Proof that god exists!!

[c4ts]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Have fun. I won't spoil the punchline for you.

[Upchurch]

Have fun. I won't spoil the punchline for you.

Go ahead and spoil it. It keeps bouncing me back and forth between two pages.



eta: nevermind, I just started hitting buttons until something different happened.

[Solus]

Go ahead and spoil it. It keeps bouncing me back and forth between two pages.

It sent me to the disney website. :boggled:

[c4ts]

Go ahead and spoil it. It keeps bouncing me back and forth between two pages.
Fine. You don't really have a choice in the answers, you have to let them harass you into answering the way they want you to, but here you go:

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

[Upchurch]

Wow, that's simply awful.

The step just before the end throws in an argument from authority from the bible. :rolleyes:

It then asks you if you believe that God exists. I answered, "no":
Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

The site may argue for the existence of laws of logic, but it sure doesn't use them.




eta: Feel free to skip ahead (http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/main.php).

[Solus]

I picked "I don't care if absolute truth exists". On clicking the exit, I'm at the disney website. That one does somewhat make sense actually.

[Beerina]

I clicked on "absolute truths exist" (logic) and "mathematical laws exist". Then it asked if I thought "scientific laws" exist. I clicked "no", because these are provisional and are based on statistical arguments, unlike absolute truths and mathematics, which are things proveable.

The site then tried to convince me laws of science actually exist. Golly.

[Wheezebucket]

Well great, now I believe in God. Thanks alot, website.

[DangerousBeliefs]

If only all of life's questions could be answered with two (loaded) alternatives.

There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof.

No, no... you pretty much got it there buddy.

[D'rok]

"We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting."


:jaw-dropp

[pandamonk]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Have fun. I won't spoil the punchline for you.
I emailed the owner of that site. This is what i said, if you're interested:

My Email

The answers you give to your questions are terrible. I cannot answer most questions because the answer i would give isn't offered.

What do you believe?

Absolute Truth Exists
Either something is true or it's false.

What do you believe?

Laws of logic exist

laws of mathematics exist

laws of science exist

absolute moral laws do not exist
You do not give any option for, Molesting Children for fun is socially or personally wrong. The only answers you allow imply belief in absolute moral laws. You also give options which appeal to people's sense of morality. Of course we think child molestation is wrong, but it is wrong from our perspective and socially. There may be cultures who don't have a problem with it. There may also be a species of animal which has nothing wrong with it. We believe they are wrong, and may try and teach them our morality, but it is not absolute just cause we dislike it, or disagree with it. Just because i personally think it is wrong, doesn't mean that the wrongness is absolute.

If these are "just" man made objections, that does not discredit them. If they are "just" man made, then you have to answer to man. We have evolved to have these ethics, and for good reason. There can be no benefit from child molestation, and it causes deep distress to the child. Children are usually loved by someone, so to see them in distress is hurtful. This means that the molester has to answer to the loved one, or to the child when they grow up.

Your sentence "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." doesnt make sense. If there is no absolute evil, then the deed cannot be absolutely evil. It may be objectionable, or disagreeable because of the harm it does, and can be called evil by the people who it harms, but it is not absolutely evil, ie they wouldn't think it was evil.
Morality has evolved with us. Have you ever heard of the "shifting moral zeitgeist"? If not, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ9JMUFIVqE).

"You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time. You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference." I do not appeal to them at all. Rape is wrong because of the harm it does, in my opinion. If you rape someone, you'll have me, and many others, to deal with! It is "just" against my personal, and the social preference. I do not believe in absolute morals, give me, and others, an option which we would choose, not just what you want to give us.

Laws of logic, mathematics, science, and morality are certainly changing. For instance, scientists used to say certain things which they now don't agree with, the earth is flat etc. Morality, see the "shifting moral zeitgeist". Maths and logic aren't so much changing, but progressing and advancing. We have formulas for things which they never had 100s of years ago etc. This is not irrational.

"Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them."

Denying the existence of God is unbelief and not an exercise in self-deception. I know things, and account for everything I know. "Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while." Not likely. "You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them." I do use the laws of logic, mathematics, science, and my morality to come to rational decisions, but because there is a law, it doesn't mean that there is a law giver. The law of logic, is just what we have found out from experience. We know certain things work, and others don't. Because some things work and some things don't isn't anything to conclude that God exists...

Lee

[ChristineR]

I happen to believe in absolute moral laws. I just don't get how you go from absolute, unchanging, anything to the existence of a superbeing, let alone a superbeing with particular properties.

The usual argument here is that since moral, scientific, and mathematical laws are essentially mental phenomena, that something transcendent must be thinking them. But this just adds an extra, meaningless layer to the problem of why these transcendent physical and mental phenomena exist. Maybe they just exist because they do exist, or maybe they exist because of some action of a non-godlike being. Or we can use Kant's critique of pure reason: we don't have language or mental images for parsing these sorts of questions, therefore, our discussion is meaningless.

It's anthropomorphism in the extreme, and simply adds the problem of how a transcendent intelligence would spontaneously exist (when the claim is that simple scientific and logical laws cannot spontaneously exist), let alone failing to address how said transcendent intelligence would think universal laws into existence.

[Seismosaurus]

I got the point where I said that absolute moral laws do not exist. It then gave me a page of statements I disagree with ("You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference.") and it told me that I actually do agree with them and therefore god exists.

What stunning logic.

[DangerousBeliefs]

If absolute moral law is true...

And the Bible is the basis for it...

Then do I get to own people now, or what?

(And rape... pfffpht! All I have to do is pay $50 in silver and marry the girl... FOREVER... I guess I better pick a hot one. Or, I guess I could just convince somebody to sell me their daugther as a sex slave.)

[pandamonk]

If absolute moral law is true...

And the Bible is the basis for it...

Then do I get to own people now, or what?

(And rape... pfffpht! All I have to do is pay $50 in silver and marry the girl... FOREVER... I guess I better pick a hot one. Or, I guess I could just convince somebody to sell me their daugther as a sex slave.)
You don't actually need to marry her, if her father, or the girl herself, rejects you, i think :blush: , although you still have to pay virgin dowry, if she was a virgin...

[ChristineR]

Some people would argue that there might be a situation where rape is morally justified. Leaving aside the question of whether this is true or not, Yahweh tells the Israelites to murder men and enslave and rape the women quite often. Therefore, a Christian cannot not logically argue that rape is an absolute moral wrong.

:boggled:

[Dorian Gray]

I picked "I don't care if absolute truth exists". On clicking the exit, I'm at the disney website. That one does somewhat make sense actually.

That's because after people win something or do something really cool, they always go to Disneyland.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

Have fun. I won't spoil the punchline for you.

What a complete waste of time.

DR

[strathmeyer]

So I just answered a bunch of questions, and then I get:

Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore..
Wait for it! Wait for it!
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6691461db78ca2fe1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5126)

The biggest surprise to me was that this is a Christian website, and that Jesus seems to be particularly non-universal and ever changing.

ETA- More surfing reveals much more stupidity. Perhaps this is parody...

[D'rok]

So I just answered a bunch of questions, and then I get:


Wait for it! Wait for it!

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6691461db78ca2fe1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5126)

The biggest surprise to me was that this is a Christian website, and that Jesus seems to be particularly non-universal and ever changing.

ETA- More surfing reveals much more stupidity. Perhaps this is parody...


This site should be called "proof that tautologies exist".

[syetenb]

Hello All,

I am the owner of the site that has met with your derision :-)

This forum appears too busy for me to deal with all your arguments, but Pandamonk has agreed to debate me here. We can keep it informal for now. If I should start another thread to have this debate, please let me know. I think it would be a good idea to have one thread for the debate, and another for comments.

Pandamonk, lets keep this down to one issue at a time. Make your first point, and I will reply.

Cheers,

Sye

[pandamonk]

I've forgotten what i sent in the email. Do you want to start over? How do you wanna do this? Each put forth their arguments for/against the existence of God? Or debate for, then debate against?

[pandamonk]

Right, I'll start by arguing against what it says in your site, a point at a time:

What do you believe?

Absolute truth exists
Absolute truth does not exist
I don't know if absolute truth exists
I don't care if absolute truth exists

Although i believe absolute truth exists, I don't think the opposing position is given, or allowed. Well it is, but then the page after:

Absolute Truth Does Not Exist

Absolutely true
False

If it is someones belief(of which you asked for in the beginning) that absolute truth doesn't exist, then they believe this. They don't know it is absolutely true. So to them it is true, but they could be wrong. It's their opinion. The only options you give are for knowing it's absolutely true, or it being false. You don't give an option for believing that it is true, even though the first page was about belief.

I, however, do believe in absolute truth, so find it difficult to agrue against it.

[syetenb]

Right, I'll start by arguing against what it says in your site, a point at a time:

Sounds good, then the rest can follow along from the beginning.

If it is someones belief(of which you asked for in the beginning) that absolute truth doesn't exist, then they believe this.

Yip, that is my point. After all the heading is "What do you believe?" You see the whole site is designed to confront people with what they really believe and how that belief comports with reality. I am interested in pointing out the inconsistencies between the non-Christian's stated beliefs and their actual beliefs.

I, however, do believe in absolute truth, so find it difficult to agrue against it.

Now we could get bogged down and I could ask you how the concept of 'absolute truth' makes sense in what you likely consider to be a 'random, chance, universe,' but if you like we can tackle that later, and you can move on to your next point. If, however, you wish to give your explanation now, I'd be happy to examine it.

[pandamonk]

I think I'll move on.

So ok absolute truth exists

as do the laws of logic, mathematics and science.

Absolute moral laws do not exist.

Seriously...What Do You Believe?

I feel that the best test to determine whether or not you really believe that absolute moral laws exist, is not whether you feel that atrocities like rape and child molestation could be right somewhere in the universe, but whether they could ever be right if perpetrated against you or someone you love.

Molesting Children For Fun Is Absolutely Morally Wrong

Molesting Children For Fun Could Be Right

Neither of these allow for non absolutes. If it could be "right", "right" is an absolute. If morals are just opinions, then there is no absolute right or wrong. Things are wrong socially: In Roman times it was acceptable to kill each other for sport, In Victorian times, it was still acceptable to keep blacks as slaves. Our morals are constantly shifting, so I see no reason to believe that absolute morals exist. If they do, the Bible certainly doesn't teach them. You call rape an absolute moral wrong, and yet the Bible teaches that God "tells the Israelites to murder men and enslave and rape the women quite often."

[Jekyll]

These sites really need a poll at the end where you can vote about how well it went for you:

[_] I was a Christian and still am after reading your site.
[_] I was a Christian but wavering in my faith until I read your site. You brought me back into the fold.
[_] I was a Christian, but the stupidity you exhibited has driven me from Jesus.
[_] I was and still am an atheist, but I now stone adulterers according to the absolute unchanging law contained in the bible.
[_] I am no longer an atheist after reading your site. Praise Jebus!!

And so on, I'd love to find out if these sites ever managed to convince anyone of anything.

[syetenb]

I think I'll move on.

I don't blame you ;)


So ok absolute truth exists as do the laws of logic, mathematics and science.

Again, I wish to address how these absolute laws make sense in your worldview, but I'm sure we will get to it later.

Absolute moral laws do not exist.

Molesting Children For Fun Is Absolutely Morally Wrong

Molesting Children For Fun Could Be Right

Neither of these allow for non absolutes. If it could be "right", "right" is an absolute.

Well if it ain't wrong, it could be right. Right?

If morals are just opinions, then there is no absolute right or wrong.

That is what we are here to establish.

Things are wrong socially: In Roman times it was acceptable to kill each other for sport, In Victorian times, it was still acceptable to keep blacks as slaves. Our morals are constantly shifting, so I see no reason to believe that absolute morals exist.

What does adherence to morality have to do with absolute morality?

If they do, the Bible certainly doesn't teach them. You call rape an absolute moral wrong, and yet the Bible teaches that God "tells the Israelites to murder men and enslave and rape the women quite often."

Alright, this is where we are going to have to set some ground rules. Let's stay away from straw-man argumentation. Not only is it irrelevant to the discussion, your statement is flat out wrong. The Bible nowhere tells ANYONE to rape or murder. (Murder being that killing which is unlawful).
I don't think this is the place to get into a discussion about the Old and New Covenant, and which laws apply to whom, but the laws governing the Israelites in no way undermine absolute moral laws. You are confusing application of the law, with it's absoluteness. Let me give you an example. It is absolutely morally wrong for me to sleep with my brother's wife, it is not absolutely morally wrong for him to. Just because the law applies differently to my brother, than to myself, does not make it non-absolute.

Let me ask you this, if there are no absolute moral laws, who decides what is morally right, and what is morally wrong?

[syetenb]

I'd love to find out if these sites ever managed to convince anyone of anything.

Read it again, that is not the intention of the site.

[Jekyll]

Read it again, that is not the intention of the site.

And there was me thinking that the intention of proofthatgodexists.org would be to present a convincing proof that god exists.

So what was the point of the site then?

(B.T.W. Was that your site? It's very well made even if I disagree with the content. Welcome to the forums. )

[pandamonk]

Again, I wish to address how these absolute laws make sense in your worldview, but I'm sure we will get to it later. Yes, leave it 'til later.



Well if it ain't wrong, it could be right. Right? Wrong. I think it's an absolute truth that morals are personal and social. So child molestation in neither absolute wrong or absolute right. It just is. We may deem it to be wrong, and punish for it, but nothing makes it absolutely wrong. However, because it isn't an absolute wrong, it is still a social wrong, and therefore to punish is just.



That is what we are here to establish. What does adherence to morality have to do with absolute morality?
Because they adhered to their morality, as we do with ours. Nothing you have said shows in any way that there is an absolute morality. However, everything i see points to personal and social morality. From the very fact that what was once accepted now isn't. I see no reason to believe in absolute morality, when everything i know of points to a shifting morality. Just because our ancestors didn't adhere to the same morality as us, doesn't mean our morality is absolutely right, and they just didn't adhere to it. It just shows that our sense of morality has changed.



Alright, this is where we are going to have to set some ground rules. Let's stay away from straw-man argumentation. Not only is it irrelevant to the discussion, your statement is flat out wrong. The Bible nowhere tells ANYONE to rape or murder. (Murder being that killing which is unlawful).
I don't think this is the place to get into a discussion about the Old and New Covenant, and which laws apply to whom, but the laws governing the Israelites in no way undermine absolute moral laws. You are confusing application of the law, with it's absoluteness. Let me give you an example. It is absolutely morally wrong for me to sleep with my brother's wife, it is not absolutely morally wrong for him to. Just because the law applies differently to my brother, than to myself, does not make it non-absolute.But the bible teaches that if your brother dies, then you must marry her, and therefore sleep with her. The bible does not teach that it is morally wrong for you to sleep with your brothers wife. In-fact, it teaches that if your brother agrees with you sleeping with his wife, then it is fine, as he owns his wife. However, i know this is just your example.

The laws governing the Israelites were given by God. This god is who, you are arguing, gives us our absolute morals, and yet the morals we see him give in the Bible contradict the absolute moral laws you stated in your website. I therefore don't see this as a straw-man fallacy, as you suggested. You claim that God is the source of absolute morality, but if God has commanded something which is not absolutely moral, then why should we accept that the morality he commands of us is absolutely moral, unless we have our own personal opinion of morality. To pick and choose which parts of the Bible to us for morality does nothing but prove our morality is personal. God says "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deut 22:28-29

This only applies to a man caught in the act. Even so, this isn't much of a punishment for an absolute moral wrong. If man isn't caught, the man isn't punished. God does not say anything about punishing the man later.

Let me ask you this, if there are no absolute moral laws, who decides what is morally right, and what is morally wrong?Society. Like I've been trying to tell you. Society agreed with fighting 'til the death for sport in Roman times, and slavery in Victorian times, and doesn't now agree with either. We believe what they did to be wrong, but they didn't. Society chooses what is right and what is wrong. In Muslim countries it is morally wrong for a woman to go out without covering her head. In the west, many believe it is wrong to impose such a rule over a woman, and she should make her own choice. Who is right and why?

[syetenb]

And there was me thinking that the intention of proofthatgodexists.org would be to present a convincing proof that god exists.

Proof has nothing to do with persuasion.

So what was the point of the site then?

To expose the suppression of truth.

(B.T.W. Was that your site? It's very well made even if I disagree with the content. Welcome to the forums. )

Yes, thanks for the compliment, and thanks for the welcome. Any tips for improving the site are most welcome.

[syetenb]

So child molestation in neither absolute wrong or absolute right. It just is.

Tell that to the kid. (Do you see what your worldview forces you to say?)

We may deem it to be wrong, and punish for it, but nothing makes it absolutely wrong. However, because it isn't an absolute wrong, it is still a social wrong, and therefore to punish is just.

Says who?

Just because our ancestors didn't adhere to the same morality as us, doesn't mean our morality is absolutely right, and they just didn't adhere to it. It just shows that our sense of morality has changed.

Again, what does behaviour have to do with absolute morality?

But the bible teaches that if your brother dies, then you must marry her, and therefore sleep with her.

Alright, I only corrected your wrong point to not leave it hanging. These wrong points that you are making about the Bible, are NOT the argument. Like I said, it is straw-man argumentation. I will ignore your woeful Biblical interpretation (and the stuff you make up), and get back to the point at hand.


Let me ask you this, if there are no absolute moral laws, who decides what is morally right, and what is morally wrong?

Society. Like I've been trying to tell you. Society agreed with fighting 'til the death for sport in Roman times, and slavery in Victorian times, and doesn't now agree with either. We believe what they did to be wrong, but they didn't.

You are confusing agreement with the morality. If society agreed that gravity did not exist, gravity would not go out of existence.

Society chooses what is right and what is wrong. In Muslim countries it is morally wrong for a woman to go out without covering her head. In the west, many believe it is wrong to impose such a rule over a woman, and she should make her own choice. Who is right and why?

Here you are confusing absolute morality with cultural expression. If for instance, the absolute moral is to love your husband, then how each culture expresses that love (rightly or wrongly) does not deny the absolute command.

Let me ask you this:
1. Was the morality of the allies better than the morality of the Nazis?
2. Is our societal morality ideal?

[l0rca]

Proof has nothing to do with persuasion.



To expose the suppression of truth.



Yes, thanks for the compliment, and thanks for the welcome. Any tips for improving the site are most welcome.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were on this forum.

I actually sent you an email from the Hammerhillkid account.

Either way, I am reproducing the email here for the ladies and gents at this board:


Hello, I am an atheist, and while I think it's silly to foremost identify myself as such, or you as your religion, I thought that because of the reason I'm writing to you, it would be most honest to reveal this from the start. Also, I don't see any reason why you should reply to this, since I suspect you most probably receive plenty of emails of similar nature and sundry others, and probably do not have the time to give thoughtful replies to everyone. But, if you should choose to correspond with me, I would like for you to keep our correspondence off of your website, at least during the dynamic of our correspondence.

Thanks in advance. Now, to begin, I'll list three problems I have with your website:

I have a number of logical and philosophical questions about your website. Most or all of them might be misunderstanding your position, so if you feel I am asking loaded questions here, I'll have no problem having that pointed out.

First, while I appreciate your conveyance of three axioms and a fourth "I don't care" opinion at the start, I do not think you give the three choices strong argument. If I find myself answering, "I don't know," then answering the proceeding question "false," I arrive back at the main page. I am told then to "(Think about it)". I'm unsure what there is left to think about here. In the scenario I just described, it should be clear to you, the webmaster, that I am unwilling to accept such a powerful axiom without any evidence involved. Suggesting I think about it is not a strong argument, in my opinion, and so far as I can tell, once a person accepts "Absolute Truth Exists," as an axiom, many of the questions within should not be bothered with, since they anticede the first question. This seems like a bad start to your website.

Second, moving on through the website: when I answer "Laws of Logic Do Not Exist" to the next question, I am provided with poor options that do not express why I may hold that opinion. Logic, you might easily agree with me, is an extension, either abstractly metaphysical or not, of causality. This is to say that, if it is definitely true that there are causes to every effect, then use of logic will describe this nature of cause an effect. The problem herein: there are not any in-itself evidences that effects are always preceded by causes. It may seem entirely obvious to us that every cause has an effect, but other than what we observe in history and remember, we do not have any proof that future events will always have causes to them, or all past events have had causes. This assertion might be something you're familiar with. I'm almost quoting David Hume out of his grave. But I can also assert this point without philosophy: in quantum physics we are constantly observing seemingly-fundamental entities moving without any observable cause. We have also, thanks to Stephen Hawking, come to realize that given a large enough distance of space, and enough time to pass, that quantum particles can, without any observed cause, materialize into existence. These observations have caused us to look into our own laws of logic, and suggestions about "quantum logic" have been given. In quantum physics, things are also said to both "exist" and "not exist". This seemingly contradictory nature has been observed and theorized about for a good portion of the last century, and seems to be a fundamental phenomenon in our universe. It doesn't seem to me that you're examining the case for and against logic deeply enough. I think if you're going to examine this question intelligently, you should expand on these philosophical and scientific ideas, and provide deeper answers, or at least deeper options.

When I answer "Laws of Mathematics Do Not Exist," I again find myself against an unnecessary juxtaposition, and a two-paragraph elaboration by the author which seems unwieldy, and missing the main point. I think it is important that we again look at our fundamental understanding of the universe. We have long found that mathematics is subject to questions of Philosophical Nominalism, which is to say that the symbols which we use to describe the quality and quantity of entities first assumes that those entities are static and their symbols capable of universal deployment; this is a big assumption, but since we don't have all the answers, our assumptions for the time being are excusable. As I've above suggested, there is good chance that on a fundamental level all calculations find themselves subject to a level of randomness. Order seems to be an evolution, a macrocosmically observed phenomena, which we find ourselves experiencing once quantum randomness finds itself almost-entirely canceling out at much smaller levels. Also, we find ourselves able to calculate, just as we can imagine, items which may or may not exist. In advanced mathematics, we can if we choose to, calculate events that might happen in a universe which has 7 spatial dimensions, or 70 dimensions, if we want. Mathematics does not necessarily have to follow any de-facto function, nor have we yet to find a mathematical system which 100% describes reality. So far as we can tell, and as all the evidence suggest, math is something we invented, and it seems imperfect.

I don't want to waste my time if you're not willing to answer, which is why I do not write more than three of my problems out. I'll await a thoughtful reply, and would not at all refuse to argue civilly with you. If you've read all of that above, I thank you for your time, and I hope you have a good day.

Respectfully,
Ryan

[Jekyll]

Proof has nothing to do with persuasion.

Ok, but what we have at your site is not in a proof, it is an argument.

A proof should be a collection of statements, each incontrovertible, linking a premise to a conclusion. We don't have that here, we have a collection of assertions piled on top of each other.

As such, we can't judge it as a proof, it fails. "God did it and Jesus died for us." is not guaranteed to be true just because we live in a consistent universe, even if we accept your assertion that there are absolute moral values.

We could all share similar values because aliens laid their eggs in our brains and now control us, or just because we were born like this (insert standard evolutionary argument here) or because we're secretly afraid that Zeus will strike us with lightning.

Instead we have to look at your argument and see how persuasive it is.

To expose the suppression of truth.
OK, well it's not working for me. I'm an atheist and after reading your site I don't feel that I'm suppressing the truth any more than I did before I read it.

Even if you are right about the existence of god it seems like a jump to say that the truth is being suppressed simply because others disagree with you.

[pandamonk]

Tell that to the kid. (Do you see what your worldview forces you to say?)It doesn't force me to say anything. I believe child molestation is a wrong thing to do. This is from my perspective, seeing what damage it does. It is not based on what a higher power tells me is wrong.



Says who?Says society. Even says the persons committing the act. They wouldn't like to be raped. So to rape someone else is to apply a double standard. I believe that if someone does something i consider to be wrong, they are accepting that thing, or equivalent, to be done to them. This is my opinion, and is not based on an absolute morality. Please tell me where we should learn about this absolute morality.



Again, what does behaviour have to do with absolute morality? It's not the behaviour I'm explaining. It's the morals these people had to allow this behaviour. You assume an absolute power and then try and use this to prove an absolute power. It's circular.



Alright, I only corrected your wrong point to not leave it hanging. These wrong points that you are making about the Bible, are NOT the argument. Like I said, it is straw-man argumentation. I will ignore your woeful Biblical interpretation (and the stuff you make up), and get back to the point at hand.I just brought up the Bible, because i assumed that it is where you are suggesting outlines absolute morality.





You are confusing agreement with the morality. If society agreed that gravity did not exist, gravity would not go out of existence.But this is not society agree that morality doesnt exist. It's society agreeing on a set of morals which are right for that society. Again i ask, which society has it right, the Western or the Muslim? Should women have to wear something to cover their heads, or should they have a choice. Either way, someone will disagree with you. How can you say there is an absolute morality, if both these opposing morals happily exist within differing cultures.



Here you are confusing absolute morality with cultural expression. If for instance, the absolute moral is to love your husband, then how each culture expresses that love (rightly or wrongly) does not deny the absolute command. Why should someone love their husband, if their husband beats them? Again i ask, why is your morality absolutely right, and the morality of the woman beat by her husband who no longer loves him, absolutely wrong? Morals are a matter of opinion.

Let me ask you this:
1. Was the morality of the allies better than the morality of the Nazis?
2. Is our societal morality ideal?
The morality of the allies was better for the allies(whom i agree with) than the morality of the Nazis(which was better for themselves). Neither was an absolute right or wrong, but the Nazis in my opinion were socially wrong.

Our social morality is ideal for the majority in our social culture. Some things we will all disagree on, but this is due to our personal morals.

[ChristineR]

Okay, you've lost all my respect


1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.

4Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

5So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

6And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

19And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.

20And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.

21And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;

22Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

23Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.

24And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.

25And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

26Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:

27And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:

28And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:

29Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

30And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.

31And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

32And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

33And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

34And threescore and one thousand asses,

35And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

36And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

37And the LORD'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

38And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and twelve.

39And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and one.

40And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons.

41And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD'S heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses.

42And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided from the men that warred,

43(Now the half that pertained unto the congregation was three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep,

44And thirty and six thousand beeves,

45And thirty thousand asses and five hundred,

46And sixteen thousand persons; )

47Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.

48And the officers which were over thousands of the host, the captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, came near unto Moses:

49And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us.

50We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.

51And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels.

52And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.

53(For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.)

54And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD.


What this passage tells me is that it is all right to slaughter an entire country, probably at least 100,000 people, if they've done something bad to you. And if you don't believe that this refers to rape, you need to convince me that those 32,000 teenaged sisters and daughters were looking forward to becoming sex slaves of the Israelites.

[syetenb]

Okay, you've lost all my respect

When did I have it?

What this passage tells me is that it is all right to slaughter an entire country, probably at least 100,000 people, if they've done something bad to you.

Pardon me. but why should I care what it tells you? I am not here to correct everyone's misinterpretation of the Bible. You appear to be offended by what you perceive as Biblical immorality. The question is, by what absolute standard do you say that what was commanded was immoral? If morals are only arbitrary, you have no argument.

[pandamonk]

When did I have it?



Pardon me. but why should I care what it tells you? I am not here to correct everyone's misinterpretation of the Bible. You appear to be offended by what you perceive as Biblical immorality. The question is, by what absolute standard do you say that what was commanded was immoral? If morals are only arbitrary, you have no argument.
I'm not sure ChristineR is arguing that morals are arbitrary.

[syetenb]

I believe child molestation is a wrong thing to do.

I thought you said society deemed what was morally wrong, are you saying it is up to the individual now?

I believe that if someone does something i consider to be wrong, they are accepting that thing, or equivalent, to be done to them.

This does not comport with reality. No one who commits an evil act does so accepting that the equivalent should be done to them.

Please tell me where we should learn about this absolute morality.

The Bible tells us that God's laws are 'written on our hearts.' You know the moral laws, even though you deny them.

It's not the behaviour I'm explaining. It's the morals these people had to allow this behaviour.

It is the morals which they behaved according to, not the ones they knew to be absolute.

You assume an absolute power and then try and use this to prove an absolute power. It's circular.

All worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all (read only one) is reasonable. You, for instance, assume that morality is NOT absolute in order to prove that it is not absolute.

I just brought up the Bible, because i assumed that it is where you are suggesting outlines absolute morality.

It does, but your examples are either non-existent, or plain wrong.

Again i ask, which society has it right, the Western or the Muslim? Should women have to wear something to cover their heads, or should they have a choice. Either way, someone will disagree with you. How can you say there is an absolute morality, if both these opposing morals happily exist within differing cultures.

You are not getting this. Cultural behaviour has NOTHING to do with absolute morality. Both cultures could be wrong, that does not mean that there is no absolute morality.

Why should someone love their husband, if their husband beats them?

Because we are commanded to love our enemies. You are confusing love with acceptance of the evil.

Again i ask, why is your morality absolutely right, and the morality of the woman beat by her husband who no longer loves him, absolutely wrong?

It's not MY morality, it is God's. God does not love me because I deserve it either.

Morals are a matter of opinion.

This is an assertion, what is the argument?

The morality of the allies was better for the allies(whom i agree with) than the morality of the Nazis(which was better for themselves). Neither was an absolute right or wrong, but the Nazis in my opinion were socially wrong.

According to which society? If morality is societal, then they could not be societally wrong since their society deemed their actions to be right. I ask again, were the 'social morals' of the allies better than the 'social morals' of the Nazis?

Our social morality is ideal for the majority in our social culture. Some things we will all disagree on, but this is due to our personal morals.

The question was directed at you. Do YOU believe that the morals of our society are ideal?

[syetenb]

Ok, but what we have at your site is not in a proof, it is an argument.

No, it is a proof, you however, are not persauded.

A proof should be a collection of statements, each incontrovertible, linking a premise to a conclusion. We don't have that here, we have a collection of assertions piled on top of each other. As such, we can't judge it as a proof, it fails.

It is a perfectly acceptable logical proof. It is a 'transcendental proof,' proven by the impossibility of the contrary. The validity of the laws of logic are proven the same way. I submit that proof is impossible without God, you may try to refute me if you wish.

"God did it and Jesus died for us." is not guaranteed to be true just because we live in a consistent universe, even if we accept your assertion that there are absolute moral values.

This is not my argument. The argument is that God is the precondition of intelligibility. If the Bible were untrue, you could never know that it was untrue, because you lose the foundations of intelligibility with which you criticize it.

We could all share similar values because aliens laid their eggs in our brains and now control us, or just because we were born like this (insert standard evolutionary argument here) or because we're secretly afraid that Zeus will strike us with lightning.

Tell me which one you believe, and I will be happy to refute it.

OK, well it's not working for me. I'm an atheist and after reading your site I don't feel that I'm suppressing the truth any more than I did before I read it.

Again, it has nothing to do with how you feel. The site has to do with my duty, rather than your feelings.

Even if you are right about the existence of god it seems like a jump to say that the truth is being suppressed simply because others disagree with you.

God is the one who says that those who deny Him are suppressing the truth (Romans 1 18-21) not me.

[Jekyll]

It is a perfectly acceptable logical proof. It is a [1]'transcendental proof,' proven by the impossibility of the contrary. The validity of the laws of logic are proven the same way.[2] I submit that proof is impossible without God, you may try to refute me if you wish.[3]
Let's see:

[1] I can't find this on t3h intr3w3b ;) . Do you mean proof by contradiction?

[2]I believe the validity of the laws of logic are unproven in general and will remain that way. Any demonstration of the soundness of logic relies on the soundness of your underlying assumptions which must be proven in turn.

On top of this a proof of the consistency of first order predicate calculus (the stuff that lets us say all men are mortal. Socrates was a man, and therefore Socrates was mortal.) would actually (via Godel's second incompleteness theorem) invalidate itself and large chunks of mathematics.

[3]I agree with you. In the real world, without invoking a god as Descartes does to protect us from being deceived, we can not guarentee that we are not mistaken.
Therefore you can not prove the existence of God without first assuming his existence.

This is not my argument. The argument is that God is the precondition of intelligibility. If the Bible were untrue, you could never know that it was untrue, because you lose the foundations of intelligibility with which you criticize it.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Sorry.

Tell me which one you believe, and I will be happy to refute it. Ahh, I'm somewhere between disagreeing with your premise and that a large amount of our moral behaviour is advantageous to our genes and explainable by evolution. We can come back to this after you've found the other holes in my argument if you like.


Again, it has nothing to do with how you feel. The site has to do with my duty, rather than your feelings.

A Calvinist then?
God is the one who says that those who deny Him are suppressing the truth (Romans 1 18-21) not me.
But how do you know you're not misinterpreting the bible in the same way as you say Christine is?

[ChristineR]

When did I have it?



Pardon me. but why should I care what it tells you? I am not here to correct everyone's misinterpretation of the Bible. You appear to be offended by what you perceive as Biblical immorality. The question is, by what absolute standard do you say that what was commanded was immoral? If morals are only arbitrary, you have no argument.

If you had read the whole thread, you would have seen that I personally believe morals are not arbitrary. There are many atheistic absolute moral standards. My morals are certainly more absolute than Jehovah's--I would never justify the rape and murder of an entire country because they had done something wrong to my country.

You are saying that morals are not arbitrary, but that rape and murder were justified in that particular case. If your absolute moral standard is "Whatever Jehovah says," fair enough, but then your standard is that rape and murder are sometimes justified.

As for my respect, I think your website is silly, but I do take seriously the problem of empirical truth, and many theists have done a far better job of arguing that the concept of a God solves it than your site did.

[pandamonk]

I thought you said society deemed what was morally wrong, are you saying it is up to the individual now?
Society does, but each person has their own morals, and usually doesn't agree with everything their society believes.


This does not comport with reality. No one who commits an evil act does so accepting that the equivalent should be done to them. I know, but in my opinion, the act of commiting an "evil", is an act of accepting evil. If they think it is ok to rape, then they, in my opinion, think it'd be ok to be raped.



The Bible tells us that God's laws are 'written on our hearts.' You know the moral laws, even though you deny them.What makes the Bible true, over me saying that I'm God.



It is the morals which they behaved according to, not the ones they knew to be absolute. If they knew these morals, i doubt many would have followed others. Like people think animals don't have souls, or don't feel, so are happy to cause them hurt. This is immoral in my opinion. I know "in my heart" that it's wrong. Others don't, because they believe certain things. The same could be said about blacks in Victorian times, and before.



All worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all (read only one) is reasonable. You, for instance, assume that morality is NOT absolute in order to prove that it is not absolute.I see your point.



It does, but your examples are either non-existent, or plain wrong.I gave an example in a post, and you never replied to it. Please address that example.



You are not getting this. Cultural behaviour has NOTHING to do with absolute morality. Both cultures could be wrong, that does not mean that there is no absolute morality.1 is right one is wrong. Either women should wear something to cover their head, or they can choose. Should women have a choice or not, about what they wear? You are yet to show me that absolute morality exists. I have shown that social, personal, and cultural morality exists, although i may not have shown these to be the only moralities, at least we do know that they exist. Absolute morality, you still haveen't shown.



Because we are commanded to love our enemies. You are confusing love with acceptance of the evil.Why is this commandment right?



It's not MY morality, it is God's. God does not love me because I deserve it either.Why is God's morality right? Why is his morality the absolute?



This is an assertion, what is the argument?Everything you say for absolute morality is an assertion. However i will try and answer with an argument. I have differing morals to many others. We both believe we are the ones who are right. If we simply know what is right in our hearts, we wouldn't have differing opinions on what is right. We would simply know. We both know that we are both right, so there can be an absolute morality 'written on our hearts.'



According to which society? If morality is societal, then they could not be societally wrong since their society deemed their actions to be right. I ask again, were the 'social morals' of the allies better than the 'social morals' of the Nazis?In my opinion yes. But to nazis, no.



The question was directed at you. Do YOU believe that the morals of our society are ideal?
As ideal as they can be to suit our different cultures. I do not agree with them all, but i doubt anyone fully does.

[syetenb]

Let's see:
[1] I can't find this on t3h intr3w3b ;) . Do you mean proof by contradiction?


Nope, proof by the impossibility of the contrary.

[2]I believe the validity of the laws of logic are unproven in general and will remain that way. Any demonstration of the soundness of logic relies on the soundness of your underlying assumptions which must be proven in turn.

You cannot prove anything with unproven logic. Please demonstrate how you can if you disagree.

On top of this a proof of the consistency of first order predicate calculus (the stuff that lets us say all men are mortal. Socrates was a man, and therefore Socrates was mortal.) would actually (via Godel's second incompleteness theorem) invalidate itself and large chunks of mathematics.

Yes, this is my point, without God in the equation, nothing can be proven, or even known for that matter. Prove that Socrates was a man, prove that because some men are mortal, all men are mortal. Without God, all proof falls flat.

[3]I agree with you. In the real world, without invoking a god as Descartes does to protect us from being deceived, we can not guarentee that we are not mistaken.

Indeed, my point again, without God, nothing can be known. At this time it would be proper for me to ask if YOU know anything, and if so, how?

Therefore you can not prove the existence of God without first assuming his existence.

If, as I submit, all proof is dependent on God, then proof without first assuming that He exists, would be impossible.

This is not my argument. The argument is that God is the precondition of intelligibility. If the Bible were untrue, you could never know that it was untrue, because you lose the foundations of intelligibility with which you criticize it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Sorry.

Alright, let me ask you this, how can anyone know that the Bible is untrue?

Ahh, I'm somewhere between disagreeing with your premise and that a large amount of our moral behaviour is advantageous to our genes and explainable by evolution. We can come back to this after you've found the other holes in my argument if you like.

Advantageous to our individual or societal genes? Advantageous to the reproduction of our genes or to present-day enjoyment of our genes? Do advantages to our genes take precedence over justice? Who decides?

A Calvinist then?

Naturally :-)

But how do you know you're not misinterpreting the bible in the same way as you say Christine is?

I have help :-)

[syetenb]

If you had read the whole thread, you would have seen that I personally believe morals are not arbitrary. There are many atheistic absolute moral standards.

The floor is yours, name one.

[ChristineR]

The floor is yours, name one.

The categorical imperative.

[pandamonk]

Alright, let me ask you this, how can anyone know that the Bible is untrue?
If it has inconsistencies, or contains contradiction, which it does.

[syetenb]

The categorical imperative.

Says who?

[syetenb]

If it has inconsistencies, or contains contradiction, which it does.


Why are contradictions not allowed according to your worldview?

[pandamonk]

Why are contradictions not allowed according to your worldview?
'Cause say for instance a book of the Bible said Jesus did something, and then another book said Jesus didn't do that thing. Which are we to believe. One is true, one is false. The very fact that one is false, proves that the Bible is not inerrant.

[syetenb]

I have differing morals to many others. We both believe we are the ones who are right.

You have just refuted yourself. If morality is arbitrary, there is no 'wrong' or 'right,' like you earlier said, then it 'just is.'

Next point

[syetenb]

'Cause say for instance a book of the Bible said Jesus did something, and then another book said Jesus didn't do that thing. Which are we to believe. One is true, one is false. The very fact that one is false, proves that the Bible is not inerrant.


Please answer the question: Why are contradictions not allowed in your worldview?

[pandamonk]

You have just refuted yourself. If morality is arbitrary, there is no 'wrong' or 'right,' like you earlier said, then it 'just is.'

Next point
I've done nothing of the sort. We both think we are right. In our personal opinions, our morals are the correct way for us to live. It's all opinion based. It does not imply an absolute right or wrong, but a social, and personal right and wrong.

[pandamonk]

Please answer the question: Why are contradictions not allowed in your worldview?
I did answer. If there is a contradiction, then there exists 2 opinions. They could both be wrong, or one be wrong and one right. They can't both be right. Contradictions cannot be allowed in truths.

[syetenb]

I've done nothing of the sort. We both think we are right. In our personal opinions, our morals are the correct way for us to live. It's all opinion based. It does not imply an absolute right or wrong, but a social, and personal right and wrong.


Right or wrong are meaningless concepts apart from absolutes. Like you said, if morality is arbitrary, there is not right or wrong, it just is. Next point.

[pandamonk]

Right or wrong are meaningless concepts apart from absolutes. Like you said, if morality is arbitrary, there is not right or wrong, it just is. Next point.
Yes morality. But I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about truths, such as actions. "Jesus did this vs. Jesus did not do this". One is right, one is wrong, or both may be wrong.

[l0rca]

You guys are getting destroyed. >_>

[syetenb]

Contradictions cannot be allowed in truths.

Why not? PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Right or wrong are meaningless concepts apart from absolutes. Like you said, if morality is arbitrary, there is not right or wrong, it just is. Next point.

Sorry to butt in, but "right and wrong are meaningless concepts apart from absolutes" depends on a definition of right and wrong that contains the idea of absolute within it. So, your logic here is circular.

There can be relative rights and wrongs based on a different definition, with right meaning, in a cultural context, correct according to the culture.

The existence of relative moral beliefs does not necessarily imply the absence of absolute moral truths either.

[syetenb]

Sorry to butt in, but "right and wrong are meaningless concepts apart from absolutes" depends on a definition of right and wrong that contains the idea of absolute within it. So, your logic here is circular.

Please give an example of a relative wrong, or relative right.

[c4ts]

If, as I submit, all proof is dependent on God, then proof without first assuming that He exists, would be impossible.

Proof would be impossible since your assumptions leave no room for it. I don't need to tell you that arguing from a standpoint that requires your conclusion to be correct in order to be able to make your conclusion in the first place is the very definition of circular logic. Others have tried to make this point clear to you, so I don't expect my efforts to make much of a difference. All I ask is if you are not going to use logic, the least you could do is be intellectually honest and drop your pretense of a logical argument.

[pandamonk]

Why not? PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Just did. You ignored it. If there is opposing points, then 1 must be wrong, within truths. They can't both be right if they are about the same thing and in opposition. Like "Jesus' last words were ..." and "Jesus' last words were ...(something else)". Either 1 or both are false. The contradiction can't exist within a truth,(Jesus' last words).

[syetenb]

Just did. You ignored it. If there is opposing points, then 1 must be wrong, within truths. They can't both be right if they are about the same thing and in opposition. Like "Jesus' last words were ..." and "Jesus' last words were ...(something else)". Either 1 or both are false. The contradiction can't exist within a truth,(Jesus' last words).

You don't get it. You are telling me THAT contradictions are not allowed. I want to know WHY contradictions are not allowed in your worldview. Again. please answer the question.

[syetenb]

I don't need to tell you that arguing from a standpoint that requires your conclusion to be correct in order to be able to make your conclusion in the first place is the very definition of circular logic.

Of course not. As I said, ALL worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all (read only one) is valid. I assume that your own human reasoning is your ultimate authority. Please tell me, without being circular, how you know that your reasoning is valid?

Others have tried to make this point clear to you, so I don't expect my efforts to make much of a difference. All I ask is if you are not going to use logic, the least you could do is be intellectually honest and drop your pretense of a logical argument.

Why don't we see how you answer my question first?

P.S. Thanks for posting the link.

[pandamonk]

You don't get it. You are telling me THAT contradictions are not allowed. I want to know WHY contradictions are not allowed in your worldview. Again. please answer the question.
Because to allow them would be illogical.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Please give an example of a relative wrong, or relative right.

If I were a Trobriand Islander, it would be morally wrong for me not to care financially for my nephew or niece. The mother's brother is defined in that society as the primary male provider and not the biological father who is defined as the mother's boyfriend (essentially). In our society, it would be morally wrong for me not to provide economically for my daughters. I have no financial obligation toward my nephews or nieces, however.

Those are absolute wrongs within the context of two very different cultures. But the rightness and wrongness is determined by the culture in question, not by external reality. So, right and wrong in this context is relative to the culture.

But the existence of moral beliefs dependent on particular cultures does not invalidate the proposition that there may also be "objective" moral truths.

[syetenb]

Because to allow them would be illogical.

Why are illogical conclusions not allowed according to your worldview?

[cyborg]

Why not? PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Because contradictions allow anything to be true.

[pandamonk]

Why are illogical conclusions not allowed according to your worldview?
Because they don't make sense. They are false. They allow anything to be true, (to steal from cyborg:D).

[syetenb]

If I were a Trobriand Islander, it would be morally wrong for me not to care financially for my nephew or niece. The mother's brother is defined in that society as the primary male provider and not the biological father who is defined as the mother's boyfriend (essentially). In our society, it would be morally wrong for me not to provide economically for my daughters. I have no financial obligation toward my nephews or nieces, however.

Those are absolute wrongs within the context of two very different cultures. But the rightness and wrongness is determined by the culture in question, not by external reality. So, right and wrong in this context is relative to the culture.

But the existence of moral beliefs dependent on particular cultures does not invalidate the proposition that there may also be "objective" moral truths.

It is absolutely right for a Trobiander to care for his nephew or niece. It is absolutely right for you to provide for your daughters. Nothing relative about 'em.

[Ichneumonwasp]

As I said, ALL worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all (read only one) is valid.

And we decide the validity of worldviews based on truth. There are a priori truths that find their validity by means of definition -- your claim that right and wrong must be absolute is true if and only if we all agree that right and wrong are defined in absolute terms. 1+1=2 by definition. 2+1=3 follows logically from 1+1=2. It is a circular system.

And there are a posteriori truths -- truth by means of evidence.

So your worldview is true either by definition (certainly looks like that to us) and I have no particular need to believe you unless you give me reasons to accept your definitions; or it is true by means of evidence. So, which is it? Have you defined your worldview as true or do you have evidence for its truth? If the former, then why should I believe your particular definitions? If the latter, what is your evidence?

[Ichneumonwasp]

It is absolutely right for a Trobiander to care for his nephew or niece. It is absolutely right for you to provide for your daughters. Nothing relative about 'em.


The moral truth is relative to the culture. It is not true that all uncles must financially care for all nephews. It is therefore not an absolute truth in that sense of the term.

[pandamonk]

It is absolutely right for a Trobiander to care for his nephew or niece. It is absolutely right for you to provide for your daughters. Nothing relative about 'em.
Is it absolutely right for a trobiander to not care for his son or daughter?

[syetenb]

Because they don't make sense. They are false. They allow anything to be true, (to steal from cyborg:D).

Again, you are telling me what you believe illogical conclusions are, you are not telling me why they are not allowed according to your worldview.

(This can go on for a very long time till you get the point).

[syetenb]

The moral truth is relative to the culture. It is not true that all uncles must financially care for all nephews. It is therefore not an absolute truth in that sense of the term.

It is, I was not referring to all uncles and all nephews, just the one in your example.

[syetenb]

Is it absolutely right for a trobiander to not care for his son or daughter?

Nope. (You are going to have to do better than that, if you want this to continue).

[pandamonk]

Again, you are telling me what you believe illogical conclusions are, you are not telling me why they are not allowed according to your worldview.

(This can go on for a very long time till you get the point).
They are not allowed because of what they are. And you're not making much of a point.

[ChristineR]

Says who?

If that's the best answer you can come up with, I have other things to do.

[pandamonk]

Nope. (You are going to have to do better than that, if you want this to continue).
No it's not absolutely right? So your saying that their morals are relative?

[syetenb]

They are not allowed because of what they are. And you're not making much of a point.


Why are they not allowed because of what they are? Says who?

[pandamonk]

Why are they not allowed because of what they are? Says who?
Says ME, according to MY worldview.

[syetenb]

No it's not absolutely right? So your saying that their morals are relative?

Look, you already lost that point, move on.

[pandamonk]

Look, you already lost that point, move on.
Answer my questions.

[syetenb]

Says ME, according to MY worldview.

So are you saying that logic is person relative, or is it universal?

[syetenb]

Answer my questions.

WHAT THEY DO OR BELIEVE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OF ABSOLUTE MORALS. MOVE ON.

[pandamonk]

So are you saying that logic is person relative, or is it universal?
Universal. But I can use my own logic, based on the universal, for my own points.

[pandamonk]

WHAT THEY DO OR BELIEVE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OF ABSOLUTE MORALS. MOVE ON.
But you were arguing against relative morals. These are relative morals. So answer the questions. And no need for capital letters, it doesn't make your post any more right. Maybe use them on certain words you want to emphasize, but not a whole post.

[syetenb]

Universal. But I can use my own logic, based on the universal, for my own points.

I see that :D

[syetenb]

But you were arguing against relative morals. These are relative morals. So answer the questions. And no need for capital letters, it doesn't make your post any more right. Maybe use them on certain words you want to emphasize, but not a whole post.


I am arguing FOR absolute morality, NOT against personal BELIEF. (Better?)

[pandamonk]

I see that :D
What I mean is, you ask about MY worldview, so I give my answers, based on my logic.

[syetenb]

What I mean is, you ask about MY worldview, so I give my answers, based on my logic.

I see that :D

[pandamonk]

I am arguing FOR absolute morality, NOT against personal BELIEF. (Better?)

Please give an example of a relative wrong, or relative right.

It seems from the quote, that you wanted an example of relative morals, which we gave.

[syetenb]

It seems from the quote, that you wanted an example of relative morals, which we gave.


Get with the program. I asked for an example of a relative 'RIGHT' or a relative 'WRONG.' Neither was given.

[cyborg]

syetenb, no one here is going to give a crap that you insist that a 'who' is necessary for an 'absolute'. I prefer arguments that are self-hoisting rather than those that require I capitulate to an external authority on its say so.

[cyborg]

Get with the program. I asked for an example of a relative 'RIGHT' or a relative 'WRONG.' Neither was given.

Is it right, or is it wrong, to kill?

[jsfisher]

Why are they not allowed because of what they are? Says who?


If there be a point to all this, why not just state it? Even Socrates sometimes just said what was on his mind.

[syetenb]

syetenb, no one here is going to give a crap that you insist that a 'who' is necessary for an 'absolute'. I prefer arguments that are self-hoisting rather than those that require I capitulate to an external authority on its say so.


I know this. People want to be God, rather than submit to Him.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It is, I was not referring to all uncles and all nephews, just the one in your example.

Then we agree. This is an example of a relative right and wrong since the rightness and wrongness is relative to the culture in question. So, it is not true that rights and wrongs must be absolute. They may be relative to particular cultures.

There may still be absolute rights and wrongs, but that is another issue.

We simply cannot make an absolute claim about right and wrong.

[l0rca]

* l0rca waits for the inevitable conflation of "absolute" meaning "true" and meaning "true in all cases".

[syetenb]

Is it right, or is it wrong, to kill?

It is absolutely wrong to murder, it is not absolutely wrong to kill.

[syetenb]

Then we agree. This is an example of a relative right and wrong since the rightness and wrongness is relative to the culture in question. So, it is not true that rights and wrongs must be absolute. They may be relative to particular cultures.

There may still be absolute rights and wrongs, but that is another issue.

We simply cannot make an absolute claim about right and wrong.

(Um didn't you just make one? ;) )

It is not an example of a relative right, since it is absolutely right for that culture to do it. That would be like saying that it is only relatively right that I am hungry, because you are not hungry.

[cyborg]

I know this. People want to be God, rather than submit to Him.

Erm, no.

Do you think you could possibly attempt to view things from a perspective that is not locked into your world where people either love Yahweh or hate him? You will find all such assertions will only serve to piss people off and conclude that you are an idiot.

Thanks.

[cyborg]

It is absolutely wrong to murder, it is not absolutely wrong to kill.

What is murder? When is it right to kill?

I suggest you answer the question without referring to some arbitrary oracle.

[Ichneumonwasp]

(Um didn't you just make one? ;) )

It is not an example of a relative right, since it is absolutely right for that culture to do it. That would be like saying that it is only relatively right that I am hungry, because you are not hungry.

If you are going to use the word "absolute" in a relative way, then I guess so. What would be the point in that?

Absolutes do not admit exceptions. If it is absolutely (and universally) right for an uncle to share the financial responsibility for his nephews, then it is right in all instances, for all time, for all people. You do not, on your website, argue for absolutes within cultures, but universal absolutes.

This is an example of a relative moral right. It is not absolute across cultures. It is not universal.

You need to get your definitions straight.

](Um didn't you just make one? ;) )

No, in fact I did the exact opposite.

[syetenb]

Do you think you could possibly attempt to view things from a perspective that is not locked into your world where people either love Yahweh or hate him? You will find all such assertions will only serve to piss people off and conclude that you are an idiot.


I do not care what people conclude about me. My worldview can account for the logic YOU use to try to refute it. How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?

[syetenb]

What is murder? When is it right to kill?

Murder is that killing which is unlawful. It is right to kill under the guidlines given by God.

I suggest you answer the question without referring to some arbitrary oracle.

I didn't, I referred to God. Tell me, how do you know that your ability to reason is reliable? (I suggest you answer without referring to the reliability of your reasoning).

[Ichneumonwasp]

Prediction:

The post following Cyborg's response to the way we arrive at our logic will contain the words: random, chance, and mutation with possibly some reference to slime molds.

[cyborg]

I do not care what people conclude about me. My worldview can account for the logic YOU use to try to refute it.

So I want to be a god whether or not I tell you otherwise? Yeah, sounds just like this other Calvinist arse I debated. Hell, if you already know me better than me then why not stop wasting your time on this and give me some useful information?

How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?

No such thing exists unless you pretend that classical logic is the only one around - which seems to be what you are doing.

So I don't need to account for the fact because it isn't one.

[syetenb]

Absolutes do not admit exceptions. If it is absolutely (and universally) right for an uncle to share the financial responsibility for his nephews, then it is right in all instances, for all time, for all people. You do not, on your website, argue for absolutes within cultures, but universal absolutes.

That's right, but we were discussing 'relative rights,' not cultural beliefs.

No, in fact I did the exact opposite.

"We simply cannot make an absolute claim about right and wrong" IS an absolute claim about right and wrong!

[cyborg]

Murder is that killing which is unlawful.

Law as an oracle - what did I say about not referring to arbitrary oracles?

It is right to kill under the guidlines given by God.

So the next time I see someone wearing polyester/cotton mixed clothes I should kill them?

I didn't, I referred to God.

Your god is an arbitrary oracle. Since it can decide any 'absolute' morals it wants they are not absolute.

Not that I expect you to understand this of course. I expect you to do some hand-waving about how your god can do whatever that wants - as if that strengthened your point about absolutes when you're arguing for a god that does whatever it wants.

Tell me, how do you know that your ability to reason is reliable?

It works or it does not.

(I suggest you answer without referring to the reliability of your reasoning).

Classic behaviour - mock what you do not understand. In your case I would suspect that encompasses a wide range of things.

[syetenb]

No such thing exists unless you pretend that classical logic is the only one around - which seems to be what you are doing.

So I don't need to account for the fact because it isn't one.

What isn't one?

Is the law of non-contradiction universal? Is it abstract, is it invariant?

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's right, but we were discussing 'relative rights,' not cultural beliefs.

Your point being? This cultural belief constitutes a relative "right". It is a moral duty for an uncle to care for his nephews and nieces in the Trobriand Islands. Are you suggesting that carrying out moral duties does not constitute moral rights and wrongs? What do we call them, then?

However you want to cut it, it is morally wrong for an uncle in the Trobriand Islands not to care for his nephews. That moral wrong is based on a cultural belief, but it is still a moral wrong. It is a relative moral wrong, which is what you asked for in the first place.

"We simply cannot make an absolute claim about right and wrong" IS an absolute claim about right and wrong!

Yes, badly stated on my part. Moral right and wrong are more complex than being merely absolute or merely relative. How about that?

[syetenb]

So the next time I see someone wearing polyester/cotton mixed clothes I should kill them?

Um, it wasn't even a capital offence for the Israelites!

Tell me, how do you know that your reasoning is reliable?

It works or it does not.

How do you know? Don't you have to assume that your reasoning is reliable to determine whether or not it works?!?

[Jekyll]

Nope, proof by the impossibility of the contrary.
That's what is called proof by contradiction in mathematics.

You cannot prove anything with unproven logic. Please demonstrate how you can if you disagree.

Logic remains unproven. However it is widely accepted as being valid, so I guess you could look at any mathematical proof for how something can be accepted to be proven with unproven logic.

Yes, this is my point, without God in the equation, nothing can be proven, or even known for that matter. Prove that Socrates was a man, prove that because some men are mortal, all men are mortal. Without God, all proof falls flat.

Indeed, my point again, without God, nothing can be known. At this time it would be proper for me to ask if YOU know anything, and if so, how?

OK, this means you haven't proved god exists. You have painted yourself into a corner, and have no way of showing that he doesn't exist and that you are not deluding yourself.

Personally, I think that I know with certainty nothing beyond Cogito ergo sum. Everything else can be viewed a shifting mass of probabilities that reflects my knowledge and uncertainty about the world.

If, as I submit, all proof is dependent on God, then proof without first assuming that He exists, would be impossible.
So your proof that god exists is (I'm paraphrasing slightly):

God exists ->so some kind of logic is true -> so God exists.

Can you see why this might be unconvincing to the rest of us?


Alright, let me ask you this, how can anyone know that the Bible is untrue?

Well as I've said before, I can't know anything for certain, but I can be quite sure that it's not literally true. It outright contradicts itself in places on silly little things, such as the number of animals of each kind Noah took into the arc. And to my dying day, I will continue to put my belief that two is not seven over the suggestion that I should take the bible as literal truth.

Advantageous to our individual or societal genes?
The evidence suggests we choose behaviour that probabilistically favours our individual genes.
Advantageous to the reproduction of our genes or to present-day enjoyment of our genes?
The first one.
Do advantages to our genes take precedence over justice?
Sometimes, there certainly seems to be a temptation for people to pick their children over the best person for a job. This can not be said to be just.
Who decides?[quote]
To be clear I'm talking about where impulses and morals can come from, there's no hard and fast guarantee that people will act in the best interests of their genes but this is certainly where our instincts seem to be coming from, protect the young and co operate with the pack.

[quote]I have help :-)
Ooooh! Argument from unnamed authority. How do you know they're not wrong?

[cyborg]

What isn't one?

Your fact.

Is the law of non-contradiction universal? Is it abstract, is it invariant?

No. One can construct any logic one wants. How useful it is becomes a different issue.

Um, it wasn't even a capital offence for the Israelites!

Okay then. Right...

How do you know? Don't you have to assume that your reasoning is reliable to determine whether or not it works?!?

No.

I think I'll let you hang in the air on that one.

[syetenb]

Your point being? This cultural belief constitutes a relative "right". It is a moral duty for an uncle to care for his nephews and nieces in the Trobriand Islands. Are you suggesting that carrying out moral duties does not constitute moral rights and wrongs? What do we call them, then?

I am saying that cultural expression of absolute morals does not negate absolute morality. It is absolutely right to care for others, how people do that is culturally relative. This however was NOT the argument. You said that some things are 'relatively right,' I say that this is impossible.

However you want to cut it, it is morally wrong for an uncle in the Trobriand Islands not to care for his nephews. That moral wrong is based on a cultural belief, but it is still a moral wrong. It is a relative moral wrong, which is what you asked for in the first place.

Look, if the Trobrianders believed that 2 + 2 = 9 that would in no way affect the absolute truth that 2 + 2 = 4 (in base 10 mathematics). You could say that it is culturally right for 2 + 2 to equal 9, but it would be nonsense all the same. All you are telling me is what they believe, not what is right or wrong.

Yes, badly stated on my part. Moral right and wrong are more complex than being merely absolute or merely relative. How about that?

Also an absolute claim. Is it absolutely true that moral right and wrong are more complex...

[cyborg]

Look, if the Trobrianders believed that 2 + 2 = 9 that would in no way affect the absolute truth that 2 + 2 = 4 (in base 10 mathematics).

Does anyone else find it funny that the man is arguing for absolute truths by reasoning with the analogy of a purely axiomatic system, which he has to define precisely in order for it to be 'absolutely' true?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I am saying that cultural expression of absolute morals does not negate absolute morality. It is absolutely right to care for others, how people do that is culturally relative. This however was NOT the argument. You said that some things are 'relatively right,' I say that this is impossible.

Who said that it did? Look, you asked for relative right and wrong. I gave you an example. There are many others. I very specifically said that the existence of relative right and wrong does not contradict the possibility of universal moral truths.

Some things are relatively right. It is right, relative to that culture, to care for nephews and nieces and not one's own biological offspring.

It matters not a whit if there is an underlying absolute moral imperative to care for others. There are still local moral rights and wrongs based on the underlying moral imperatives. That cannot be denied. I have not denied the existence to you of underlying moral truths. The existence of relative moral rights and wrongs also does not deny this possibility. There is a difference between moral truth and moral right and wrong based upon moral truth.

Look, if the Trobrianders believed that 2 + 2 = 9 that would in no way affect the absolute truth that 2 + 2 = 4 (in base 10 mathematics). You could say that it is culturally right for 2 + 2 to equal 9, but it would be nonsense all the same. All you are telling me is what they believe, not what is right or wrong.

Yeah, and the example helps you in no way. Again, there is no absolute to refer to with the morality of treating relatives financially. That issue is created by social convention. It doesn't matter if there is or is not an absolute that we should treat others with respect. That idea does not create the local moral right and wrong of the Trobriand Islands or our own culture. It doesn't tell us anything about how to apply that potentially absolute rule. The logic of mathematics is a constructed system that is true by the axioms we agree upon ahead of time and its own internal logic. 2+2=4 is true because we agree that 1+1=2 and the rest follows the rules. Someone's belief in the matter has no bearing on it. Similarly, whether or not many people believed the earth to be flat in the past does not impact the empirical truth that the earth is not flat.

That is not the issue with certain moral activities. Some of morality is relative to cultural belief. Relative moral rights and wrongs exist.



Also an absolute claim. Is it absolutely true that moral right and wrong are more complex...

That isn't what I said. You can play games all you want, but you are starting to make yourself more and more a fool now. I made no absolute claim in the sentence I wrote. Heck, I didn't even claim that it was true.


ETA

And, once you get to the proposed absolutes in ethics, you are going to have to go a darn site further to convince me that they are not relative to who and what we are as humans.

[syetenb]

Logic remains unproven. However it is widely accepted as being valid, so I guess you could look at any mathematical proof for how something can be accepted to be proven with unproven logic.

And what do people use when they widely accept logic as being valid? Logic! (A tad circualr no?)


OK, this means you haven't proved god exists. You have painted yourself into a corner, and have no way of showing that he doesn't exist and that you are not deluding yourself.

Huh? Because I can’t show that God doesn’t exist, I haven’t proven that he does???

Personally, I think that I know with certainty nothing beyond Cogito ergo sum. Everything else can be viewed a shifting mass of probabilities that reflects my knowledge and uncertainty about the world.

How do you know “Cognito ergo sum?’ All Descartes could determine is that somewhere in the universe thinking was going on, certainly not that he existed. (I think it was Hume that pointed that out). If you can’t know anything for certain, then you can’t know how ‘everything else can be viewed.’

So your proof that god exists is (I'm paraphrasing slightly):

God exists ->so some kind of logic is true -> so God exists.

Nope, God is the necessary precondition for logic, logic exists, therefore God exists.

Can you see why this might be unconvincing to the rest of us?

Proof has nothing to do with persuasion.



Alright, let me ask you this, how can anyone know that the Bible is untrue?

Well as I've said before, I can't know anything for certain

Then you can’t even know that you can’t know anything for certain.

but I can be quite sure that it's not literally true.

You can believe it, but you can’t be ‘quite sure’ of anything.

It outright contradicts itself in places on silly little things, such as the number of animals of each kind Noah took into the arc.

Well naturally interpretation of the Bible will be subject to our presuppositions. You will look for apparent contradcitions, and I will look for their resolution. The question is, whose worldview can account for the logic we use to examine anything? You for instance cannot say ‘It outright contradcists itself’ if you cannot know anything.

And to my dying day, I will continue to put my belief that two is not seven over the suggestion that I should take the bible as literal truth.

You cannot know what you will do ‘to your dying day’ remember? If the Bible is not literally true, you can’t know ANYTHING.

The evidence suggests we choose behaviour that probabilistically favours our individual genes.

Advantageous to the reproduction of our genes or to present-day enjoyment of our genes?
The first one.

Do advantages to our genes take precedence over justice?
Sometimes, there certainly seems to be a temptation for people to pick their children over the best person for a job. This can not be said to be just.
Who decides?
To be clear I'm talking about where impulses and morals can come from, there's no hard and fast guarantee that people will act in the best interests of their genes but this is certainly where our instincts seem to be coming from, protect the young and co operate with the pack.

You are not talking about morals here, you are talking about behaviour. ‘What is,’ is not ‘what ought to be.’

Should we favour the individual, or the society, should we favour reproduction, or enjoyment, should reproduction take precedence over justice? None of your ‘evidence’ can give you those answers.


I have help :-)

Ooooh! Argument from unnamed authority. How do you know they're not wrong?

I thought it was obvious :-)

[syetenb]

Does anyone else find it funny that the man is arguing for absolute truths by reasoning with the analogy of a purely axiomatic system, which he has to define precisely in order for it to be 'absolutely' true?


Is it absolutely true that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4?

[Ichneumonwasp]

God is the necessary precondition for logic

Why?

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think you are confusing epistemic and ontologic issues. We know absolutely that thought exists. That is pretty much it as far as absolute knowledge is concerned*. The rest consists of variable probabilities, some approaching 100%.

*except those claims we can make within constructed axiomatic systems

[cyborg]

Is it absolutely true that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4?

It is true because it is defined to be true.

Not that I think you get that...

[ChristineR]

If anyone is interested in an intelligent theist's presentation of this same argument I recommend this two hour podcast:

http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=184975

In my opinion the argument fails for reasons given in the podcast, but we aren't getting anywhere with this.

[syetenb]

Look, you asked for relative right and wrong. I gave you an example.

This may be a problem of semantics.

I say adultery is absolutely wrong. Therefore, the fact that I must not sleep with my brother's wife is absolutely right, not relatively right. Are you saying that this is only relatively right because it does not apply to my brother?

[syetenb]

Why?

The impossibility of the contrary. How do you account for logic apart from God?

[syetenb]

It is true because it is defined to be true.

By who?

[syetenb]

I think you are confusing epistemic and ontologic issues. We know absolutely that thought exists.

You were the one that said 'cogito ergo sum.' I guess you meant 'cogito ergo cogito.'

That is pretty much it as far as absolute knowledge is concerned*.

*except those claims we can make within constructed axiomatic systems

And how can you know those things?

[Ichneumonwasp]

This may be a problem of semantics.

I say adultery is absolutely wrong. Therefore, the fact that I must not sleep with my brother's wife is absolutely right, not relatively right. Are you saying that this is only relatively right because it does not apply to my brother?

No to the symmetry question. And this is not a matter of mere semantics. There are relative moral rights and wrongs depending on cultural context. Those relative rights and wrongs may rest upon objective moral truths, but there are still moral rights and wrongs that are relative to particular cultures.

As for the adultery issue, it depends on how one defines adultery. That definition differs across cultures. So what is wrong behavior in one culture relative to its definition of adultery is not wrong behavior in another.

A married man having sex with another woman outside of his marriage constitutes adultery in our culture. It was not adultery in Jacob's household, or David's line through Judah and Tamar was the result of adultery.

You can say that "adultery is wrong" is an absolute moral imperative, but the content of that statement is not absolutely fixed (except by cultural context), so it is actually wrong to use it as an absolute moral imperative.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You were the one that said 'cogito ergo sum.' I guess you meant 'cogito ergo cogito.'

Show me where I said that. I haven't said that once in this thread. I don't believe it. I don't repeat it. When I refer to Descartes' argument I always refer to it as 'the cogito'. I even restrict the issue from thought to doubt for giggles from time to time.



And how can you know those things?

They are true by definition. We assume axioms and everything else follows by use of logic. I decide to trust logic, and I employ as one of my axioms that self-contradiction is not allowed. We have to start somewhere.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The impossibility of the contrary. How do you account for logic apart from God?

The type of logic that we use? It's built into us, resulting from the way our nervous system works.

[ChristineR]

If you want the simplest possible formulation of the problem, consider the possibility that the coefficient of gravity will change tomorrow and we will all fly off into outer space. The claim is that we know this won't happen because God won't will it to happen.

The problem is that the explanation has no content. How do we know God is eternal? How do we know God won't change the coefficient of gravity? We can simply say "the coefficient of gravity is eternal" and get on with it. The theistic solution is essentially to say "the coefficient of gravity is eternal because there is an eternal being that wills it to be eternal." Although the statement "the coefficient of gravity is eternal" is problematic, the statement "the coefficient of gravity is eternal because there is an eternal being that wills it to be eternal" is problematic for the same reason and it introduces a new concept which is even more confusing than gravity.

[cyborg]

By who?

Mr X.

As if that were relevant.

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you want the simplest possible formulation of the problem, consider the possibility that the coefficient of gravity will change tomorrow and we will all fly off into outer space. The claim is that we know this won't happen because God won't will it to happen.

The problem is that the explanation has no content. How do we know God is eternal? How do we know God won't change the coefficient of gravity? We can simply say "the coefficient of gravity is eternal" and get on with it. The theistic solution is essentially to say "the coefficient of gravity is eternal because there is an eternal being that wills it to be eternal." Although the statement "the coefficient of gravity is eternal" is problematic, the statement "the coefficient of gravity is eternal because there is an eternal being that wills it to be eternal" is problematic for the same reason and it introduces a new concept which is even more confusing than gravity.

It's also a confusion of epistemic and ontologic categories. We don't know if the coefficient of gravity will change tomorrow. We act like it won't because our experience tells us that it never has and built into us is the category for universal laws -- so we see universal laws. Those internal categories are a necessary precondition for us understanding anything, including logic. Whether or not there actually are those universal laws out there in what we call Reality is a whole other matter.

[Jekyll]

And what do people use when they widely accept logic as being valid? Logic! (A tad circualr no?)

I think they just accept the apparent consistency of logic as given. They certainly can't claim to accept that logic is valid through logic.

Huh? Because I can’t show that God doesn’t exist, I haven’t proven that he does???It's that darn website name. Most misleading.

How do you know “Cognito ergo sum?’ All Descartes could determine is that somewhere in the universe thinking was going on, certainly not that he existed. (I think it was Hume that pointed that out).Sure that's fine. By I, I don't necessarily mean myself as I perceive myself to be.

If you can’t know anything for certain, then you can’t know how ‘everything else can be viewed.’Why not? I said 'can' not 'must'.

Nope, God is the necessary precondition for logic, logic exists, therefore God exists.An honest and helpful God(of a particular type) is a sufficient guarantee that logic works, by no means is he necessary. Besides we don't have any guarantee that logic works, we just know it appears to.


Proof has nothing to do with persuasion.
And the statement "if god exists.....then god exists" does nothing to prove his existence.

Then you can’t even know that you can’t know anything for certain.
Would you feel better if I said, I do not currently know anything for certain? :D



You can believe it, but you can’t be ‘quite sure’ of anything.

No I'm quite sure, which is more certain the somewhat sure, but less certain than absolute certainty.


Well naturally interpretation of the Bible will be subject to our presuppositions. You will look for apparent contradcitions, and I will look for their resolution. The question is, whose worldview can account for the logic we use to examine anything? You for instance cannot say ‘It outright contradcists itself’ if you cannot know anything. While I can't be absolutely certain it contradicts itself I can be fairly sure that it does.

You cannot know what you will do ‘to your dying day’ remember? If the Bible is not literally true, you can’t know ANYTHING. This is a rather large assertion do you have anything to back it up? Or is it as meaningless as saying 'If the Bhagavad Gita is not literally true, you can’t know ANYTHING'?

You are not talking about morals here, you are talking about behaviour. ‘What is,’ is not ‘what ought to be.’

Should we favour the individual, or the society, should we favour reproduction, or enjoyment, should reproduction take precedence over justice? None of your ‘evidence’ can give you those answers.True.

I thought it was obvious :-)
How do you know you're listening properly?

[Hokulele]

The impossibility of the contrary. How do you account for logic apart from God?


Well, this is certainly news to all of the philosophers who are Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Jainist, Taoist . . .

[syetenb]

Show me where I said that. I haven't said that once in this thread. I don't believe it. I don't repeat it. When I refer to Descartes' argument I always refer to it as 'the cogito'. I even restrict the issue from thought to doubt for giggles from time to time.

My mistake, it was Jeykll that said that. I'll get to your other posts when I have time.

Cheers

[strathmeyer]

How are we supposed to trust someone who owns a website named "proof that god exists" that doesn't contain proof that god exists? What a let down.

[trvlr2]

But, he is one willful, tap-dancing bleever!

[Dark Jaguar]

The impossibility of the contrary. How do you account for logic apart from God?

Does it even need to be accounted for?

Logic is pretty much just defined by how the universe operates anyway. The universe appears to operate the same from moment to moment. It MAY not be consistant, but as of yet we don't have any reason to think otherwise so it's a safe assumption. It has a lot of evidence backing it, that's all.

And oh yes, you are basically stating that the existance of the universe is proof that god exists. That is the entire premice of your argument.

Unfortunatly, the way you reach that conclusion is that there isn't a full explanation for the existance of the universe.

So basically you are saying that since there's no evidence for anything else, that is good enough as a subsitute for evidence of god.

Nope, no good. Let's try applying that in court in a murder charge. Let's say the only explanation there is so far is that Bob killed the victim. However, there is NO evidence that Bob killed the guy, that's just the only explanation anyone can come up with. Since no one has any other leads, do we convict Bob, or do we wait until evidence, either for Bob or for some other unthought of possibility, emerges? Seriously, that's stupid.

[Apathia]

Nope, God is the necessary precondition for logic, logic exists, therefore God exists.

Welcome Syetenb!
I see you are drawing on another of the Classical Greek Thought based proofs fo the existence of God. The other two popular ones are the Cosmological and Ontological arguments. They all have ancient assumptions that contemporary cultures no longer make .

However, you will have a field day with most of our posters here, because for many skeptics Absolute Reason reigns supream. It is the Logos, the Summum Bonum.

I don't follow your argument, becaise I don't buy into metaphysical and ethical absolutes.

And even if I did, there is still a chasm between the Theistic Creator God and the Platonic Absolute. It takes a bit of equivocation to make them out to be the same. You have to take a leap, a leap of faith, to get from the Logos of Classical Greek thought to the Logos of John 1:1.

I know it may have some initial apologetical value. C.S Lewis used it till he saw through it. But foir many of us here, this God is no better than an idol, a lump of rock, rather than a loaf of bread.

Bottom like is that it's not a proof of a supream personal being. "The Ground of All Being" ian't a Theistic Being.

And the attention it places on absolute moral principles as a matter of mental authority, overshadows the response-ability of a compassionate heart.
It plays more into the hands of zealous legalism than caring. It's the kind of thing that makes possible the presumption that it's OK to inflict suffering on persons to save their souls.

And I'm not saying you personally are a legalistic Christian. Though when you start saying things like we reject your argument because we want to be our own little gods or because we are in moral darkness, you offer us only a husk of straw.

[Foster Zygote]

Is it absolutely true that in base 10 mathematics 2 + 2 = 4?

Which leads back to an earlier point: Contradictory statements can't all be true. The statement "2+2=5 and 2+2=9" is false. The statement "2+2=4 and 2+3=5" is true. The statement "2+2=4 and 2+5=9" is false even though the part of the statement "2+2=4" is true. If two or more statements contradict one another then it is possible that one statement is true and the others false or it is possible that all of the statements are false. It is not possible that two or more contradictory statements are true.

[Foster Zygote]

The impossibility of the contrary. How do you account for logic apart from God?

The same way I account for logic apart from Wotan, Huitzilipotchli, Ganesh, Zeus and the Easter Bunny.

[Dark Jaguar]

Further more, god doesn't even properly account for logic to begin with. Let me ask you this. Is there any way at all that 2 + 2 COULD equal 5 (ignoring redefining the question so that 2 = 2.5 or other cheap ways out, we are going to assume the statement has it's standard meaning). You may just say no, but in doing so you basically prove my point. Is it at all possible that god could make 2 + 2 = 5, or is that simply logically impossible? If you anwer "no, god can't do that", then let's ignore any problems with all powerful (I'm willing to give you that "all powerful" merely means able to do stuff that actually is logically feasible). If you say that, then you are basically admitting that wherever math comes from, it most certainly does not come from god (to copy the style of Dawkins). If you don't, then I'll copy your style and say this argument ends here.

[Jekyll]

However, you will have a field day with most of our posters here, because for many skeptics Absolute Reason reigns supream. It is the Logos, the Summum Bonum.

Didn't you get the memos? 'EVIDENCE' takes priority over 'Absolute Reason'.

[syetenb]

Does it even need to be accounted for?

Logic is pretty much just defined by how the universe operates anyway.

So, do we live in a uniform universe, or a random, changing one?

The universe appears to operate the same from moment to moment. It MAY not be consistant, but as of yet we don't have any reason to think otherwise so it's a safe assumption. It has a lot of evidence backing it, that's all.

It HAS operated uniformly, proceeding on the assumption that it WILL operate uniformly, is question begging (especially given the 'random, chance' nature of the universe most atheists espouse).

And oh yes, you are basically stating that the existance of the universe is proof that god exists. That is the entire premice of your argument.

Nope. It is not a causality argument. My argument is that you could not even make sense of causality if God did not exist, as God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility.

[syetenb]

Welcome Syetenb!

Thanks for the welcome!

I see you are drawing on another of the Classical Greek Thought based proofs fo the existence of God. The other two popular ones are the Cosmological and Ontological arguments. They all have ancient assumptions that contemporary cultures no longer make .

The Cosmological and Ontological arguments are evidential, and I do not use them, my argument is presuppositional.

However, you will have a field day with most of our posters here, because for many skeptics Absolute Reason reigns supream. It is the Logos, the Summum Bonum.

Indeed their own ability to reason is their ultimate authority. Funny how when I ask for the justification for the validity of their ability to reason, I get visciously circular arguments.

I don't follow your argument, becaise I don't buy into metaphysical and ethical absolutes.

You absolutely don't buy into them? :-)

And even if I did, there is still a chasm between the Theistic Creator God and the Platonic Absolute. It takes a bit of equivocation to make them out to be the same. You have to take a leap, a leap of faith, to get from the Logos of Classical Greek thought to the Logos of John 1:1.

It is my presupposition.

I know it may have some initial apologetical value. C.S Lewis used it till he saw through it. But foir many of us here, this God is no better than an idol, a lump of rock, rather than a loaf of bread.

Indeed, people here have their reasons for rejecting God. (none of which will hold up when the rubber hits the road).

Bottom like is that it's not a proof of a supream personal being. "The Ground of All Being" ian't a Theistic Being.

How do you know?

And the attention it places on absolute moral principles as a matter of mental authority, overshadows the response-ability of a compassionate heart.

Unfortunately without God 'compassion' is arbitrary, and therefore meaningless.

It plays more into the hands of zealous legalism than caring. It's the kind of thing that makes possible the presumption that it's OK to inflict suffering on persons to save their souls.

People don't save people. We are to love, because God first loved us.

And I'm not saying you personally are a legalistic Christian. Though when you start saying things like we reject your argument because we want to be our own little gods or because we are in moral darkness, you offer us only a husk of straw.

I never said 'little.' :-)

[syetenb]

Which leads back to an earlier point: Contradictory statements can't all be true.

According to my worldview they can't, why can't they according to yours?

[syetenb]

The same way I account for logic apart from Wotan, Huitzilipotchli, Ganesh, Zeus and the Easter Bunny.

And how exactly would that be?

[syetenb]

Further more, god doesn't even properly account for logic to begin with. Let me ask you this. Is there any way at all that 2 + 2 COULD equal 5 (ignoring redefining the question so that 2 = 2.5 or other cheap ways out, we are going to assume the statement has it's standard meaning). You may just say no, but in doing so you basically prove my point. Is it at all possible that god could make 2 + 2 = 5, or is that simply logically impossible? If you anwer "no, god can't do that", then let's ignore any problems with all powerful (I'm willing to give you that "all powerful" merely means able to do stuff that actually is logically feasible). If you say that, then you are basically admitting that wherever math comes from, it most certainly does not come from god (to copy the style of Dawkins). If you don't, then I'll copy your style and say this argument ends here.

Huh, because God could not make 2 + 2 = 5, math does not come from God??? That would be like saying since God cannot lie, truth does not come from God.

[syetenb]

Didn't you get the memos? 'EVIDENCE' takes priority over 'Absolute Reason'.


And what evidence told you that?

[syetenb]

Well, this is certainly news to all of the philosophers who are Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Jainist, Taoist . . .

If they wish to posit their justification for logic, I will be happy to refute them.

[syetenb]

I think they just accept the apparent consistency of logic as given. They certainly can't claim to accept that logic is valid through logic.

You mean, blind faith.

An honest and helpful God(of a particular type) is a sufficient guarantee that logic works, by no means is he necessary.

Prove your case.

Besides we don't have any guarantee that logic works, we just know it appears to.

If that were the case, then you could not know that it ‘appears to work.’

Would you feel better if I said, I do not currently know anything for certain? :D

If you don’t mind contradicting yourself :-)

While I can't be absolutely certain it contradicts itself I can be fairly sure that it does.

Do you know that you are ‘fairly sure,’ or are you only ‘fairly sure’ that you are ‘fairly sure?’

This is a rather large assertion do you have anything to back it up? Or is it as meaningless as saying 'If the Bhagavad Gita is not literally true, you can’t know ANYTHING'?

The Bible provides the justification for universal, abstract, invariants, such as the laws of logic, as revealed to us by an omniscient God, if you would like to posit that the Bhagavad Gita does, I will be happy to refute you.

How do you know you're listening properly?
By the grace of God.

[syetenb]

It's also a confusion of epistemic and ontologic categories. We don't know if the coefficient of gravity will change tomorrow. We act like it won't because our experience tells us that it never has and built into us is the category for universal laws -- so we see universal laws. Those internal categories are a necessary precondition for us understanding anything, including logic. Whether or not there actually are those universal laws out there in what we call Reality is a whole other matter.


Built into us by whom?

[syetenb]

If you want the simplest possible formulation of the problem, consider the possibility that the coefficient of gravity will change tomorrow and we will all fly off into outer space. The claim is that we know this won't happen because God won't will it to happen.

The problem is that the explanation has no content. How do we know God is eternal?

Because the Bible tells us so.

We can simply say "the coefficient of gravity is eternal" and get on with it.

And how would you know this?

[syetenb]

They are true by definition. We assume axioms and everything else follows by use of logic. I decide to trust logic, and I employ as one of my axioms that self-contradiction is not allowed. We have to start somewhere.

You start with faith in logic, which accounts for nothing, I start with faith in God, which accounts for logic.

[syetenb]

No to the symmetry question. And this is not a matter of mere semantics. There are relative moral rights and wrongs depending on cultural context. Those relative rights and wrongs may rest upon objective moral truths, but there are still moral rights and wrongs that are relative to particular cultures.

I submit that there are relative moral behaviours, but right and wrong are dependent on absolutes.

As for the adultery issue, it depends on how one defines adultery. That definition differs across cultures. So what is wrong behavior in one culture relative to its definition of adultery is not wrong behavior in another.

A married man having sex with another woman outside of his marriage constitutes adultery in our culture. It was not adultery in Jacob's household, or David's line through Judah and Tamar was the result of adultery.

If it was not adultery, then how could Judah and Tamar be the result of adultery?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Built into us by whom?

Why must there be a whom? Please do not return with "building requires a builder" since "built" is merely a metaphor.

You start with faith in logic, which accounts for nothing, I start with faith in God, which accounts for logic.

That's fine, and I have no problem with that. Just don't tell me that you have proved the existence of God by this means because you haven't.

[syetenb]

Thanks all for letting me get caught up. If I've missed any, please repost, and I'll try to get to them later. Doubt I'll be able to post for the rest of the day though.

Cheers

[syetenb]

That's fine, and I have no problem with that. Just don't tell me that you have proved the existence of God by this means because you haven't.

Proof does not equal persuasion. I'll leave you to your blind faith.

Cheers :)

[Hawk one]

Proof does not equal persuasion. I'll leave you to your blind faith.

Cheers :)

And I'll leave you to your rationalisations of raping the entire female populations because your god said it was all right...

[Ichneumonwasp]

I submit that there are relative moral behaviours, but right and wrong are dependent on absolutes.

And I submit that you are wrong. We define moral right and wrong to include culturally determined moral actions. That is one of the ways that we use those words; consequently, that is what those words mean. If you want to restrict "right and wrong" to universal moral truths, then you are going to end with a very restricted notion of morality. You will no longer be able to call a man who does not support his children in our culture immoral. What he does or does not do (in this context) concerns no aspect of morality in your new world. If he were an only child but now has ten kids of his own and blithely runs about cavorting with all his money and not supporting a soul in the world because he firmly believes the Trobriand Islanders have the right notion, then you have no recourse to call his actions immoral.

Further, if you want to restrict morality to universal moral truths, you need to supply us with these universal moral truths so that we can examine them and decide if they are truly universal, if they are relative to some other bit of reality (such as being relative to us as humans), or absolute.



If it was not adultery, then how could Judah and Tamar be the result of adultery?

What?

Judah and Tamar were the one's having sex. What Judah did was not considered adultery in his culture. Yet he had sex with another woman outside of his marriage. Different definition of adultery than the one we employ now.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Proof does not equal persuasion. I'll leave you to your blind faith.

Cheers :)

The problem is that you have not provided proof. You have provided a series of statements that do not constitute proof. Your arguments aren't even very likely since some of the propositions are demonstrably false.

You say (or at least imply very strongly on your website) that moral right and wrong are not only absolute but universal. There are countless examples of moral rights and wrongs that are clearly relative to particular cultures. I'm not making this up. You can try to hide your head in the sand, but that decision has consequences for your own conclusions. You seem to think that you have THE answers and that everyone else has his/her head in the sand, but you have restricted morality to only absolutes. In your world there are no moral choices that can be determined by culture. So now you must piece through every culture that has ever existed and extract what is universal across all those cultures and what we must jettison as merely cultural behavior.

I suggest you begin with Colin Turnbull and the Ik.

You can pretend that you are scoring points by accusing me of blind faith all you want, but you haven't the vaguest notion of my real beliefs. I am arguing against your propositions. You have made logical leaps and errors in reasoning. This is what we do on message boards -- tear each others arguments to shreds looking for errors so that we can test and hopefully strengthen them.

[syetenb]

And I'll leave you to your rationalisations of raping the entire female populations because your god said it was all right...

Misinterperting the Bible does not hide the fact that you have no absolute moral standard by which you could even call your misinterpertation wrong.

[syetenb]

[QUOTE=Ichneumonwasp;2522282]And I submit that you are wrong.

Absolutely wrong, or relatively wrong?

We define moral right and wrong to include culturally determined moral actions.

This begs the question. If morals are absolute, as I posit, then how WE define them is irrelevant.

That is one of the ways that we use those words; consequently, that is what those words mean. If you want to restrict "right and wrong" to universal moral truths, then you are going to end with a very restricted notion of morality.

Amen

Further, if you want to restrict morality to universal moral truths, you need to supply us with these universal moral truths so that we can examine them and decide if they are truly universal, if they are relative to some other bit of reality (such as being relative to us as humans), or absolute.

How perchance are you going to determine if a moral truth is universal?

Judah and Tamar were the one's having sex. What Judah did was not considered adultery in his culture. Yet he had sex with another woman outside of his marriage. Different definition of adultery than the one we employ now.

Prove this please.

[Hawk one]

Misinterperting the Bible does not hide the fact that you have no absolute moral standard by which you could even call your misinterpertation wrong.

How can it be misinterpreting when god gives a direct command to lie with all virgins? Remember that the virgins have no saying in this, in other words, they are forced to have sex, which is the very definition of rape. Your god commanded those girls to be raped, according to the bible.

Oh, and lying is something that I thought your god was so much against he even made a commandment against it. So why do you lie about virgins of a nation being raped? What makes you think that is not a vile and disgusting thing to do?

[syetenb]

The problem is that you have not provided proof. You have provided a series of statements that do not constitute proof. Your arguments aren't even very likely since some of the propositions are demonstrably false.

Do you believe that it is possible to prove ANYTHING? If so, please prove something to me.

You say (or at least imply very strongly on your website) that moral right and wrong are not only absolute but universal. There are countless examples of moral rights and wrongs that are clearly relative to particular cultures.

Moral BEHAVIOURS that are relative to particular cultures. You assume that morals are NOT absolute in order to attempt to prove that they are not absolute.

In your world there are no moral choices that can be determined by culture.

Huh, that's all I've been saying, lots of people make moral choices based on their cultures, but that has nothing to do with whether or not these choices are right or wrong.

You can pretend that you are scoring points by accusing me of blind faith all you want, but you haven't the vaguest notion of my real beliefs.

You admitted it.

I am arguing against your propositions. You have made logical leaps and errors in reasoning.

Prove this please.

This is what we do on message boards -- tear each others arguments to shreds looking for errors so that we can test and hopefully strengthen them.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the discussion.

[syetenb]

How can it be misinterpreting when god gives a direct command to lie with all virgins? Remember that the virgins have no saying in this, in other words, they are forced to have sex, which is the very definition of rape. Your god commanded those girls to be raped, according to the bible.

Prove your case.

Oh, and lying is something that I thought your god was so much against he even made a commandment against it. So why do you lie about virgins of a nation being raped? What makes you think that is not a vile and disgusting thing to do?

By what standard do YOU think it is?

[syetenb]

This is addictive, I really should be going though :-)

[Jekyll]

You mean, blind faith. No I mean that people look and then say "That seems good enough to me."
Prove your case.
Fine. Proof by counter example:
Imagine a consistent universe in which god does not intervene. We allow the observers of the universe to formulate their logic by noting common reoccurring patterns and abstracting away the differences, deleting any patterns that do not always hold.

Now this logic mirrors many aspects of the consistent universe, and shares much of it's consistency. A serious amount of checking needs to go on to make sure that you haven't abstracted too far and aren't allowing the formation of ill founded notions such as the 'set of all sets' but in principle such a logic could be correct.


If that were the case, then you could not know that it ‘appears to work.’Sure I could, just as I know that a hot plate I put my hand on appears to be surprisingly hot without having to logically validate the claim.

If you don’t mind contradicting yourself :-) I don't think I am.


Do you know that you are ‘fairly sure,’ or are you only ‘fairly sure’ that you are ‘fairly sure?’The second one.


The Bible provides the justification for universal, abstract, invariants, such as the laws of logic, as revealed to us by an omniscient God, if you would like to posit that the Bhagavad Gita does, I will be happy to refute you.
I posit that the Bhagavad Gita provides at least as much justification for the laws of logic as the bible does. Feel free to refute it ;) .

By the grace of God.
This sounds breathtakingly arrogant to me. How can you possibly assert without justification that you have been favoured above others to interpret the bible correctly?

[DangerousBeliefs]

I would just ask syetenb if he could list some of these absolute truths (or morals) which he states come from the Bible.

[Hawk one]

Prove your case.Already shown on page 1. And of course there's lots of other examples in the bible about rape being justified because the "lord" says so. I suggest you actually read the thing for once in your life, instead of only the few cherry-picked verses your minister or whoever feeds you.

By what standard do YOU think it is?
Ohhh, nice evasion. How about you actually answer my question first: What makes you think lying and say women weren't raped isn't a vile and disgusting thing to do, especially since your own book has this commandement about not lying?

If you are in any way honest, you will actually answer this question instead of trying the useless "smart-ass right back atcha question" game. I don't have time for kids playing stupid games.

[syetenb]

I would just ask syetenb if he could list some of these absolute truths (or morals) which he states come from the Bible.


Exodus 20:
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Mark 12:
30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

[l0rca]

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

[DangerousBeliefs]

Exodus 20:3

Mark 12:


And how do we know these are absolutely true?

[Ichneumonwasp]

[QUOTE=Ichneumonwasp;2522282]


Absolutely wrong, or relatively wrong?

Cute. And inconsequential.


This begs the question. If morals are absolute, as I posit, then how WE define them is irrelevant.

The point that I am making is that YOU are defining them in a particular way -- as absolute. That does not make morality absolute for everyone. Your argument is circular because it depends on your definitions. In other words, you have proved nothing but that you can define words in a particular way and make statements based on those definitions. I can define words any way I like as well and make other arguments. The point is that this process cannot provide objective proof of absolute morality.



How perchance are you going to determine if a moral truth is universal?

It isn't my problem. This is your problem. You are the one who has decided that moral truth is absolute and universal. You are the one that must provide the proof. By definition won't cut it. I don't share that definition.



Prove this please.

Prove that adultery in ancient Israel was considered to be a man having sex with another man's wife or a married woman having sex with any man outside of marriage? Haven't you read the Tanakh? You are not aware of the prevalance of concubinage? That concubines were considered socially permissable? Remember Solomon for goodness sakes.

Do you believe that it is possible to prove ANYTHING? If so, please prove something to me.


You have an awfully short memory. I've already answered that question more than once. Please stop playing stupid games.

Moral BEHAVIOURS that are relative to particular cultures. You assume that morals are NOT absolute in order to attempt to prove that they are not absolute.


For the example given I haven't assumed anything of the sort. There are plenty of assumptions underlying the example and I make assumptions in offering it, but I did not assume that morals are not absolute. I looked at the way we use the phrase "moral right and wrong" and used the example to show one of those meanings. Simple as that. We use the words right and wrong (in morality) to include culturally determined behaviors. This isn't complicated.

Huh, that's all I've been saying, lots of people make moral choices based on their cultures, but that has nothing to do with whether or not these choices are right or wrong.


Yes, it does. In the example given it is morally wrong for a Trobriand Islander to eschew the financial care of his nieces and nephews and not morally wrong for him to avoid the financial care of his biological children.

You admitted it.


Admitted what? Where? WTF are you talking about?

Prove this please.


Already demonstrated over and over. You have been reading this thread, haven't you? Zombies haven't stolen your brain? We do inhabit the same planet? Blue meanies from Arcturus are not subverting your thought processes?

You propose absolute truths. Provide all of these absolute truths. We can start with the moral truths.

Murder is wrong by definition. So, oops, that won't work. Or you can continue with your defintion of unlawful killing. In some states it is not unlawful for a man to kill another who is in bed with his wife. Do you think that this does not constitute murder? Do you think it is not immoral for a man to kill another if the circumstances are correct? Why do we have these exceptions to rules if there is an absolute?

[Dark Jaguar]

Huh, because God could not make 2 + 2 = 5, math does not come from God??? That would be like saying since God cannot lie, truth does not come from God.

Well first of all, no they are somewhat different statement, and second of all, yes truth does not come from god.

Allow me to illustrate the difference. Lying is possible, even if your god is incapable of it, others are. It's easy to knowingly make a statement that is either logically inconsistant or inconsistant with available evidence. Nothing crazy about that.

However, squaring the circle (in euclidian space) or making 2 + 2 = 5 (using the standard decimal system) is logically impossible no matter what way you look at it. No one is capable of making that work, ever.

My point is very simple, and you have evaded tackling it. Since god can never redefine reality to make 2 + 2 = 5, "math" must be "more fundamental" than god.

Second of all, how can truth come "from" ANY being? That doesn't even begin to make sense. You speak as if "truth" is some liquid gushing out of a pipe. It's a lot simpler than that. "Truth" is merely a value we assign to various statements. 1 or 0 basically.

[Dark Jaguar]

So, do we live in a uniform universe, or a random, changing one?



It HAS operated uniformly, proceeding on the assumption that it WILL operate uniformly, is question begging (especially given the 'random, chance' nature of the universe most atheists espouse).

Question begging? You seem to fail to understand the very nature of the scientific method. We can't know ANYTHING in science with 100% accuracy. Every single last theory in science is tentative, ALWAYS up for revision in the face of future evidence. It's not perfect, but no method is, not even "divine revelation" (the flaw there is you have to have some way of checking the veracity of this divine knowledge, how do you know it's true?). Gravity for example is only a working theory because it has held up to scrutiny SO FAR, and it is a safe assumption that it will continue to do so BECAUSE it hasn't failed yet. If however it did stop working one day, then our current theory of gravity would need to be revised. In fact, it DOES need revising to fit in with quantum theory. Again, the past is simply being used to predict the future because so far it's worked fine, BUT if the universe started going all crazy go nuts then we'd need to revise our theories, though we would all fall apart in unpredictable ways so practically speaking we couldn't.

Nope. It is not a causality argument. My argument is that you could not even make sense of causality if God did not exist, as God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility.

Why is that? Why is god needed for intelligibility? I don't see the big logic jump here. Seems like a non-sequiter to me. What makes god a requirement? Again, all you would have to say is "well that's the only answer I can come up with".

[syetenb]

No I mean that people look and then say "That seems good enough to me."

With reasoning they accept as valid on blind faith.

Fine. Proof by counter example:
Imagine a consistent universe in which god does not intervene. We allow the observers of the universe to formulate their logic by noting common reoccurring patterns and abstracting away the differences, deleting any patterns that do not always hold.

How could one ‘note common reocurring patterns’ without assuming the logic necessary to determine if there even is a pattern???

Sure I could, just as I know that a hot plate I put my hand on appears to be surprisingly hot without having to logically validate the claim.

Tell me how you would know that the hot plate ‘appears’ to be hot. Tell me how you can know that logic ‘appears to work.’

I don't think I am.

Do you know that you ‘do not currently know anything for certain?’

I posit that the Bhagavad Gita provides at least as much justification for the laws of logic as the bible does. Feel free to refute it ;)

I support the positive claim that the Bible provides justification for universal, abstract, invariants, on my site: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/how-do-christians-account-for.php
Now you show me how the Bhagavad Gita does this. (Is this how YOU account for logic by the way?)

This sounds breathtakingly arrogant to me. How can you possibly assert without justification that you have been favoured above others to interpret the bible correctly?

Where have I done this?

[syetenb]

Already shown on page 1. And of course there's lots of other examples in the bible about rape being justified because the "lord" says so.

Should be pretty easy to list one then.

Ohhh, nice evasion. How about you actually answer my question first: What makes you think lying and say women weren't raped isn't a vile and disgusting thing to do,

Never said it wasn't. Your standard now?

[cyborg]

Why are you persisting in personifying abstract concepts and insisting they must be 'created' by someone rather than just accept the fact that it is irrelevant who constructed the system since anyone who constructs the same system will get the same results?

Why? Because to admit this would be to totally circumvent all your nonsense.

[syetenb]

And how do we know these are absolutely true?

By the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Bible being true, you could not know ANYTHING.

[Cosmo]

By the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Bible being true, you could not know ANYTHING.

Well, you'd know at least that the Bible isn't true. :rolleyes:

[syetenb]

Why are you persisting in personifying abstract concepts and insisting they must be 'created' by someone rather than just accept the fact that it is irrelevant who constructed the system since anyone who constructs the same system will get the same results?

Why? Because to admit this would be to totally circumvent all your nonsense.

How do you know that your reasoning is reliable again? Oh wait, you left that hanging. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Brainache]

By the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Bible being true, you could not know ANYTHING.

We don't know anything. Therefore the Bible isn't true.

Just kidding, but seriously why do you say that the Bible must be true for intelligibility to exist? That makes no sense.

The Bible is a book written by human beings.

Are you saying that if no one had written the bible, that a self consistent universe could not exist?

[cyborg]

How do you know that your reasoning is reliable again?

Irrelevant question. Either I apply the correct logical procedures or I do not. It is mechanistically trivial. A higher concept of abstract reasoning is irrelevant.

Oh wait, you left that hanging. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Yes.

[Jekyll]

With reasoning they accept as valid on blind faith. If you look and check it can not be called blind faith.
How could one ‘note common reocurring patterns’ without assuming the logic necessary to determine if there even is a pattern???What logic do you think is needed? Be precise.

Tell me how you would know that the hot plate ‘appears’ to be hot. Tell me how you can know that logic ‘appears to work.’ Because I feel it burn, and because I have seen logic work but haven't seen it fail.

Do you know that you ‘do not currently know anything for certain?’ No but I'm quite certain of it. Have we reached fully fledged reclusion in this conversation yet?

I support the positive claim that the Bible provides justification for universal, abstract, invariants, on my site: http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/how-do-christians-account-for.php
Now you show me how the Bhagavad Gita does this. (Is this how YOU account for logic by the way?)
No I've already told you how I account for logic. But you told me that you would refute the Bhadgavad Gita. Kindly do so.

Where have I done this?
Here.
Me:But how do you know you're not misinterpreting the bible in the same way as you say Christine is?
You:I have help :-)
Me:Ooooh! Argument from unnamed authority. How do you know they're not wrong?
You:I thought it was obvious :-)
Me:How do you know you're listening properly?
You:By the grace of God.
Me:This sounds breathtakingly arrogant to me. How can you possibly assert without justification that you have been favoured above others to interpret the bible correctly?
You:Where have I done this?

[Lonewulf]

Syetenb:

You know, I'd like to sit and read through your every argument and give a long, lengthy, logical (or at least attempted logical) reply, but I don't have the time nor motivation, and I'm sure others here have expressed things far more eloquently than I have.

However, I have to say that some of the "logical arguments" located in your website seem like a simple word game. Such as the "absolute truth" bit. Logic isn't just about word games, and if all you're doing is participating in word play over logical argument, then as Dawkins would have put it (as he did when he attacked the ontological argument), it's just like kids on the playground trying to "trick" each other using vocabulary and english. It has nothing to do with actually coming up with a model of reality, but has everything to do with, "Hah! Now you have to admit I'm right!"

However, it's obvious that you've thought this through to an extent (though I do not agree with your logic), and you attempt to be civil and polite as you go through it. Needless to say, as I'm pressed for time (I have an astronomy project to get to work on soon, then an SCA fighter practice to go to...), I'll just state these things:

1) Scientific laws are not absolute. They merely haven't been broken as of yet. Theory goes that they will not be broken, but if they are, then scientific theory changes. Everything in science is inductive, and nothing is deductive.

2) Morality is relative, dependant on culture and individual. What goes for one culture does not go for another. Morality has changed throughout time (and throughout the bible, I'd add, as one tribe moves onto another). But, even moreso, without humans or any life at all, "morality" ceases to exist. Unlike, say, the physical laws of the universe.

Morality is a subjective viewpoint taken on by a group of humans, whether that group is large or small. It doesn't matter what I feel about the idea of a family member being molested as children; I will state that the ancient Athenian greeks didn't consider child molestation to be immoral, though. If you take a time machine and try to prove to them that morality is absolute by asking about their views on child molestation, I'm sure that you'll get an interesting response, but not acceptance of your argument.

Everything in morality is dependant on perspective and frame of reference, from time period to geographic location to cultural upbringing. Nothing is objective in a fixed position.

[DangerousBeliefs]

By the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Bible being true, you could not know ANYTHING.

Before the Bible existed (3rd century AD), was nothing known?

[DangerousBeliefs]

By the way, I'm starting to see your logic*

1) Bible exists
2) Bible is true word of God
3) Therefore God exists
4) Hand pick quotes to show own personal views on morality
5) ???
6) Profit!


*Logic? It's called circular reasoning. Why are you all still debating with this guy? The very basic premise is obviously false and all else follows. Welcome to a typical day of fundamentalist Christian reasoning. :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

Why are you all still debating with this guy?

Hoping for the improbable.

[Sceptic Realist]

And what do people use when they widely accept logic as being valid? Logic! (A tad circualr no?)

If logic weren't valid, you wouldn't be able to post on this forum, because computers would not exist.

Huh? Because I can’t show that God doesn’t exist, I haven’t proven that he does???

Uh, so far you've proven nothing at all.

Nope, God is the necessary precondition for logic, logic exists, therefore God exists.

K, there is something wrong with your proof fundamentally. Your first statement can't be proven. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Because it cannot be proven that god exists, you cannot prove that he/she/it is a necessary precondition for something that does exist, because if God does not exist, then this is untrue, and you're entire proof is shot to hell. You follow?

Proof has nothing to do with persuasion.

The most humorous display of irony I've seen in a while. Thanks for that.

[Lonewulf]

And what do people use when they widely accept logic as being valid? Logic! (A tad circualr no?)

Another Word Game Fallacy (which I have dubbed).

Logic is a system of rules that starts with a premise and builds itself up. The premise is pretty easy. For instance, let's work with mathematics:

2+2=4. How do we know that? Well, it's demonstrable. I take two apples. I take two more apples. Therefore, I have four. Nothing changes this, whether it's the existance of God or the non-existance of God, this fact stands alone. There is no logical way for there to be three apples and two apples and ending up with four, unless some "magic trick" has been implemented.

So...

God is not necessary, nor desired for explanation (especially if one follows the philosophy of Occam's Razor). Internally consistent logic is. We start with that premise, with some proof that the premise works. The logic is compared to the real world, and then used as a starting ground.

Eventually you get into theoreticals and imaginary numbers, but it's all handled through the process of math. It continually shows itself to be a reliable model of thought; calculus, geometry, algebra, all are used by many professions, from sciences to medicine to engineering. You take advantage of all of these things; why do you rely on it?

I don't rely on it because "God must exist, therefore logic works", I rely on it because, "Logic works, and it has been shown to work".

Quid pro quo.

[Foster Zygote]

According to my worldview they can't, why can't they according to yours?

Our respective "world views" are irrelevant. If your world view was that 2+2=5 then you would be incorrect. 2+2=4 independently of our "world views". The fact remains: If the Bible, or any other source, makes contradictory statements then it cannot be 100% true.

[Hokulele]

If they wish to posit their justification for logic, I will be happy to refute them.


Considering the fact that you are exclusively using a Western definition of logic, apparently mainly derived from Greek roots, an Eastern definition of logic must be used in order for the justification to even exist. Unlike Western thought, there are no absolutes in a philosophy such as pure Taoism. When I describe Taoism here, I am referring to the texts by Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, not neo-Taoism which includes elements of Hindu, Buddhist, and Confucianist thinking. Whereas you posit there are absolutes in right and wrong, Taoism sees Yin and Yang, with the two being completely interdependent and interrelated. Everything combines Yin and Yang, no one action is purely one or the other. Good and evil can be defined as opposites in a sense, but cannot be extracted and examined as separate elements. Actions are examined as falling along a continuum, rather than with a strict division into categories.

Chaos theory, Bayesian calculations, fuzzy logic and a host of other recent scietific theories and investigations can be seen as more in harmony with Eastern logical structure than Western. It is possible that if strict Aristotelian thinking, as promoted by theologians, may have resulted in the relatively late development of these fields.

Within this pattern of thought, it can easily be said there is no god of the absolute, as there is no absolute. If you hold to be true that without god there can be no logic, you must first prove that the logic structure you chose is more appropriate to reasoning than others.

[Apathia]

You absolutely don't buy into them? :-)

I functionaly don't buy into absolute content in Ontology, Epistimology, and ethics.
In Mahayana Buddhist Philosophy there is claim of one absolute: that all is relative/contingent/absent of an inherent existance and essnce.
It's a whole body of philosophical thought that doesn't and doesn't need to resort to and posit absolutes, except for its one statement, that of its nature would be of no use to your argument.

I myself, am not commited to any philosophical fantasies. Taking into view the history of human philosophy and theology and all the varied scriptural authorities, the simplest conclusion I come to is that in Metaphysics there is no objective truth.

It simply comes back to your admission that you are following through your own presuppositions. You hope to get from what you aglnowledge as a matter of presupposition to your absolute authority. along the way, you move your knight; pick it up and turn a corner, no you take it to the opposite side of the board, and immediately promote it to a queen.

Unfortunately without God 'compassion' is arbitrary, and therefore meaningless.

You are positing compassion as an intellectial ethical principle. In doing so, you will eventually make "Compassion" more important than people.
When I respect you as a person, you are not the object of my abstract "compassion."



We are to love, because God first loved us.
Why the middle man?
We are to be "perfect as God is." meaning to be perfectly impartial as God is who sends or withholds the rain upon the just and unjust.
Why does God love us. Is it because we are the best of his lot of created items? Is it because we have been good little girs and boys?
If it's anything less than the unconditinality of our simply being, then its not compassion. You can unconditionally love yourself and others without having to have a Theistic justification.

And beware Greeks bearing gifts. You reject the Cosmological and Ontological arguments, but you still buy into the Argument from Absolutes. This contains the same poison as the others.

[Hokulele]

By the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Bible being true, you could not know ANYTHING.


Considering the bible in its present form hasn't been around all that long, I am amazed the Greeks and Chinese got as far as they did. :cool:

[c4ts]

Of course not. As I said, ALL worldviews are necessarily circular, but not all (read only one) is valid. I assume that your own human reasoning is your ultimate authority. Please tell me, without being circular, how you know that your reasoning is valid?

Logic in this sense is an axiom of communication and I never intended to prove it. My reasoning simply has to be based on the conventions of symbolic communication, that words must stand for things more complicated than phonemes. This means the ideas expressed by language must relate to one another in an intelligible way, or else they are incomprehensible. As long as the system remain consistent and intelligible, and I work within it, I need no validations from authority for communication to occur.

You could choose to ignore logic, which is fine by me, but don't expect to communicate. Also, don't expect anyone to be able to prove something incomprehensible using this system.

[ChristineR]

If you take college level algebra (usually a 300 or 400 level class, not pre-calculus) you will learn about math systems where 2+2=5. It's not impossible at all, it just leads to various other weird restrictions, like 5 = 4.

The best know practical application of these weird algebras is a clock, where 11 + 3 = 2. There are other, more complicated applications which are also useful. 2+2=5 is not all that important.

The point of all this is that 2+2=4 is a definition. It happens to be a system which applies to counting discrete objects. Two apples and two more apples are four apples. It does not apply to certain other objects. Two crowds and two more crowds is a riot, not four crowds.

[Apathia]

By the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Bible being true, you could not know ANYTHING.

Ah, so it is, in the end, the Presuppositionalist Argument. It assumes that short of some absolute authority, knowledge is meaningless. We must use pressupositions that we cannot prove, so we need an ultimate authority to tell us they are. Enter the Bible.

The first time I heard this was from a Bahai. He called me "arrogant" because I didn't accept the authority of the Bahai scriptures. A few months later a Baptist pastor repeated the argument with the Bible being the revelatory authority. Of course the same argument is use for the Koran and the Lotus Sutra. (Namyoho Rengekyo!)

Actually we are quite able to be humanly compassionate without these authorities. In spite of the Bible, we found Slavery repugnant.

Of course little children need their parents authority and example. So we have writ large in the sky super parents. Some individuals outgrow these parental Gods. I wish the most of human kind could. But it's the age old struggle between freedom and security. The God you offer is the God of security. And in the present world climate, that is the most attractive one.

[Apathia]

Didn't you get the memos? 'EVIDENCE' takes priority over 'Absolute Reason'.

Yes, Thanks Jekyll, I did!

[Beleth]

Proof does not equal persuasion. I'll leave you to your blind faith.
The same could be said to you.

Have you actually read the Bible? The entire Bible?

[jsfisher]

Ah, so it is, in the end, the Presuppositionalist Argument. It assumes that short of some absolute authority, knowledge is meaningless. We must use pressupositions that we cannot prove, so we need an ultimate authority to tell us they are. Enter the Bible.


Not only is it proof by assumption that a god exists, there is a post-supposition that the must-exist god is the god of the Bible.

Who needs logic when you can just assume?

[Beleth]

Not only is it proof by assumption that a god exists, there is a post-supposition that the must-exist god is the god of the Bible.
And which god of the Bible? YHWH, or El?

[Hokulele]

And which god of the Bible? YHWH, or El?


Baal

[Apathia]

Just down the hill from Im Do-son’s small Mill valley Zen Center was a Baptist church. Its pastor often visited the master with obvious intentions to convert him.

One afternoon as they were taking tea together, Pastor Norton asked, “If there are no ethical absolutes, as you Buddhists teach, what is there to prevent me from pouring this pot of boiling water on your head?”

“The question is,” Master Im replied, “If there are ethical absolutes, as you Christians teach, what is there to prevent you from strapping me to a rack and applying the thumb screws for the sake of my salvation?” You tell me, Pastor Norton, why you aren’t going to scald my shaved head.”

“It would be a sin,” the pastor answered.

“So, “the fear of the Lord” stays your hand?”

“Yes, without the moral authority of God there would be nothing to restrain human wickedness.”

“Indeed,” replied the master, “The Law was given for criminal minds such as yours. I am grateful that you are under its jurisdiction.”

“Actually,” Pastor Norton qualified, “We Christians aren’t under the Law but under grace.”

“And so am I,” stated Master Im. “Grace is the reason why I, myself, am not about to scald you. Don’t misunderstand me. The grace I speak of isn’t a law, principle, or virtue. It’s simply that I care enough about you that I’d rather not harm you.”

“That may spare me for the moment,” Norton replied, “and maybe it works for you today, but in the long run a conscience informed by principle must be your guide.”

“Then I am an object of your good conscience?”

“Yes.”

“Well, good Christian, you have already scalded my head.”

[ChristineR]

Baal

Baal YHWH? I recently learned that Baal is a title, not a name, and that it was sometimes applied to our old friend Jehovah. However, El is also a title, so Baal El doesn't work.

[cyborg]

Baal is a System Lord, everyone knows that.

[Cosmo]

I thought Baal was the Lord of Hate. You fought him at the end of Act 5, and he had some pretty good drops.

[Wavicle]

Wow, this is one long thread for establishing an essentially simply syllogism for syetenb's argument:

God makes things absolutely true/moral/etc.
Absolute truth/morality/etc. exists.
Therefore God exists

It's internally consistent as long you accept both premises. His debate here, as well as his website, is designed to have you accept both premises for the sake of argument so that you get stuck at the final conclusion.

The part most people here take exception to, and the part that he presents second is God must make things absolutely true. He does this by illicit conversion of the second line to imply anything else is a belief and therefore a relative, not absolute truth.

[c4ts]

Wow, this is one long thread for establishing an essentially simply syllogism for syetenb's argument:

God makes things absolutely true/moral/etc.
Absolute truth/morality/etc. exists.
Therefore God exists

It's internally consistent as long you accept both premises. His debate here, as well as his website, is designed to have you accept both premises for the sake of argument so that you get stuck at the final conclusion.

The part most people here take exception to, and the part that he presents second is God must make things absolutely true. He does this by illicit conversion of the second line to imply anything else is a belief and therefore a relative, not absolute truth.

I did wonder about those two lines. If God is responsible for these absolutes, then he can change them, but if God can change them, then they're not really absolutes.

[c4ts]

I thought Baal was the Lord of Hate. You fought him at the end of Act 5, and he had some pretty good drops.

Yeah, but you couldn't jump back for repeated bashings once you killed him, unlike Mephisto, Bringer of Set Items.

[Beleth]

However, El is also a title,
And it's a title that is not once applied to YHVH. It only refers, in the Bible, to someone else. Hence my question of which god of the Bible he is referring to.

[Jekyll]

Wow, this is one long thread for establishing an essentially simply syllogism for syetenb's argument:

God makes things absolutely true/moral/etc.
Absolute truth/morality/etc. exists.
Therefore God exists

It's internally consistent as long you accept both premises. His debate here, as well as his website, is designed to have you accept both premises for the sake of argument so that you get stuck at the final conclusion.

Almost, you need 'God is the only thing that can make things absolutely true/moral/whatever.' for it to work.

[Hokulele]

Baal YHWH? I recently learned that Baal is a title, not a name, and that it was sometimes applied to our old friend Jehovah. However, El is also a title, so Baal El doesn't work.

And it's a title that is not once applied to YHVH. It only refers, in the Bible, to someone else. Hence my question of which god of the Bible he is referring to.


I made a flippant remark, and ended up learning something new. Cool!

Baal is a System Lord, everyone knows that.

I thought Baal was the Lord of Hate. You fought him at the end of Act 5, and he had some pretty good drops.


And then learned another new thing. :boggled:

[Apathia]

Actually his argument is something closer to this:
God is the source of objectivity. There can be no objective statement without God, for all human statements are finite, limited and incapable of dilvering a definitive objective truth. But we insist upon objectivity, and therefore need a standard. Only the Objectively Real, itself, the Absolute Reality, noncontingent, and having the Last Word, can speak the objective truth we desire. Therefore God exists.

It's a kind of cosmic wishful thinking. it appeals to people who are absolutist in their thinking and feeling. It gives a certain amount of security that we aren't at the mercy of creating our own way, but can be Right.

It's another one of those faulty Either-Ors. Just because the intellectual fiction of the Absolute doesn't exist, it doesn't follow that there is no functional objectivity.

There are very intelligent scientists who find it appealing, though, that there is some kind of Cosmic Logos. They generaly adopt the Deist position. Einstein for example. And even Dawkins has said that if what is meant by God is merely the overarching rationality of reality, he has no objection, though he finds the word, "God" a bit misleading in its conotations.

But I repeat. It's still a knight jump leap to make this Greek philosophical phantasy into the Christian, individual. personal, creator God.
That's where SeytenB hopes we will make the leap of faith without thinking.
If he just gets someone to the brink, all it will take is a little push.

[treble_head]

However, El is also a title, so Baal El doesn't work. What about Jor El?

[l0rca]

...Further, I don't see where his argument necessarily needs the New Testament to compliment. It seems all his rationalizing is coming from a more fundamental Jewish context.

Further still, I don't know why I'm still posting in this thread.

[Hawk one]

What about Jor El?

Hmmm... So Jor-El didn't merely send Superman to earth, he created Earth in the first place to have a place to send his son to!

Heck, makes sense to me. After all, that would explain why the yellow sun gives Kal-El (Superman's real name, for the non-geeks) such great powers, and that he can do pretty much whatever he wants to us humans because there's no way we can beat him. So Jor-El's plan was in fact to use his son for inherited world domination, but he couldn't know that Kal-El would grow up to be such a wuss that cared about honesty and being good and all that.

[Cosmo]

Yeah, but you couldn't jump back for repeated bashings once you killed him, unlike Mephisto, Bringer of Set Items.

Are you sure? If you play online, at least, you can farm Act 5 as much as you like. In fact, I understand that with the demise of the cow level, Baal is now the preferred method of grinding.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hmmm... So Jor-El didn't merely send Superman to earth, he created Earth in the first place to have a place to send his son to!

Heck, makes sense to me. After all, that would explain why the yellow sun gives Kal-El (Superman's real name, for the non-geeks) such great powers, and that he can do pretty much whatever he wants to us humans because there's no way we can beat him. So Jor-El's plan was in fact to use his son for inherited world domination, but he couldn't know that Kal-El would grow up to be such a wuss that cared about honesty and being good and all that.

Great, so now we can't even ask questions like what would happen if Jesus fought Superman because Jesus is Superman? I need a whole new batch of bumper stickers.

[Lonewulf]

And in the present world climate, that is the most attractive one.

Challenge:

Provide me one time period where the world climate was not hostile.

Personally, I cannot think of a single one. Even in the lulls, there was conflict.

Well, maybe the roaring '20s, but still.

Maybe that's why religion is so prevalent. Maybe it's also why, every few decades or so, there is some new "theory" that the world is going to end the next day/year.

[Apathia]

Challenge:

Provide me one time period where the world climate was not hostile.

Personally, I cannot think of a single one. Even in the lulls, there was conflict.

Well, maybe the roaring '20s, but still.

Maybe that's why religion is so prevalent. Maybe it's also why, every few decades or so, there is some new "theory" that the world is going to end the next day/year.

Lonewulf,

Good point! 9-11 or 7-11 Gods are always popular comodities.

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf,

Good point! 9-11 or 7-11 Gods are always popular comodities.

What do 7-11s have to do with my statement?

Are 7-11s across the nation threatening thermonuclear warfare if you don't buy their new 99 cent burritos? :D

[Apathia]

What do 7-11s have to do with my statement?

Are 7-11s across the nation threatening thermonuclear warfare if you don't buy their new 99 cent burritos? :D

You can get those burritos 24-7! Even on a Sunday morning!
They carry Peter Pan peanut butter too!
Clap your hands!

[boloboffin]

Does anyone else find it funny that the man is arguing for absolute truths by reasoning with the analogy of a purely axiomatic system, which he has to define precisely in order for it to be 'absolutely' true?

Absolutely right there with you.

[Beleth]

I've had time to think about this over the last few hours, and I have now realized that I can't think of anything that, given the right context, I wouldn't do.

For instance, if my choices were "rape a child" or "annihilate all of humanity", well, I'd feel really bad for the kid afterwards.

Likewise, if my choices were "annihilate all of humanity" and "make Earth uninhabitable for all life forever", well, maybe something else will evolve after I annihilate all of humanity.

And so on and so on. I haven't come up with anything that I'd consider the Ultimate Atrocity. I don't think it is within my ability to do so. This is kind of an argument from ignorance, but the burden of proving the existence of an Ultimate Atrocity is not mine to bear.

Now of course, if I believed in an Ultimate Authority, and that this Ultimate Authority has presented His Laws to me, then it is easy to come up with Ultimate Atrocities. If I thought the Ultimate Laws were the Ten Commandments, for instance, then "rape a child" becomes a more desirable act than, say, "flip on a light switch on the Sabbath".

[D'rok]

I've had time to think about this over the last few hours, and I have now realized that I can't think of anything that, given the right context, I wouldn't do.

For instance, if my choices were "rape a child" or "annihilate all of humanity", well, I'd feel really bad for the kid afterwards.

Likewise, if my choices were "annihilate all of humanity" and "make Earth uninhabitable for all life forever", well, maybe something else will evolve after I annihilate all of humanity.

And so on and so on. I haven't come up with anything that I'd consider the Ultimate Atrocity. I don't think it is within my ability to do so. This is kind of an argument from ignorance, but the burden of proving the existence of an Ultimate Atrocity is not mine to bear.

Now of course, if I believed in an Ultimate Authority, and that this Ultimate Authority has presented His Laws to me, then it is easy to come up with Ultimate Atrocities. If I thought the Ultimate Laws were the Ten Commandments, for instance, then "rape a child" becomes a more desirable act than, say, "flip on a light switch on the Sabbath".

I've usually thought about these kinds of dilemmas in different terms.

For example, either "I" have to rape a child or all of humanity will be annihilated, not "I" have to rape a child or "I" have to annihilate all of humanity. I can't fathom a moral dilemma where inaction is not a choice - that seems to me to be a false dilemma. The question is usually the moral consequences of inaction.

In that case, I have never been able to imagine myself commiting the single immoral act, even if the consequences of my inaction are vastly more immoral.

But this still does not mean that morality is absoute or that an absolute moral authority has commanded me. I have come to a different conclusion about morality than you have.

Of course according to syetenb I can't even reason about morality if the bible isn't true. :rolleyes:

[ChristineR]

I've had time to think about this over the last few hours, and I have now realized that I can't think of anything that, given the right context, I wouldn't do.

For instance, if my choices were "rape a child" or "annihilate all of humanity", well, I'd feel really bad for the kid afterwards.

Likewise, if my choices were "annihilate all of humanity" and "make Earth uninhabitable for all life forever", well, maybe something else will evolve after I annihilate all of humanity.

And so on and so on. I haven't come up with anything that I'd consider the Ultimate Atrocity. I don't think it is within my ability to do so. This is kind of an argument from ignorance, but the burden of proving the existence of an Ultimate Atrocity is not mine to bear.

Now of course, if I believed in an Ultimate Authority, and that this Ultimate Authority has presented His Laws to me, then it is easy to come up with Ultimate Atrocities. If I thought the Ultimate Laws were the Ten Commandments, for instance, then "rape a child" becomes a more desirable act than, say, "flip on a light switch on the Sabbath".

To me this is not inconsistent with absolute moral values. For example, if your value is "the greatest good for the greatest number" it is obvious that you should rape the child. It's also pretty obvious that such a situation could never occur. I bring that up because the problem with "greatest good" is that it is often impossible to rate or even perceive good, which sends you down into the social theories of morality. In a society where your choices might be rape or genocide, you would have a hard time measuring goods.

[D'rok]

To me this is not inconsistent with absolute moral values. For example, if your value is "the greatest good for the greatest number" it is obvious that you should rape the child. It's also pretty obvious that such a situation could never occur. I bring that up because the problem with "greatest good" is that it is often impossible to rate or even perceive good, which sends you down into the social theories of morality. In a society where your choices might be rape or genocide, you would have a hard time measuring goods.

It's only consistent with absolute personal morality. As per my previous post, I have a similarily absolute position but from the opposite perspective.

Of course, I suppose one of us could just be wrong.

[Apathia]

The irony is that the Old Testament with its atrocities and atrocious God speaks for a different Theological perspective than the one behind these Greek Philosophical arguments Christians try to use to their detriment.
the Divine is more robust and complex than these washed out mental abstactions.

It runs afoul of the New Testament as well. The Moral Absolute becomes more important than life and persons. This kind of legalism really got Jesus pissed (in American slang) on numerous occasions.
The thrust of Paul's letters is that the Christian life isn't about obedience, but faith (faith in a more comprehensive sense of trust and community than just believing something without proof).

People have subjective reasons for the theologies they believe, including myself in taking the position that the Divine isn't an individual cosmic being but a quality of relationship to myself and others.

It makes for a much better dialog of sharing life, when a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or whoever is able to transcend the dogma and speak faith with me.
So this is why I jumped into this thread with its "proof" of nothing of spiritual value.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Dammit, Hyparxis, stop making so much sense. Now you've gone and turned a perfectly useless waste of a thread into something meaningful.

I hope you're happy with yourself.:)

[Sceptic Realist]

In that case, I have never been able to imagine myself commiting the single immoral act, even if the consequences of my inaction are vastly more immoral.

That's an interesting point. Sorta like killing Hitler to stop the Holocaust (assuming that would have prevented it). Is it okay to kill that person to prevent other deaths? I suppose it's different for many people, but even given the fact that I am sure I will go insane if I take a life, I think I would indeed do it, for the simple fact that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Of course, I suppose one of us could just be wrong.

The only way I can see implementing "right and wrong" into morals would be law. But even then, context matters. Premeditated murder is punishable by life imprisonment or possibly death. Killing someone in self defence has no penalty (that I am aware of - correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think there's such a solid division of right and wrong, black and white, as some people think.

[pandamonk]

That's an interesting point. Sorta like killing Hitler to stop the Holocaust (assuming that would have prevented it). Is it okay to kill that person to prevent other deaths? I suppose it's different for many people, but even given the fact that I am sure I will go insane if I take a life, I think I would indeed do it, for the simple fact that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.



The only way I can see implementing "right and wrong" into morals would be law. But even then, context matters. Premeditated murder is punishable by life imprisonment or possibly death. Killing someone in self defence has no penalty. I don't think there's such a solid division of right and wrong, black and white, as some people think.
So, you're arguing against absolute morality?

[Sceptic Realist]

So, you're arguing against absolute morality?

Touche. Let me clarify: I do not have "absolute morality", as you call it. That doesn't mean some people do. It also doesn't mean that they are wrong. There are many people who think that killing is NEVER okay, no matter who is doing it or for what reason, and who is to say that they are wrong? The only constant is the law. If your morality says "it's okay to kill someone if they look at you funny", the law is going to disagree.

[pandamonk]

Touche. Let me clarify: I do not have "absolute morality", as you call it. That doesn't mean some people do. It also doesn't mean that they are wrong. There are many people who think that killing is NEVER okay, no matter who is doing it or for what reason, and who is to say that they are wrong? The only constant is the law. If your morality says "it's okay to kill someone if they look at you funny", the law is going to disagree.
But SyetenB was arguing that there is an absolute morality. One that governs us all. I was arguing the point that there is exists a personal and social morality, which is what i think you are arguing, but not an absolute morality per se.

[D'rok]

That's an interesting point. Sorta like killing Hitler to stop the Holocaust (assuming that would have prevented it). Is it okay to kill that person to prevent other deaths? I suppose it's different for many people, but even given the fact that I am sure I will go insane if I take a life, I think I would indeed do it, for the simple fact that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

There are equivalent moral dangers in the "needs of the many" argument. In fact (Godwin forgive us) the example you brought up is just such a case. The "needs of the many" argument is just another way of saying "the ends justify the means". In other words, the needs of the many (the German nation) outweighed the needs of the few (German Jews). This is an atrocity-friendly moral argument - at least potentially.

[Lonewulf]

There are equivalent moral dangers in the "needs of the many" argument. In fact (Godwin forgive us) the example you brought up is just such a case. The "needs of the many" argument is just another way of saying "the ends justify the means". In other words, the needs of the many (the German nation) outweighed the needs of the few (German Jews). This is an atrocity-friendly moral argument - at least potentially.

While it's an atrocity-friendly moral argument, you cannot deny the fact that the idea of the Aryan people coming from some lost nation of Atlantis was entirely and completely based on woo, and was ridiculous to the extreme.

Anyone with half a skeptical mind and the willingness to backtrack the studies that led to the idea of the "Aryan People" would find out how full of crap it was.

Then there's the idea that the Jews leeched off of society... pfah. It was all based on woo.

[D'rok]

While it's an atrocity-friendly moral argument, you cannot deny the fact that the idea of the Aryan people coming from some lost nation of Atlantis was entirely and completely based on woo, and was ridiculous to the extreme.

Anyone with half a skeptical mind and the willingness to backtrack the studies that led to the idea of the "Aryan People" would find out how full of crap it was.

Then there's the idea that the Jews leeched off of society... pfah. It was all based on woo.

That's true. The "needs of the many" requires a correct evaluation of the many and the needs if atrocity is to be avoided.

[Beleth]

To me this is not inconsistent with absolute moral values. For example, if your value is "the greatest good for the greatest number" it is obvious that you should rape the child.
Good point, and also a good refutation of syetenb's chain of reason. Even if absolute moral values exist, there is no guarantee that the true absolute moral values are the ones delineated in the Bible. For instance, "do the greatest good for the greatest number" is in direct contradiction to "Thou shalt not murder".

Proof -
According to the Bible, the following statements are true:
Everyone is born with original sin on their soul. (Rom 5:12)
Baptism is a necesarry step to wipe sin from one's soul. (Mk 16:16)
Those who are sinless go to Heaven when they die. (Rom 6:23)
The best thing that can happen to someone is to go to Heaven when they die. (kind of axiomatic)If you take those four predicates along with the moral absolute "Do the greatest good for the greatest number of people", one's moral course of action is clear: kill as many people right after they are baptized as possible. But this is in direct contradiction to "Thou shalt not murder."

So it's pretty clear that "do the greatest good for the greatest number of people" is not a moral absolute based on Christian teachings. Yet if any moral absolutes exist, DTGGFTGNOP is on the short list of them.

Therefore Christianity does not have a monopoly on moral absolutes.

Therefore the Bible is not the end-all and be-all of morality.

Therefore the ultimate source of moral absolutes is not (any of) the god(s) in the Bible.

It's also pretty obvious that such a situation could never occur.I disagree. The probability of it happening could be arbitrarily small, but not zero.

I bring that up because the problem with "greatest good" is that it is often impossible to rate or even perceive good, which sends you down into the social theories of morality. In a society where your choices might be rape or genocide, you would have a hard time measuring goods.I define "good" based on my definition of "evil": the source of intentionally-caused suffering. "Good" therefore is "the source of intentionally-alleviated, or intentionally-prevented, suffering."

[jeremyp]

In other words, the needs of the many (the German nation) outweighed the needs of the few (German Jews). This is an atrocity-friendly moral argument - at least potentially.
I would argue that the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. Fortunately for me, your argument has a big hole in that the German people did not have a collective need to exterminate the Jewish population. I've even seen it argued that the German war effort suffered because of the obsession with killing all the Jews.

[D'rok]

I would argue that the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. Fortunately for me, your argument has a big hole in that the German people did not have a collective need to exterminate the Jewish population. I've even seen it argued that the German war effort suffered because of the obsession with killing all the Jews.

Agreed. Which is way I said "at least potentially". And then said this in a later post:

The "needs of the many" requires a correct evaluation of the many and the needs if atrocity is to be avoided.

Incorrect evaluations can and have been made.

[Sceptic Realist]

(double post)

[Sceptic Realist]

There are equivalent moral dangers in the "needs of the many" argument. In fact (Godwin forgive us) the example you brought up is just such a case. The "needs of the many" argument is just another way of saying "the ends justify the means". In other words, the needs of the many (the German nation) outweighed the needs of the few (German Jews). This is an atrocity-friendly moral argument - at least potentially.

I see what you're saying, but you're not taking it the way I meant it. Let me try a more direct example. There's a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest in a crowded building. You're a security guard a ways away, and see him pull out the deatonator. You have no time to get to him to subdue him, but you have time enough to take a shot. Do you take him out, or do you let him blow up the building and kill a bunch of innocent civilians? You could try to meerly injure him, but you run the risk of either not stopping him from setting it off, or missing altogether. That's the kind if thing I'm talking about. The Hitler thing was a poor example. I'm only presenting this for the sake of argument, as most of the situations we're talking about are situations that I don't ever expect to be in in my life.

Oh, and the "needs of the many" thing was also a poor choice in words. Forgive me; I sometimes don't convey my thoughts the way I wish to. I"m just trying to brach off of your "inaction is far worse" musing.

[D'rok]

I see what you're saying, but you're not taking it the way I meant it. Let me try a more direct example. There's a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest in a crowded building. You're a security guard a ways away, and see him pull out the deatonator. You have no time to get to him to subdue him, but you have time enough to take a shot. Do you take him out, or do you let him blow up the building and kill a bunch of innocent civilians? You could try to meerly injure him, but you run the risk of either not stopping him from setting it off, or missing altogether. That's the kind if thing I'm talking about. The Hitler thing was a poor example. I'm only presenting this for the sake of argument, as most of the situations we're talking about are situations that I don't ever expect to be in in my life.

Yes...this is a much more problematic example for the kind of moral stance that I've taken. Basically, this is why I would be a crappy security guard. :)

In this case, I would hope that the security guard would open fire. But if it was me, I don't think I would do it...but who really knows? Hopefully I'll never have to find out.

Ultimately it just further drives home the point that morality is not absolute.

(Just to nitpick...if he's already pulled the detonator, shooting him won't do any good. The real moral dilemma would be whether or not to shoot him before he gets the chance to pull the detonator)

[pandamonk]

But SyetenB argued that God's law is absolute, that you must not murder. When asked "what is murder?", he gave a reply that murder is unlawful killing, or killing that goes against God. SyetenB will just reply that God would want you to kill the suicide bomber, so it wouldn't be murder, and therefore, in SyetenB's opinion, absolute morals still stand.

[D'rok]

But SyetenB argued that God's law is absolute, that you must not murder. When asked "what is murder?", he gave a reply that murder is unlawful killing, or killing that goes against God. SyetenB will just reply that God would want you to kill the suicide bomber, so it wouldn't be murder, and therefore, in SyetenB's opinion, absolute morals still stand.

Yes...the rhetorical power of a tautology is quite something isn't it.

[pandamonk]

Yes...the rhetorical power of a tautology is quite something isn't it.
It certainly is.

[Sceptic Realist]

But SyetenB argued that God's law is absolute, that you must not murder. When asked "what is murder?", he gave a reply that murder is unlawful killing, or killing that goes against God. SyetenB will just reply that God would want you to kill the suicide bomber, so it wouldn't be murder, and therefore, in SyetenB's opinion, absolute morals still stand.

Isn't the commandment "thou shalt not kill"? I don't think "God" made that distinction in the bible.

[pandamonk]

Isn't the commandment "thou shalt not kill"? I don't think "God" made that distinction in the bible.
Well there's debate about the translation of the word. Apparently the word used in the original text translates as "murder".