expo 2009..." Seems you spend a lot of your time on this "waste of time". So what are you up to? Do you think youre going to convert me to Atheism or something?
As for your claims, I found it very entertain to read that you say there is no god when you can not know that there is one! Lol.
Where is the evidence for absolute moral values? It is true that cultures will develop behaviours that are condemned..like rape and murder and stealing etc. This is natural. Cultures wouldn't survive otherwise..the laws of physics demand these things. It is undeniable however, that certain behaviours are not universally condemned..human sacrifice,slavery, caste systems.Also theists do not agree about the important moral issues facing us, like war,global warming,capital punishment, the economy.
It is natural for societies to develop certain behaviours deemed acceptable or unacceptable.There will be behaviours that are universally condemned.But these sets of bahaviours have changed over time and there is no reason to believe that previous societies thought they were doing wrong when they advocated infanticide,or human sacrifice, or slavery. If there is a 'best' way to maximize heath and minimize suffering it will be dictated by the natural laws and discovered by scientific inquiry
Peoples behaviors may change but morality, what is right & wrong, does not.
How can we speak of a "best" if there isnt a scale or a law by which to judge. Otherwise any pronouncement we would make would be completely subjective & therefore illusory & meaningless.
Also, morality, in my experience, can not be known through scientific inquiry. Mainly due to the fact that the author of our morality is supernatural & therefore outside of the scientific method.
You haven't shown that morality does not change...I have shown that people's perception of it does change and vary culturally. By "best" I mean that if we can define mutual goals and values, we might be able to figure out the "best" course of action...I think this might be ameniable to emperical inquiry.If two people(societies) have incompatable values and goals...it might lead to conflict.
And you haven't shown that it does change. Give me an example of morality changing. Show me where murder used to be acceptable.
Sure, you can speak of "best". But what is stopping what youre talking about from being completely subjective? Better question: Who authored morality? In a conflict, how do we determine which people/societies are closer to "best" than the other people/societies?
It is evident that societies notion of morality is no universal. Pagan societies believed that frail infants could be exposed to nature(die), slavery was acceptable to large tracts of people. Murder is culturally defined. Killing babies and pregnant women is condoned even in the bible ...by God. To us today, this would be considered murder. Abortion is considered murder by some, capital punishment is muder by others. To kill nazis is murder by some,acceptable by others.
"morality" is purely a subjective term that belongs to societies of conscious beings.Most societies will condemn stealing and lying and murder( killing others within society unlawfully) because these are required for a society to function. Societies that condone these behaviours will be "like a kingdom divided against itself". Always, morality is contingent upon circumstances...but there may be a "best" way for humans to accomplish mutual goals..for societies to accomplish those goals.
Cultures do not develop behaviors that are condemned & the law of physics does not demand it.
What is wrong (or right) has always been wrong (or right) throughout the entirety of human histroy. Morality never changes. That is why I call it a law.
Now, many peoples throughout our history have approached the subject differently with a wide array of outcomes but that doe not change the fact that Morality is Absolute.
All cultures do develop behaviours that are condoned or condemned. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as societies or cultures. I don't think, for example, that the ancient isrealites were shocked to hear that murder was not kosher, stealing was condemned. Societies that condone these things could not survive.
Condoned or condemned by who? By us? By what standard or by what scale does anyone have a right to judge what behavior is good or bad?
The Israelites werent surprised. Yeah, of course! But why not? Because morality is written into the souls of all human beings. Every human throughout our entire history has an innate understanding of right & wrong placed in them by their creator.
There is no cosmic authority. If i think your behaviour is unacceptable and cannot reason with you by identifying common goals, we may have to come to blows. I don't think there is any standard that I can use to convince Osama that he is wrong. Our philosophies are simply incompatable. I would likely have to kill him. There simply is no agreement as to what is moral. He might think there is a standard, you might think so, but you are just going to have to disagree and try to kill each other.
If there is no "cosmic authority" then there is no morality. There is no right no wrong just what feels good to the individual. Problem is: You know there are such a things as right & wrong. Therefore morality exists & therefore it follows logically that a "cosmic authority" exists.
You dont need to convince Osama that he was wrong you just need to show him that he did not have the right to contravene or disregard the moral law. Everyone agrees with what is moral.
I am saying that morality is a subjective entity. Just because you say it is absolute or cosmic does not make it so. There is no objective evidence that "everyone agrees" wrt morality. In fact, it is easily demonstarted that there is no universal agreement. Everyone may think they know what it is, but that proves nothing. There is no evidence, eg, that Hitler spent alot of time feeling guilty. Because he thought he was doing "good".The spartans believed that exposure was good.
There are people in the world that truely believe it is moral to fly planes into buildings. They will also claim some sort of cosmic authority. Tell me, do you also think God has made knowledge of true beliefs available to everyone( like he has made morality)?Do others willfully and malevolently choose to believe otherwise?Is there any evidence that Hitler lived his life full of guilt?
God has certainly made of the truth and of morality available to everyone. He even got some friends of His to write it in a book for you.
Most that contravene Gods laws do not do it on purpose - they are deceived. But there are those who do the wrong thing willfully & on purpose.What one believes & reality are 2 different things.I dont think Hitler felt any guilt for any of the evil he caused. He genuinely thought he was doing the right thing. Thanks to the theory of evolution.
dude.you contradict yourself. You say it is available to everyone, then say some are deceived and do not feel guilt...to those people it is NOT available. The bible , by the way, does not condemn slavery and condones many things that are adhorant to us today ( who should be stoned to death ?). WRT evolution. Are you confusing social evolution and eugenics with biological evolution? Evolution by common descent is objectively true whether Hitler developed an ideology loosely based upon it or not.
Dont get carried away with yourself there buddy. Everyone knows what is right & wrong from the youngest age. Why = God. Beyond that they are open to the rest of the world & to deception. Im sure Hitler had access to a bible & pastors who could help him. But he wanted to serve his own desires etc. The bible does not condone slavery - try doing some research before talking nonsense. Its obvious that he thought exterminating Jews would make Germany stronger, ie survival of the fittest.
"Everyone knows what is right & wrong". You keep saying that without any evidence. I have provided you with evidence that what people believe is right and wrong varies culturally. The bible condones slavery completely. It tells one how to treat slaves, who you can have as slaves, that children born to your slaves are also your property, just how much you can beat your slaves etc. I think it is you who needs to do the research.
Craig is so deadly boring to listen to, that I enjoy playing snake while he blathers.(press pause, then start.. then the up & right arrows simultaneously)
mouthyweasel 8 months ago
Will their be free will in heaven? If yes, then Earth is redundant.
If no, then free will is redundant.
JPWMT 1 year ago
Purushadasa IS A PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL!
HE BELIEVES THAT ATHESITS ARE IGNORANT.
THAT IS LIKE PALIN CALLING O'BAMA STUPID.
rimbaudlink 1 year ago
Who is that talking at the beginning? Jim Denison?
Dhalsim06 2 years ago
LatersOw
'Haha, you got your comment removed by the author!'
adstanra
I have been talking to a kid.
billhicks8 2 years ago
does anyone know of a website where I can get current info on upcoming theist/atheist debates? I'd love to attend one.
allensr81 2 years ago
I have a page listed at the bottom of the description box on my channel that tracks upcoming debates of William Lane Craig. If you want to know upcoming debates of other Atheists/Theists then you'll probably just have to visit their website if they have one (ie. go to Dinesh D'Souza's site for his upcoming debates, etc etc).
Christianjr4 2 years ago
imagine Laters a child being told " do not go by the lake"( perhaps because of crocodiles) by her mother. Imagine a bunch of kids being told the same thing. Naturally the kids will assign some moral value to that injunction. Some " bad " kids will sneak out to the lake. Some of these will not return. It quickly becomes " wrong" to visit the lake...These assertions of right and wrong, associated with guilt, are biolgically adaptive.
adstanra 2 years ago
but of course,what is the real authority behind " do not go down by the lake " . Well, it is some authority, like a parent or a society. Now what if a priest consults the Gods about this. We humans, you see, have been speaking for the God's for thousands of yrs. We project up to them our morality, and when it returns we give it cosmic authority. And the cosmic dictums that return reflect the morals of the culture that sends it.
adstanra 2 years ago
finally. Even if there is a compass endowed to us, humans subjectivelty read it.The compass is evidently imprecise and cannot help us with the most imporatnt issues facing us today. We are going to have to call upon the factors listed below. And there are some people who we may have to come to blows with because the compasses are incompatable. His compass says he is going north where mine says he is going south.You simply need a moral compass to exist,otherwise God cannot judge us.
adstanra 2 years ago
BTW. Sice you believe that God has bestowed upon us a moral code...why is there so much confusion with the "interpretation" of it ?
And, has God bestowed onto us knowledge of himself? If so, how do you account for all the confusion about his name and character?
adstanra 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
The freewill defense is proposterous. How does human freewill explain small-pox, malaria,psunamis,draught, predation and animal suffering?Why would a good god allow innocent people to suffer immeasurably for someone elses freewill. Also, Humans generally grossly overestimate their freewill. WLcs response to the problem has always been a non-answer. "There are good reasons", although he doesn't tell us what they are.Apparently God has good reasons for not telling us the good reasons
adstanra 2 years ago
Christian apologetics seems to be one, long emotional plea.
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
Well, they are giving positive reasons for believing that theism is true. There are no positive reasons for atheism to be true. All the atheist does is think up problems for the evidence for God, or point out contradictions in our perception of God. These don't prove anything.
Atheism is just being difficult to a ridiculous degree. Hope you're enjoying yourself
Dhalsim06 2 years ago 2
Yes in fact we must be committing 'evil' by believing and promoting such disinformation before the almighty jesus christ or whoever/whatever you believe in. Since morality is 'objective' and all...
billhicks8 2 years ago
That's my point: the arguments they give have been so handily discredited so many times, that all they REALLY have to fall back on are rather overt logical fallacies: special pleading, question-begging, appeals to emotion, strawmen, and so on.
The person making the truth-claim always has the burden of proof. Think there's a God? Provide compelling evidence and arguments.
Atheism is simply the default position: if there are no good reasons to believe in God, then disbelief is justified.
ClumsyRoot 2 years ago
4-1......hitchens still stumps them. listening to these guys is entertaining. such childish beliefs.
xamot27 2 years ago
Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie, born of a virgin, who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
lazychump 2 years ago
These Christian panelists have the intellect of 8 year olds. Its embarrassing to even see them try and debate intellectual heavyweight Hitchens ( who wipes the floor with them)
Its like they are mentally challenged:) ( no offense intended)
aphexvancouver 2 years ago
The synopsis of the entire debate:
(C) = Christians (H) = Hitchens
(C) There is good evidence to believe in God, and here is some evidence
(H) I don't like the Christian God, so He doesn't exist
(C) Your dislike of God is unfounded
(H) I don't like the Christian God, so He doesn't exist
(C) You have not disproved any of our proofs for the existence of God
I admit this synopsis was slightly exaggerated and biased, but for the most part exactly what happened.
JonThaBrave 2 years ago
Actually it's closer to
(C) There is good evidence for God.
(H) Go ahead
(C) Blah blah blah, something subjective and not actually evidence.
(H) I will now proceed to destroy your ignorant ass.
None of the "evidence" that';s put forward has any foundation in logic or the subjective world.
FeralCr 2 years ago
What I meant was "None of the 'evidence' put forward has any foundation in logic or the objective world"
My mistake.
FeralCr 2 years ago
Hitchens never actually addressed the arguments for God but only brought up his own arguments against God
---------------------------------------
Well folks, you have two different interpretations of the debate (if FeralCr watched the whole thing). Use the thumbing system to vote on the correct interpretation.
JonThaBrave 2 years ago
What's wrong with Hitchens bringing up his own arguments against God/s? He is, with integrity, taking on his own burden of proof.
Hitchens was having a great time - being put in the apologetics den.
dbes02 2 years ago
There is nothing wrong with it, it's just that people rarely address the theistic arguments (at least in the debates I've seen).
JonThaBrave 2 years ago
Iit's called burden of proof. These debate formats don't fit well with either the breadth or complexity of issues involved.
But to say that "people rarely address the theistic arguments" is quite a claim. There's an enormous literature out there. Maybe it's because you haven't looked it up (fallacy of selective attention).
The literature and/or positions go back thousands of years. Choose a belief system (eg, Judaism, Australian Aborigines) and it will contradict another (eg, Christianity).
dbes02 2 years ago
I was only talking about the debates I've seen. I am perfectly aware there are people who actually make good refutations.
JonThaBrave 2 years ago
the only arguments presented for god, are some dude's "feeling" that he's present and talking to him.
rock solid argument...lol
lazychump 2 years ago
I want to study deluded people, can I email you some questions?
chorreh 2 years ago
Sure; you may aid me in my own studies of deluded people.
JonThaBrave 2 years ago
Can you give me the link so i can see it myself. I dont take things on faith.
jazzloverpr 2 years ago 4
Veritas you are correct. People dont be dismayed. What is at hand is not Morals, which comes from the greek "Moray" which means "what is" like a social pattern or trend of right and wrong. But what is at hand is Ethics, which in greek means "What ought to be" so therefore proving that morals are subjective and not concrete but Ethics are. Ethics lay the ground work for Gods existance. If God Doesnt Exist neither do ethics, but i proved ethics exist, therefore God exists.
quinifer15 2 years ago
Comment removed
quinifer15 2 years ago
amen @ 3:12!!!!
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
So, it takes 4 leading figures of christianity to handle hitchens?
jazzloverpr 2 years ago 4
Jazz they didn`t and cannot handle him , He made them look silly as always
ilikezappa 2 years ago 4
I like this. These rocks. William Lane Graig, Douglas Wilson, James Denison. These people are the best of the best Atheism can't stand a chance.
More.....
crawlersilverwind 2 years ago
Oh how I wish there was more of this debate! The is a little difficult to understand however at certain points. I really hope you can post the rest, Christianjr4. Still, thank you for posting this all the same.
isin17123 2 years ago 7
You can see the whole debate here:
tangle[dot]com/view_video[dot]php?viewkey=41178da2dab2e1e83d93
JonThaBrave 2 years ago
ty very much
jazzloverpr 2 years ago
He can't post the rest because he took the video from me.
galewgleason 2 years ago
Imagine that the world has no religion and no gods today. Abraham comes along with his tablets, JC with his virgin mom, Noah & his ark, and the bible comes out at the book store.. How many people in this day and age would actually fall for that BS? RIght. None. So why fall for it because the characters are 2000 years old? Same bull - different day.
WhiteLakeDan 2 years ago
I don't think even Disney would pick up this screenplay...
GowanBray 2 years ago
If Christian deism is true, then why do Christians feel sad when a loved one dies? Shouldn't they rejoice out of happiness in that case for that person supposedly is in paradise?
Moreover, shouldn't they be anxious to die themselves since according to the Bible, life on Earth doesn't really matter anyway since it's the kingdom of God that really matters.
AntiChrist67 2 years ago
thats true, but the problem of death has become this great image of society which no one wants. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. Death is a separation of peoples, thats always a sad thing, of course in the back of our minds we try and keep that in mind, but we are still saddened by death, as is everyone. And no no one has to be anxious to die. Life is a wonderful experience, and its all part of the big plan as some say. But we don't have to be anxious to die.
tetralophodon 2 years ago
Good to see Dr WLC pick Hitchens up on his little switch-a-roo he always does. I look forward to watching their debate on the 4th of April.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Switch-a-roo? Hitchens did nothing but call him out on his arrogant position that he could possibly know what the creator of the universe wanted and thought. Great point at the right time. How other christians don't see the utter arroganace of this leaves me in disbelief.
biggregg5 2 years ago
biggregg5,
Actually Hitchens always tries to button the existence of evil in the world together with the assumption that God does not exist. Problem is that the two don't logically follow. And, Dr Craig pointed that out. There's nothing arrogant about point out the flaw in someones reasoning - in fact I think that's what they're meant to do isn't it?
Insecure people often mistake confidence for arrogance.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
no point in debating or arguing.
God is non-falsifiable, and most religious people don't have the will to over come their fear of damnation or lack of eternal life (heaven) to use reason and logic when thinking about things like this.
lazychump 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
..life is just a ride... ;)
lazychump 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Its not the existence, its the source that provides the proof for the existence of God. Dr Craig does prove evil exists - unless you think rape & murder are ok? And therefore God is the only satisfactory author for our morality. Dr Craig always provides good positive arguments in his debates unlike the atheists who just deny & complain about it. Your lot dont seem to know how a debate works or even how to frame an argument. You need to stop living in your own little bubble world!
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Dont take my word for it & dont be stupid. The existence of Absolute Moral Values is just as unequivocal & undoubtable as the existence of the physical world. The more that you study the subject the more you will realise that every culture around the world, throughout human history have all shared a remarkably identical moral code. Why? Because it was placed in them by their creator!
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
No condescension here sorry. Just a reality check for those of you who prefer to deny the obvious.
You tried to say that evil doesnt really exist in the world. Then you implied that Dr Craigs arguments could be easily refuted... by you? And you now try to avoid the reality of Absolute Moral Values - I cant even begin to comprehend such stupidity.
Go ahead, stay in your little dream world if it makes you feel better. We'll be here in the real world when youre ready to grow up.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Right, looked at it, dont see a problem with anything I wrote. Sorry if I pinched a nerve but denying absolute moral law is like trying to deny 2+2=4. If you actually do some real study into the subject you will see the error of your ways.
If you honestly think you could beat Dr Craig in a debate because he uses such flawed & farcical arguments, why dont you actually debate him? Go for it. That would be the ultimate decider on whos right or wrong in this discussion.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhick8,
You state a genetic fallacy. It is more plausible that Dr Craig would beat you because he is right & you are wrong not just that he is a better debater. He is the "new darling" because he has done the necessary study to prove that logic & reason affirm Christianity - something most people simply take on faith.
Absolute morality is not a niche subject. It is an empirical proof for the necessary existence of God. To deny absolute morality is to deny reality.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Dont make assumptions. I had to work through Dr Craigs material to grasp what he was saying.
His arguments are, in essence, flawless. Seeing as no one has been able to refute them thus far. Dont you think, of all the prestigious & learned people Dr Craig has debated over the years that 1 of them might have just pointed out his arguments use circular reasoning & won the debate hands down?
Take your head out of your arse for a sec. The only 1 spouting "silly ramblings" here is you!
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Sorry if I pinched a nerve there buddy but you are being arrogant. 1. Dr Craig doesnt use circular reasoning - if he did it would be supremely easy to overcome his arguments + he wouldnt get support from other Theist debaters. 2. I actually do like hearing from Atheist speakers - I see many flaws in their arguments but they are almost always eloquent speakers, vehemently precise with their words! Christopher Hitchens is one of the best examples of that.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Im glad you can admit that youre arrogant - thats the 1st step - well done.
As to the rest of your post: Let me get this straight. You believe that all the prestigious and well learned Atheists & Agnostics Dr Craig has debated over the last 10 years have been too slow or stupid to recognise the simple circular reasoning in his arguments? They couldnt see it but you can? Do you realise how pathetic that sounds? Honestly, you need to get a grip buddy!
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
And, theres a difference between a man like me and a scared little boy like you holding onto his little Atheist security blanket cause he really wants to believe that it can solve all his problems & give him the answers to life. Problem is your little fairy tale is powerless under real scrutiny.
No one has ever refuted Dr Craigs argument from morality. I think you need to get a grip. Once again if you think youre better than Craig & Smith go ahead debate him & show him he's wrong!
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
I guess you just ran out of constructive things to say for this one...?
Scientific inquiry. Whats that got to do with our conversation about Dr Craig & morality? Gee, I think I really rattled you there huh buddy? Hey its ok, I didnt mean to hurt your feelings there little fellow. We can still be friends. I'll let you come over to our house & you 'n' my sister can braid each others hair?
... so what was your point again... Oh thats right you dont have one.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
"Nope"
Yep.
"!?"
Exactly, you have nothing to say.
"You are forgiven"
Thanks, I was worried that I had been a little too harsh on you and that was why you were writing such nonsensical crap.
"I'd rather not meet you or your family"
Oh ouch, and I thought we were being friendly? Oh well, that's probably for the best cause they'd probably kick your arse.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
There is nothing to be learned here because you dont want to learn anything. The only arrogant thing around here is you.
Atheism is non-coherent. They state something that they believe they can not know. Dr Craig makes positive statements supporting Christianity & all his opponents give is "I don't like it" & "I dont believe it". No 1 debunks Dr Craigs points because all they come armed with belligerence & sarcasm. Morality is absolute - so, yes science does agree with that!
LatersOw 2 years ago
"Morality is absolute - so, yes science does agree with that! "...this is your problem Laters.You have made a presumption without evidence( morality is absolute), then claimed science does agree with that. Please provide some objective evidence that there is a cosmic morality known to all humans. Condemnation of Murder and theft are necessary conditions for societies easily explained without cosmic moral compasses. the confusion is argument against a moral compass. Please provide evidence.
adstanra 2 years ago
Even if there was a moral compass built into our DNA, all you will ever have is your subjective "interpretation' of it. It is subject to interpretation...therefore it is pragmatically SUBJECTIVE.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
That means (to me) that there is a standard of behaviour that we are all under. If you & I were playing a game, I might cheat, which could lead you to do the same. So between the 2 of us we modify the game to suit ourselves but outsiders will say that we're not playing the game properly. Thats the reason you can spout on about ancient Rome & Israel because you know inside that the standard that applies to us also applies to them too. Hence I believe what is right & wrong dont change.
LatersOw 2 years ago
you thesis appears like this
1)humans have always had a sense of right and wrong
2) humans have always thought murder and theft are wrong
3)humans have a moral compass endowed by God
4)morality must be grounded in a supernatural being
re # 1-humans are social creatures that do better in gps than individually. Humans must balance individual needs w gp needs. Children are instructed as to appropiate behaviour by their culture. A sense of "right" and "wrong " develops.
adstanra 2 years ago
re #2-people in societies learn that "murder" and "theft" are wrong. Without these injunctions, the society would necessarily collapse. Humans have not always thought that killing is wrong or theft under all circumstances. Societies recognise that actions have to be considered in circumstance. Some cultures have thought that slavery and human sacrifice was morally fine.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Might does not determine what is right. Just because America has the greatest army does not mean they get to determine what is right or wrong.
I also find it funny that you are speaking of circumstances where murder & theft are acceptable.
I also find in amusing that you would try to say that murder etc lead to society collapse - America is an example where murder/rape/theft going on all the time & it doesnt seem to be collapsing?
LatersOw 2 years ago
re # 3)there is no evidence of a moral compass written into the dna or brain hardware by a supernatural being. Our sense of right and wrong though is connected to what we call conscience. If we break what we believe to be society's rules, we feel guilty( except psychopaths). We naturally feel empathy and therefore understand that other humans can feel pain like we do. We also have a natural tendency to solidarity towards our own family, tribe and species.This is the basis for human morality.
adstanra 2 years ago
re #4-why do theists think morality has to be grounded in a spernatural being(s). For Romans and Greeks, the Gods had nothing to do with ethics. They had philosophy for that. Our shared human subjective experience in the world governed by impersonal physical laws is the foundation of human ethics. We all want to survive, there are limited resourses, I understand you to be human with similar needs..this is the basis for developing standards of behaviour.Compases endowed by Diety( which deity?).
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
For morality to be binding to all peoples at all times, it can not be subjective. ie It can not be me (or I) & it cant be you because that would produce a bias & lead to disagreement. It also cant be Us because the ultimate version of that would be Universal Morality which is what youre trying to disprove. Ultimately the only thing that fits all the necessary criterion is a supernatural, personal, transcendent being. I have a belief who it is but that isnt needed to prove this point.
LatersOw 2 years ago
There is no evidence for any cosmic morality binding people..What does bind us is common values and goals. We all want to live, to be happy, to avoid suffering, to protect our property. The laws of physics have determined this.But some things are not determined by physics...I value womens freedom, so I think it is immoral to force women to wear burkas..others think burkas are completely moral. This conflict must be evaluated against other values, like wanting to live. This is how ethics works
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
On the contrary I think what I have presented shows theres quite a case for a "cosmic morality binding people". As Ive said before, appealing to peoples greed & promoting nihilism will destroy any society you promote it in. Ethics, or how particular cultures maneuver around moral law, is not the point. Because if there were no moral law we wouldnt need any ethics.
Morality is absolute. Morality is objective. And most importantly: Morality is knowable.
LatersOw 2 years ago
again,"Morality is absolute. Morality is objective. And most importantly: Morality is knowable". this is an assertion only.If there was an unequivical moral law written into our DNA we would not need ethics Laters.We would just consult our compasses. But reality obviouly doesn't work that way, so we are going to have to appeal to common interests and values and work it out for ourselves. No one is promoting nilhilism Laters.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Im sorry if youre finding it hard to follow the discussion. My assertions are based on my example & on Dr Craigs presentations. If you dont want to accept the examples, thats your choice but that doesnt mean my arguments are not validated or corroborated cause they are. Unlike the examples you have given which have all failed under examination.
Ethics is brought about by the need to navigate around moral standards while still doing what we want to do & yes, that does lead to nihilism
LatersOw 2 years ago
adstanra,
Morality is not determined by "I" or by our own personal level of pleasure or how I feel. If what youre trying to say was true we would have complete anarchy as everyone did whatever suited themselves at the time. Every society would self-destruct as peoples greed triggered others to violence etc.
Again, if what youre saying is true how can we make any pronouncements of morality of any kind - because "that" was what they thought was right at the time?
No, morality is100% objective
LatersOw 2 years ago
adstanra,
No, not quite. Its more like this:
1. If God doent exist objective moral values dont exist
2. Objective moral values DO exist
3. Therefore God exists
Your responses can be summed up as follows:
#1 Society determines morality
#2 Might is right
#3 I determine morality by my level of pleasure
#4 God cant be known (or Im an Atheist) therefore Gods rules dont apply to me.
LatersOw 2 years ago
please provide evidence for 1 and 2 beyond just an assertion.( you capitalise DO-this is a forceful assertion, not evidence). I have not proven that it does not exist, but have given historical evidence that humans differ on what they consider to be moral.your syllogism above can be used to argue for any God(s).
my myself..I never said 2 or 3 at all. i did say morality is subjective and varies from society to society, but have acknowledged that most societies necassarity agree upon some things.
adstanra 2 years ago
as for #4-god may have revealed himself, but alas his revelation competes with a bunch of false revelations. His revelation is nebulous and since we humans are so adept at believing false revelations and prone to false "interpretations" we must take a skeptical attitude when anyone claims to have THE objective truth.reason and science will have to be authoritative.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
This is exactly what I told you you would say, haha.
Problem is, if you talk about Reason youre supposed to use it. Just because there are lots of different options, that does not logically follow that all the options are wrong. It also does not logically follow that because its hard, or because we have made a mistake in the past, that the task is impossible.
LatersOw 2 years ago
adstanra,
I agree you did not say #2 or #3 but thats exactly what you meant, even if you dont know it. Ive studied this subject for a long time & can pick those arguments a mile away.
#2 Is Totalitarianism. Just because I have a gun pointed at your head doesnt make what I say moral.
#3 Is Nihilism. Which if people believe in this, leads to chaos. As nothing can be proven to be wrong - everything is subjective.
Problem is certain things ARE really wrong & I dont know why you choose to deny it
LatersOw 2 years ago
#2,I don't believe might is right. The poetic passages of Job seems to suggest that YWHW thinks he can do anything because he is mighty. I know what I mean when I say it Laters!
#3. you suggect that I think what is right is whatever is pleasurable Not at all. I will do what is unpleasurable to do what I think is right.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Actually "might is right" or "society determines morality" was explicit in the #2 response you made. And I have no problem with Job seeing as if my Worldview is true God would be the arbitrator of morality & therefore gets to do whatever He wants.
Likewise "Individual determines morality" was explicitly conveyed in your #3 response. But that ultimately becomes nihilism as every individual holds to his/her own standard. The only answer to this problem is an external standard.
LatersOw 2 years ago
adstanra,
1. If God doesnt exist then there is no absolute standard by which ALL people at ALL times are bound to follow. Because God is the only entity able to fulfill the requirements of the an absolute standard or law.
2. It is plainly obvious that there is a standard of behavior that ALL people at ALL times are accountable to.
Therefore it follows logically that God does exist. Giving God a name & a denomination is not important at this stage. Although I do have a personal opinion on it.
LatersOw 2 years ago
If God does not exist, there is no cosmic standard.correct. the laws of physics do ensure that actions have consequences. They force us to develop rules of behaviour that have not been completely consistent.
"It is plainly obvious that there is a standard of behavior that ALL people at ALL times are accountable to.'
just yet another forceful ASSERTION. Because humans have a sense of right and wrong, does not prove a cosmic moraity..even if you choose to project this onto the cosmos.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Moral actions are not based on physics (although this conversation would be a lot easier if they were). Morality is not physical. So its not a case of "if theres no evidence then theres no foul". Because whats wrong is still wrong even if theres no evidence of it
Problem for you is that all humans DO have the same moral code (murder is always wrong no matter what place or time you go). And the only logical explanation for this is one external standard to which we are all applicable.
LatersOw 2 years ago
no Laters..don't you see, murder is going to be adaptively considered to be wrong because societies that think it is right are not going to survive.Many societies have considered slavery to be morally correct ( I gave you a quote from John adams arguing that slavery has been ordained from God). Many societies actually thrived because of slavery...Romans,egyptians,colonial powers,southern USA. they did not consider slavery to be immoral.Our sense of right and wrong is adaptive.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
On the contrary you are the 1 who can not see the short comings of your worldview. If your worldview is true then we could change our laws to kill, rob & destroy and that would mean those things are alright. Why cant you see the flaws in that?
Slavery was abolished by Christians, who through a better understanding of the Bible disregarded the heresy spouted by supporters of slavery. It is by the Bible that they understood that no man may have control over another bar his will.
LatersOw 2 years ago
adstanra,
If groups or societies determine morality then there can be no objection to what the Nazis did in WW2. If what youre saying is true we cant really say that the genocide in Stalins Russia or in Darfur is really wrong, only that it is socially unacceptable at the moment. Your world view would tell us that we have no right to complain because that's what works for them so we cant object. But that is obviously false because morality is absolute & objective.
LatersOw 2 years ago
It is not obviously false-you have not shown that morality IS objective. That is why there are wars. If I cannot appeal to common values and goals with Hitler or Stalin...or if I simply cannot live knowing that they are murdering( to hitler it was not murder) jews, it may lead to war. Killing Jews or Malachites is not murder to some ( Nazis or YHWH)
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Actually wars are mostly predicated on greed & maliciousness not on moral disagreements.
But thats not the point:
Societies do not set morality or there would be no way of saying the Holocaust was wrong! But we can & do say that that was wrong. Despite the fact that the Nazi Germany Society of 1939 decided that exterminating Jew etc was right.
That is proof positive that 1. Society doesnt determine morality. & 2. There is an absolute & objective moral standard applicable to ALL!
LatersOw 2 years ago
the fact that one out of the two societies say that the holocaust was WRONG is not PROOF POSITIVE of a cosmic morality. Even if all cultures agree that ,say murder, is wrong this does not prove any cosmic morality Laters. It just shows that humans agree on this point...do you think Laters that if suddenly there was no God or Bible, society would suddenly think murder was okay?I think it is wrong because it is counter to my values,the nazis think it is right because it is consistent w theirs
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Sorry buddy ALL societies say the holocaust was wrong. Thats proof of an absolute & absolutes are proof for the existence of God.
Yes but why do they all agree? And if 1 didnt agree would you just accept that thats how they do it there & not object? Of course you would object. But by what authority?
When people ignore or stop believing in God they do whatever they feel. What would you do if you thought you'd never get caught?
LatersOw 2 years ago
it is evident that all societies do not agree on every issue...ie human sacrifice,killing malachites(including pregnant women),slavery....It is simply untrue that there has been universal agreement wrt morality..where there is agreement, there are obvious adaptive reasons Laters. I don't think killing jews is wrong because of a cosmic authority..I believe it is wrong because it causes suffering.because I value human life.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Is that so? Well would you kindly list the countries that condone murder & theft for me please? Nah, just kidding. I wouldnt make you waste your time by trying to find things that dont exist.
Hmm, so you can kill Jews as long as they dont suffer? Is that what youre saying?
No, morality is absolute. The behavior we see is simply maneuvering to appease cultural & social requirements.
Question: Why is valuing human life better than not valuing it? And why do you think that is?
LatersOw 2 years ago
"Hmm, so you can kill Jews as long as they dont suffer? Is that what youre saying? ".
..only one thing to say,and you deserve this Laters; you're as ass!
"No, morality is absolute'...great! another assertion..
"Why is valuing human life better than not valuing it? sigh..talk about nilhilism..are you saying that humans need a cosmic overseer for this..really. I AM HUMAN,MY KIDS ARE HUMAN,MY TRIBE IS HUMAN,MY SPECIES IS HUMAN, it is natural for me to value human life.even your.take care.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
I think you mean 'an arse'. And, nice of you to take so long to not address either question. You should take up politics.
NB: They were rhetorical questions on your position - something you obviously failed understand.
If all I have is assertions, then it should have been easy enough to construct a response based on your own idea that quashes my assertion & shows the truth of the matter. But you utterly failed to do that.
NB: Dr Craigs argument from morality has never been refuted.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
adstanra 2 years ago
a rhetorical question that is absurd.
"so you can kill Jews as long as they dont suffer?"....is this your rhetorical question? You obviously do not really read my posts...I am wasting my time.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Haha, you got your comment removed by the author!
Do you not understand what rhetorical questions are? They are used to make a point. If you cant grasp, what is a very simple example, then there may be no helping you?
BTW; FYI I have carefully read & replied to every comment you have made to me & responded in kind. I think the only 1 not doing that here is you adstanra. Is it because you dont understand the argument? Feel free to post something on my page if you need more space?
LatersOw 2 years ago
I have been talking to a kid.
adstanra 2 years ago
Can only hope so. My real worry is that he isn't.
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8..you re allright. keep up the good work!
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Well you're old enough to tell. But, then again, you should also be old enough to realize the truth when you see it too. But, obviously you've missed the boat on that one. So, I guess you'd probably fail at distinguishing between mature & adolescent.
LatersOw 2 years ago
I admire your patience on this, but I can't see LatersOw ever saying anything of worth at this point in your ongoing debate. He merely turns every argument presented inside-out and then hopes it all makes sense. Apart from pulling a few quotes out of the bible, he hasn't really contributed anything of thought provoking significance and no acceptable evidence whatsoever for his assumptions, while stating constantly that you must present some. As you well know by now...
billhicks8 2 years ago
adstanra,
I thought youd given up?
Ok, I believe that everyone everywhere, throughout all of human history has or had the same moral standard. ie Nowhere is murder, theft etc acceptable. I minister to jail inmates and even the murderers say that what they did was wrong (they often try to justify it) bubt they still say it was wrong. Thieves will complain if they have things stolen form them, even if they stole the items in question. To me that points to a universal standard...?
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Dr Craig provides ample quotations & cites plenty of references to substantiate his arguments - which btw are alway in the positve, unlike all the other debaters Ive seen him face who just complain & try to denigrate Dr Craigs arguments (ie nothing in the positive). Unfortunately for them that doesnt work because denigrate an opponents argument is a genetic fallacy. Im affraid the onus Is on the Atheist to give good reasons why that position is true - problem is none come.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Did I say it was wrong? Sorry bub, Dr Craigs arguments are always based firmly in logic and are always phrased in the positive. No wishful thinking here, just the end of Atheism as a realistic worldview. Its going to take you a lot more than flapping your lip to disprove Dr Craigs arguments.
Hmm, thats convenient. Dont mention how the "religious" have helped countless of millions of poor, starving, lost, needy, diseased, homeless people all over the world for the last 2000 years!
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Haha, the old ad homeniem attack - the sign of a desperate little man.
Im sure that Christianjr4 is a very smart & talented man. And if you want to take these issues up with him, you dont need to ask my permission to do that. But the fact remain that you commented on a stream I have simply been correcting you since.
But I would like you to stay around, hopefully you might learn something?
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
"okay"
Another great step forward for you bill. First you can admit that you are arrogant and secondly you can admit that you use the fallacious technique of personal attacks rather than addressing the issue.
"I didn't"
Yeah, I think you did buddy - I guess that will have to be item number three.
"Okay, what do you actually know?
Well, from our conversation, quite a lot it would seem. I know that morality is absolute & that Dr Craigs argument from morality has never been refuted.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
I wholeheartedly disagree that morals are absolute. Since morals are defined by different cultures, morals change. Morals are man-made. They existed before religions were created. What would make you think morals are absolute? Thank you.
futurepsycdoc 2 years ago
futurepsycdoc,
Ethical choices are made in different cultures but moral standards of right & wrong are pretty much universal in all places & all times. That lines up squarely with Christian doctrine of origins & the nature of God.
What would make me think morals are absolute?
In no civilization anywhere has murder, theft or rape been okay.
Why does that stuff happen? Only with some form of fallacious justification to try & remove or get around the absolute theyre trying to avoid.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Thanks for the response. Do you really think that morals have been consistent throughout all cultures throughout time? Do you realize that when African Americans were slaves, they were regularly murdered by their masters. Society didn't look down upon those acts. We can then imagine what it was like for the different class systems in earlier times. Do you think primitive man had these same morals we experience today? Slaves were raped by their masters also and that was accepted by society. cont.
futurepsycdoc 2 years ago
cont.
Morals have always been situational and never absolute. There are some very immoral acts done by god and in his name. The struggle of gays to marry the person they love is a moral issue to me and it is theists that have consistently been immoral about it.
Doesn't christian doctrine of origins also state we were created 6,000 years ago in the form we currently know? The nature of god seems very vindictive and boasts of being prideful and jealous.
I look forward to your response. Peace.
futurepsycdoc 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Is that "gloves off" is it? Wow.
Atheism is the belief that is non-coherent: they make a claim that by their own standard of belief they can not know! While Theism could be said to be a delusion, you dont think the 4 - 4.5 billion theists on Earth could all be deluded at the same time, do you?
I have never heard a successful refutation of Dr Craigs argument from morality. If 1 exists show me. Or if you think you could do it? Why not debate Dr Craig on just that subject?
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
Not quite there buddy.
Right or wrong Christians claim to be able to contact & communicate with the supernatural (or something outside of nature). So to claim to know something more (or outside) of nature is well within their worldview. Atheism on the other hand claims to know (absolutely) that there is nothing outside of our natural senses which in non-coherent with their belief because if there was something supernatural, they could not know it. So they cant say "theres no God".
LatersOw 2 years ago
billhick8,
There is a plethora of information out there that will show you that I'm right if you would care to get off your but and see for yourself - I ain't doing your homework for you buddy. The individual statistics may be different but the idea will still be the same no matter where you go. There are a lot more people who believe in the supernatural than those that don't. And its not too likely their all crazy - at the same time.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
If you cant even find world population by religion on the web Im afraid theres no hope for you son.
Youre the only one running on public opinion buddy. Youre the one claiming to know something that you cant know. If you think you know more than all those who have debated Dr Craig then Ill stand aside
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
You cant see any point in the conversation cause you cant follow a progression of ideas.
Most of the worlds population claims there is a supernatural of some kind. And therefore the idea needs to be considered.
As far as Atheism is concerned, I cant see how you can claim that it is rationally based - as it cant even substantiate itself, let alone make proclamations about anything else?
I guess youll just have to help me see how your idea is rational & mine is contradictory?
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
"you're too progressive for me"
No, I wouldn't say progressive. I would say honest & truthful - like The Eagles. The main sign of your immaturity is that you cant stay to the facts or address them without trying to taunt others.
"Well I've heard some considerations"
Oh yeah, like what?
"That would be like trying to make an anvil realise it's heavy"
Well, if that is true then it should be easy for you & I dont know why youre wasting your time with this banter???
LatersOw 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
Comment removed
billhicks8 2 years ago
billhicks8,
"I am an atheist because I consider the supernatural a waste of time issue"
All this coming from the guy who just sent me (a Christian) four responses on a video entitled "Christian Book Expo 2009..." Seems you spend a lot of your time on this "waste of time". So what are you up to? Do you think youre going to convert me to Atheism or something?
As for your claims, I found it very entertain to read that you say there is no god when you can not know that there is one! Lol.
LatersOw 2 years ago
Where is the evidence for absolute moral values? It is true that cultures will develop behaviours that are condemned..like rape and murder and stealing etc. This is natural. Cultures wouldn't survive otherwise..the laws of physics demand these things. It is undeniable however, that certain behaviours are not universally condemned..human sacrifice,slavery, caste systems.Also theists do not agree about the important moral issues facing us, like war,global warming,capital punishment, the economy.
adstanra 2 years ago
It is natural for societies to develop certain behaviours deemed acceptable or unacceptable.There will be behaviours that are universally condemned.But these sets of bahaviours have changed over time and there is no reason to believe that previous societies thought they were doing wrong when they advocated infanticide,or human sacrifice, or slavery. If there is a 'best' way to maximize heath and minimize suffering it will be dictated by the natural laws and discovered by scientific inquiry
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Peoples behaviors may change but morality, what is right & wrong, does not.
How can we speak of a "best" if there isnt a scale or a law by which to judge. Otherwise any pronouncement we would make would be completely subjective & therefore illusory & meaningless.
Also, morality, in my experience, can not be known through scientific inquiry. Mainly due to the fact that the author of our morality is supernatural & therefore outside of the scientific method.
LatersOw 2 years ago
You haven't shown that morality does not change...I have shown that people's perception of it does change and vary culturally. By "best" I mean that if we can define mutual goals and values, we might be able to figure out the "best" course of action...I think this might be ameniable to emperical inquiry.If two people(societies) have incompatable values and goals...it might lead to conflict.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
And you haven't shown that it does change. Give me an example of morality changing. Show me where murder used to be acceptable.
Sure, you can speak of "best". But what is stopping what youre talking about from being completely subjective? Better question: Who authored morality? In a conflict, how do we determine which people/societies are closer to "best" than the other people/societies?
LatersOw 2 years ago
It is evident that societies notion of morality is no universal. Pagan societies believed that frail infants could be exposed to nature(die), slavery was acceptable to large tracts of people. Murder is culturally defined. Killing babies and pregnant women is condoned even in the bible ...by God. To us today, this would be considered murder. Abortion is considered murder by some, capital punishment is muder by others. To kill nazis is murder by some,acceptable by others.
adstanra 2 years ago
"morality" is purely a subjective term that belongs to societies of conscious beings.Most societies will condemn stealing and lying and murder( killing others within society unlawfully) because these are required for a society to function. Societies that condone these behaviours will be "like a kingdom divided against itself". Always, morality is contingent upon circumstances...but there may be a "best" way for humans to accomplish mutual goals..for societies to accomplish those goals.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Cultures do not develop behaviors that are condemned & the law of physics does not demand it.
What is wrong (or right) has always been wrong (or right) throughout the entirety of human histroy. Morality never changes. That is why I call it a law.
Now, many peoples throughout our history have approached the subject differently with a wide array of outcomes but that doe not change the fact that Morality is Absolute.
LatersOw 2 years ago
All cultures do develop behaviours that are condoned or condemned. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as societies or cultures. I don't think, for example, that the ancient isrealites were shocked to hear that murder was not kosher, stealing was condemned. Societies that condone these things could not survive.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Condoned or condemned by who? By us? By what standard or by what scale does anyone have a right to judge what behavior is good or bad?
The Israelites werent surprised. Yeah, of course! But why not? Because morality is written into the souls of all human beings. Every human throughout our entire history has an innate understanding of right & wrong placed in them by their creator.
LatersOw 2 years ago
There is no cosmic authority. If i think your behaviour is unacceptable and cannot reason with you by identifying common goals, we may have to come to blows. I don't think there is any standard that I can use to convince Osama that he is wrong. Our philosophies are simply incompatable. I would likely have to kill him. There simply is no agreement as to what is moral. He might think there is a standard, you might think so, but you are just going to have to disagree and try to kill each other.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
If there is no "cosmic authority" then there is no morality. There is no right no wrong just what feels good to the individual. Problem is: You know there are such a things as right & wrong. Therefore morality exists & therefore it follows logically that a "cosmic authority" exists.
You dont need to convince Osama that he was wrong you just need to show him that he did not have the right to contravene or disregard the moral law. Everyone agrees with what is moral.
LatersOw 2 years ago
I am saying that morality is a subjective entity. Just because you say it is absolute or cosmic does not make it so. There is no objective evidence that "everyone agrees" wrt morality. In fact, it is easily demonstarted that there is no universal agreement. Everyone may think they know what it is, but that proves nothing. There is no evidence, eg, that Hitler spent alot of time feeling guilty. Because he thought he was doing "good".The spartans believed that exposure was good.
adstanra 2 years ago
There are people in the world that truely believe it is moral to fly planes into buildings. They will also claim some sort of cosmic authority. Tell me, do you also think God has made knowledge of true beliefs available to everyone( like he has made morality)?Do others willfully and malevolently choose to believe otherwise?Is there any evidence that Hitler lived his life full of guilt?
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
God has certainly made of the truth and of morality available to everyone. He even got some friends of His to write it in a book for you.
Most that contravene Gods laws do not do it on purpose - they are deceived. But there are those who do the wrong thing willfully & on purpose.What one believes & reality are 2 different things.I dont think Hitler felt any guilt for any of the evil he caused. He genuinely thought he was doing the right thing. Thanks to the theory of evolution.
LatersOw 2 years ago
dude.you contradict yourself. You say it is available to everyone, then say some are deceived and do not feel guilt...to those people it is NOT available. The bible , by the way, does not condemn slavery and condones many things that are adhorant to us today ( who should be stoned to death ?). WRT evolution. Are you confusing social evolution and eugenics with biological evolution? Evolution by common descent is objectively true whether Hitler developed an ideology loosely based upon it or not.
adstanra 2 years ago
adstanra,
Dont get carried away with yourself there buddy. Everyone knows what is right & wrong from the youngest age. Why = God. Beyond that they are open to the rest of the world & to deception. Im sure Hitler had access to a bible & pastors who could help him. But he wanted to serve his own desires etc. The bible does not condone slavery - try doing some research before talking nonsense. Its obvious that he thought exterminating Jews would make Germany stronger, ie survival of the fittest.
LatersOw 2 years ago
"Everyone knows what is right & wrong". You keep saying that without any evidence. I have provided you with evidence that what people believe is right and wrong varies culturally. The bible condones slavery completely. It tells one how to treat slaves, who you can have as slaves, that children born to your slaves are also your property, just how much you can beat your slaves etc. I think it is you who needs to do the research.
adstanra 2 years ago