(July 11, 2014 at 10:41 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The problem is in your last sentence: a knowing subject only ever has belief that he knows something. The level of certainty that the subject possesses about a given object does not affect whether or not that object truly exists. You can know something for absolute certain and still be dead wrong. Which is the point I'm making: if objective moral values collapse without god around, then they were never objectively real, they were merely thoughts in his head, and hence subjective.

Wouldn't this naturally lead one to fideism?

(July 11, 2014 at 11:25 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(July 11, 2014 at 10:41 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The problem is in your last sentence: a knowing subject only ever has belief that he knows something. The level of certainty that the subject possesses about a given object does not affect whether or not that object truly exists. You can know something for absolute certain and still be dead wrong. Which is the point I'm making: if objective moral values collapse without god around, then they were never objectively real, they were merely thoughts in his head, and hence subjective.

Wouldn't this naturally lead one to fideism?

Not necessarily: you have a higher degree of accuracy for your beliefs when they are subjected to reason and evidence than through faith. It's just that a claim of knowledge doesn't automatically entail the truth of that claim, nor does an objectively extant thing require a knowledge claim to exist.

I think the issue here is that Chad is talking about knowledge of objective morality, whereas I'm talking about the existence of it. I agree with him that knowledge requires both a subject and a mind to host that knowledge claim, but when we're talking about something that apparently blinks out of existence the moment a certain mind disappears, we're talking about an opinion and not a referent to something that actually exists.

It is a fact that a creature will never fully understand it's creator. "It is God's privilege to conceal things and the king's privilege to discover them." (Proverbs 25:2)

Anyone who wants to know how to make a delicious dish will ask a professional Chef, not a carpenter. Anyone who wants to know the character of God should hear from someone that knows Him, not an atheist.

I often hear atheists talking about the character of God when they don't even believe in God. They speak as if they believe, with a mission to disprove God. Why are they so concerned to take people's hope away I don't understand. "How long, you simpletons, will you insist on being simpleminded? How long will you mockers relish your mocking? How long will you fools hate knowledge?" (Proverbs 1:22)

We live in a Great Controversy between good and evil. The little children dying, people killing each other and all the evil things in this world is the work of the fallen angels, not God's. "God hates wickedness and the suffering" - Isaiah 55:8, but “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19). God has to let the Devil play it out his plan to serve as an example to the entire universe that only by God's Law of Love there is peace and harmony in the entire universe. Then when he returns to take us home "sin will never rise again" (Nahum 1:9).

There is much to say about the misunderstanding of an eternal hell. It is against the character of God and it is not what the bible teaches. Many religions misinterpret this topic, but the bible is very clear that "the wicked will die. The Lord's enemies are like flowers in a field -- they will disappear like smoke." (Psalms 37:20).

It's amazing to me how long ago the bible already prophesied about this very topic. "People who aren't spiritual can't receiver these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means." (1Corinthians 2:14).

All sounds foolish to them... Isn't that so true?

---

The bible is all we need to go on. Ready, study, investigate... ask for God's guidance. If the bible wasn't real it wouldn't have survived the test of time. "Truthful words stand the test of time, but lies are soon exposed." (Proverbs 12:19)

(July 7, 2014 at 4:27 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Maybe there would be more weight to Jesus' teachings if he was the one that actually wrote the book, instead of waiting ten years after he died to talk to Paul. Or maybe if he wasn't born in a feeding trough in a backwater illiterate hole between Greece, Rome, and Egypt. We have more proof of the existence of Caesar than Jesus.

The bible is all we have to go on and it just doesn't stand very well to scrutiny.

I'm not even sure why we need something like the bible. He's supposed to be everywhere at once. Just do something so we can end the debate over whether he exists any more than any other deity people have ever worshiped.

(July 12, 2014 at 12:46 am)alexwenzel Wrote: It is a fact that a creature will never fully understand it's creator. "It is God's privilege to conceal things and the king's privilege to discover them." (Proverbs 25:2)

Facts are demonstrated, not merely asserted.

Quote:Anyone who wants to know how to make a delicious dish will ask a professional Chef, not a carpenter. Anyone who wants to know the character of God should hear from someone that knows Him, not an atheist.

And let me guess, anyone who has a differing opinion of god than yours doesn't truly know him?

Quote:I often hear atheists talking about the character of God when they don't even believe in God. They speak as if they believe, with a mission to disprove God. Why are they so concerned to take people's hope away I don't understand. "How long, you simpletons, will you insist on being simpleminded? How long will you mockers relish your mocking? How long will you fools hate knowledge?" (Proverbs 1:22)

Classy bible verse, but ignoring that childish jab, what's hopeful about believing in something that's false?

And we can speak about the character of god in the same hypothetical way we can speak about the character of Darth Vader. Don't be stupid.

Quote:We live in a Great Controversy between good and evil. The little children dying, people killing each other and all the evil things in this world is the work of the fallen angels, not God's. "God hates wickedness and the suffering" - Isaiah 55:8, but “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19). God has to let the Devil play it out his plan to serve as an example to the entire universe that only by God's Law of Love there is peace and harmony in the entire universe. Then when he returns to take us home "sin will never rise again" (Nahum 1:9).

Being a dick to prove a passive aggressive point about how great you are is still being a dick.

Quote:There is much to say about the misunderstanding of an eternal hell. It is against the character of God and it is not what the bible teaches. Many religions misinterpret this topic, but the bible is very clear that "the wicked will die. The Lord's enemies are like flowers in a field -- they will disappear like smoke." (Psalms 37:20).

Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

Quote:It's amazing to me how long ago the bible already prophesied about this very topic. "People who aren't spiritual can't receiver these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means." (1Corinthians 2:14).

Oh, the bible has a contingency plan to wave away and silence any dissent? "They just don't get it, man. Don't listen to them." Shocker.

It's almost as if the entire book was a coldly calculated psychological pressure cooker written up by semi-literate bronze age mystics with an underhanded aim to compel belief through trickery!

(July 11, 2014 at 11:46 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I think the issue here is that Chad is talking about knowledge of objective morality, whereas I'm talking about the existence of it. I agree with him that knowledge requires both a subject and a mind to host that knowledge claim, but when we're talking about something that apparently blinks out of existence the moment a certain mind disappears, we're talking about an opinion and not a referent to something that actually exists.

So then with morality, it seems that at bottom one must first claim a value system, which is inevitably subjective, but once one acquires that then an objective paradigm can emerge from which we judge certain actions to be right and wrong--and we say these particular judgments are as objective as anything else because our value system (which places the source of moral value and meaning where it belongs--in the sentient being) is the only one grounded in anything sensible i.e. reality as understood by human perception within the paradigm of scientific (in its broad sense) inquiry. Would that be roughly correct in your view?

(July 12, 2014 at 1:56 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: So then with morality, it seems that at bottom one must first claim a value system, which is inevitably subjective, but once one acquires that then an objective paradigm can emerge from which we judge certain actions to be right and wrong--and we say these particular judgments are as objective as anything else because our value system (which places the source of moral value and meaning where it belongs--in the sentient being) is the only one grounded in anything sensible i.e. reality as understood by human perception within the paradigm of scientific (in its broad sense) inquiry. Would that be roughly correct in your view?

Pretty much, yes. However, we should note that I was talking in the context of an ongoing discussion I'd been having with SteveII throughout all of this, too, and my comments were mostly made as a rebuttal to three points he'd made, namely: 1. Objective morals exist. 2. Objective morals only exist so long as god exists. And 3. Whatever god commands becomes moral.

I think your explanation is pretty spot on, Pickup, but what I was basically saying is that what Steve proposes is actually a subjective framework based on god's opinions, dressed up as objectivity in order to seem more firm than our "wishy washy" subjective morals down here on Earth. I was objecting to the shell game based around the concept of objectivity, essentially.

Yeah, no doubt.

My usual statement is this:
Mystery ways don't matter because religion only conforms with faith instead of searching for the truth. It raises the question, how is faith supposed to give us answers if its usual explanation is an inexplicable events?

(July 12, 2014 at 12:46 am)alexwenzel Wrote: It is a fact that a creature will never fully understand it's creator. "It is God's privilege to conceal things and the king's privilege to discover them." (Proverbs 25:2)

Contradicts

(July 12, 2014 at 12:46 am)alexwenzel Wrote: Anyone who wants to know how to make a delicious dish will ask a professional Chef, not a carpenter. Anyone who wants to know the character of God should hear from someone that knows Him, not an atheist.

Thanks for playing.

(July 12, 2014 at 12:46 am)alexwenzel Wrote: The bible is all we need to go on. Ready, study, investigate... ask for God's guidance.

Been there, done that. Your gawd must have been guiding me to not believing in him.

(July 12, 2014 at 12:46 am)alexwenzel Wrote: If the bible wasn't real it wouldn't have survived the test of time.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Being old doesn't make it true, especially when you have a huge religiopolitical organization propping it up throughout history.