(July 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: fr0d0 and Rayaan, dueling cultists both debating whose Iron Age mythology is...what? More logical? Takes more or less faith to believe? The attributes of the god they believe exists?

What a useless discussion.

I couldn't care less what the outcome is.

In an atheist forum, even.

I predict a phalanx of useful failquotes....

(July 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: fr0d0 and Rayaan, dueling cultists both debating whose Iron Age mythology is...what? More logical? Takes more or less faith to believe? The attributes of the god they believe exists?

What a useless discussion.

I couldn't care less what the outcome is.

"I commneted on this thread to say how much I don't want to read it"


NICE!!!

(July 5, 2012 at 3:09 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 4, 2012 at 9:15 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Right so you admit the main reason you're a Christian is because you were born in a country where Christianity is dominant?
If so how can you claim your religion to be anymore plausable than Rayaans or any others for that matter?

Don't be a jerk lol.

Now hold your dog gone horses. RaphielDrake has admitted to be one magnificent bastard but do we have any evidence of his jerkiness? Has he conceded this elsewhere?

[Still catching up.]

(July 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: "I commneted on this thread to say how much I don't want to read it"

NICE!!!

When did I say I'm mot reading the thread?

I am reading the other posts, including your other posts. I'm just skipping the posts between you and Rayaan.

(July 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: fr0d0 and Rayaan, dueling cultists both debating whose Iron Age mythology is...what?

They argue for different reasons, in my perception. Rayaan argues to be less offensive to the religion he was born into. Fr0d0 argues to be more offensive to the intelligence he was not born into.

(July 12, 2012 at 8:02 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: When did I say I'm mot reading the thread?

I am reading the other posts, including your other posts. I'm just skipping the posts between you and Rayaan.

Who cares dude?

(July 12, 2012 at 8:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Who cares dude?

You seemed to care enough to comment on my other post.

Never mind. You and Rayaan carry on debating Voldemort V Sauron, or whatever other fairytale for adults you choose.

(July 12, 2012 at 7:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Morality to be objective, cannot be arbitrary.
2. Objective morality exists (assumption).
3. If a Creator can decide/create what is moral, then morality would be arbitrary. (For example, if it can decide rape is moral, then it would be arbitrary)
4. Therefore a Creator cannot create objective morality.
5. If a Creator cannot create objective morality, then nothing can, including evolution, as a Creator can create evolution, and anything that would be able to create morality.
6. Therefore objective morality is eternal.
7. Morality is not separate from consciousness.
8. Therefore consciousness is eternal.
9. Ultimate morality is included in definition of objective morality.
10. Therefore Ultimate morality exists eternally.

You can substitute "objective greatness" for "objective morality" and you will reach conclusion of "Ultimate greatness".

This is my best argument.

What exactly do you mean when you say "for morality to be objective". This seems to be what motivates your entire argument. In what sense do you feel morality must be objective?

What is moral actually seems quite contingent to me. We are the only sapient species we know so it is pretty hard to know whether what we deem to be moral must apply to all such creatures. (Apparently we don't think it applies to non-sapient creatures since we harvest these for food without batting an eye.)

If we were not a gregarious/pack sort of animal, what counts as moral might be very different. If we lived an orangutan like existence only meeting our own kind very rarely to mate, our moral concerns would be different.

If we were the only creature on a planet we would have no choice but to be cannibals and it would never occur to us that there was any option but to eat one another. If such creatures were sapient, it is doubtful that our sense of morality would fit their circumstances very well at all ... and yet they may well have their own moral sense.

I suggest that what is moral is contingent on the nature and circumstances of the creatures involved. If there was no life in the universe morality would have no existence either. It wouldn't float around as a disembodied potential. In a universe full of life, the form morality takes might well vary.

You mention rape as a universally, morally repugnant act. But for snails it is the only way they mate. There is no courtship or consent. As hermaphrodites when any ready to mate snail meets any other snail, it's on. Each impregnates the other as well as shooting rather nasty (and sometimes fatal) barbs into each other. Now, did God create an abomination in the snail, or do moral considerations vary with the creature involved? Do you think we are the only creature on this planet for which morality is in play?

(July 12, 2012 at 8:33 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(July 12, 2012 at 7:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Morality to be objective, cannot be arbitrary.
2. Objective morality exists (assumption).
3. If a Creator can decide/create what is moral, then morality would be arbitrary. (For example, if it can decide rape is moral, then it would be arbitrary)
4. Therefore a Creator cannot create objective morality.
5. If a Creator cannot create objective morality, then nothing can, including evolution, as a Creator can create evolution, and anything that would be able to create morality.
6. Therefore objective morality is eternal.
7. Morality is not separate from consciousness.
8. Therefore consciousness is eternal.
9. Ultimate morality is included in definition of objective morality.
10. Therefore Ultimate morality exists eternally.

You can substitute "objective greatness" for "objective morality" and you will reach conclusion of "Ultimate greatness".

This is my best argument.

What exactly do you mean when you say "for morality to be objective". This seems to be what motivates your entire argument. In what sense do you feel morality must be objective?

What is moral actually seems quite contingent to me. We are the only sapient species we know so it is pretty hard to know whether what we deem to be moral must apply to all such creatures. (Apparently we don't think it applies to non-sapient creatures since we harvest these for food without batting an eye.)

If we were not a gregarious/pack sort of animal, what counts as moral might be very different. If we lived an orangutan like existence only meeting our own kind very rarely to mate, our moral concerns would be different.

If we were the only creature on a planet we would have no choice but to be cannibals and it would never occur to us that there was any option but to eat one another. If such creatures were sapient, it is doubtful that our sense of morality would fit their circumstances very well at all ... and yet they may well have their own moral sense.

I suggest that what is moral is contingent on the nature and circumstances of the creatures involved. If there was no life in the universe morality would have no existence either. It wouldn't float around as a disembodied potential. In a universe full of life, the form morality takes might well vary.

You mention rape as a universally, morally repugnant act. But for snails it is the only way they mate. There is no courtship or consent. As hermaphrodites when any ready to mate snail meets any other snail, it's on. Each impregnates the other as well as shooting rather nasty (and sometimes fatal) barbs into each other. Now, did God create an abomination in the snail, or do moral considerations vary with the creature involved? Do you think we are the only creature on this planet for which morality is in play?

This is a very well thought out post that deserves a good reply. However, before I do that, I want to be clear...which premise do you dispute (1) or (2)?

(July 12, 2012 at 8:42 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: This is a very well thought out post that deserves a good reply. However, before I do that, I want to be clear...which premise do you dispute (1) or (2)?

2

But I would point out that I don't think the converse of #1 is true even if I understood exactly what #1 meant.

---

I say, Frodo. I don't mean to interrupt your duel to the death with Rayan but I have a very trivial question to ask you about your avatar.

Just wondering if what you have on the plate represents your enormous balls which you display openly every time you participate as a Christian on an atheist forums. Or, perhaps it represents your ass which you are serving up to us on a platter - kind of like Daniel walking into the lion's den. If the latter, that's pretty cheeky.

Also, thanks to you both for accepting the invitation to explore what positive case you can make toward belief in God. Please ignore remarks by those not interested. I'm not through reading through the thread but I am interested in what you both have to say on this matter and I appreciate that it is a vulnerable thing to do in what may not be ideal conditions. (Bravo.)