If you believe in the God of the Bible, why try to prove it logically?

[Mystical]

What do you think of this Missy C?

I think Inigo puts it perfectly:

And why do you keep saying 'come from god'? My claim is that morality requires a god to exist. Water requires H20 in order to exist, because water IS h20. But water doesn't 'come from' H20 does it?


1. Morality's instructions are instructions that confer reasons for compliance to any and all to whom they are addressed.
2. Only the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife and wishes to harm those interests should we fail to do as she instructs/favours would be instructions that would confer a reason to comply to all to whom they are addressed.
3. Morality is an agent of the kind outlined in 2 above.

An agent of that kind is, on common usage, 'a god'.

I think you're in denial about what God is. The version of God you relate is anti God. It's self contradictory/defeats itself. I think you're perfectly justified in rejecting it.

You have a problem, I think, divorcing that concept from anything which vaguely resembles it.

I'd like an explanation as to what you believe is the concept that I have trouble divorcing myself from, then a reason why you believe your beliefs are exempt from my reasoning. I don't see anti god, in relating what the 'holy words of god' say compared to the character of such god. Its possible to judge a judges' character by his judgements is it not?

I do think what inigo (sounds suspiciously similar to previously banned inDigo) says is circular because what he says starts with an assumption that refers its appeal to authority back on that assumption without an outside confirmation.

Morality is just a word. We all base our morality on different things; I base mine on existencial rights knowing full well that no one is enforcing those rights. Some people base theirs on those of the society they believe in, some people don't even believe morality exists. I agree to a point. The point being that because we exist we have rights and nothing circumstancial about our lives (like being born to a prince or a Canaanite) can change our status or the implied righrs that go along with that status. Even monkeys understand its bad to eat that treat if it means pushing a button that electricutes another monkey in order to get it. Inigos implied belief that morality is something that was implemented by a god would have evidence backing up his clai'm and there isn't anything observable in nature that gives a solid basis of rules of morality. Rather what I see are for the m ost part unconnected acts and behaviour being blanketed by a generalized word called morality that neither describes a class of rules nor implies a rule maker by default.