Apologetics open challenge

[thehedglin]

1. Beer.
2. Therefore Dionysus.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

1. Beer.
2. Therefore Dionysus.

I think it's "Wine, therefore Dionysus."

Beer would really be more Ceres' Demeter's domain, no?

[Pyrrho]

1. Beer.
2. Therefore Dionysus.

I think it's "Wine, therefore Dionysus."

Beer would really be more Ceres' Demeter's domain, no?

Dionysus is the god of divine intoxication.  He is most strongly associated with wine, but that was simply the drink that the Greeks seemed to enjoy most.

Demeter was the goddess of the harvest, and so one can certainly connect her with grain (and therefore connect her with beer and whisky), but she was associated with food rather than alcohol.

[Pyrrho]

I nearly forgot about this thread.

Here's another argument:

God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary. 
Objective morality thus cannot be created by God.
If God cannot create objective morality and decide what is, then neither can evolution, as God can create evolution.
Objective morality exists.
Thus objective morality is eternal.
Objective morality takes a perception to see.
Thus an eternal being who perceives objective morality always existed.

I rather like your statement:

"God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary."

I think that is exactly correct.  And why god is irrelevant to morality.

But rather than attack your premise that objective morality exists (which I would not want to try to prove to be either true or false), I object to your claim that objective morality must be perceived.  Why can't objective morality exist without being observed?  It is certainly not the normal way to think of things that exist.  Pluto was not observed before the 20th century; does that mean it did not exist before then?

[Mystic]

I nearly forgot about this thread.

Here's another argument:

God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary. 
Objective morality thus cannot be created by God.
If God cannot create objective morality and decide what is, then neither can evolution, as God can create evolution.
Objective morality exists.
Thus objective morality is eternal.
Objective morality takes a perception to see.
Thus an eternal being who perceives objective morality always existed.

I rather like your statement:

"God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary."

I think that is exactly correct.  And why god is irrelevant to morality.

But rather than attack your premise that objective morality exists (which I would not want to try to prove to be either true or false), I object to your claim that objective morality must be perceived.  Why can't objective morality exist without being observed?  It is certainly not the normal way to think of things that exist.  Pluto was not observed before the 20th century; does that mean it did not exist before then?

I think it's obvious by it's nature, that it requires perception or itself is type of perception. Just think about it.  It's not something that exists like a physical object but is experienced via consciousness in a particular way and is either spiritual (if you believe in soul reality of it) or is via experience (true even if you take purely materialist approach).

[Pyrrho]

I rather like your statement:

"God cannot decide what objective morality is, or else it would be arbitrary."

I think that is exactly correct.  And why god is irrelevant to morality.

But rather than attack your premise that objective morality exists (which I would not want to try to prove to be either true or false), I object to your claim that objective morality must be perceived.  Why can't objective morality exist without being observed?  It is certainly not the normal way to think of things that exist.  Pluto was not observed before the 20th century; does that mean it did not exist before then?

I think it's obvious by it's nature, that it requires perception or itself is type of perception. Just think about it.  It's not something that exists like a physical object but is experienced via consciousness in a particular way.

Saying "it is obvious" is never a proper justification for something.

Also, if morality is simply a perception, then it is not objective at all, contrary to what you are asserting about morality.

[Mystic]

I think it's obvious by it's nature, that it requires perception or itself is type of perception. Just think about it.  It's not something that exists like a physical object but is experienced via consciousness in a particular way.

Saying "it is obvious" is never a proper justification for something.

Also, if morality is simply a perception, then it is not objective at all, contrary to what you are asserting about morality.

If it's simply perception, but it rather takes perception. God sees himself, he himself is light to himself, a guiding reality, the ultimate reality of morality. 

However I'm not going to argue that in this argument, just that it takes perception, which is obvious when we think about morality. Yeah it's obvious is not an argument, but sometimes, you can't argue properly basic facts but simply point to them.

[Mystic]

Do you want to contend this argument RobValue or move on to another one?

[Shining_Finger]

Can I make my own?
A Mathematical Theory allows for the duplication of a sphere from just an original sphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox
Does this prove that things outside of Common Sense can Exist?

[Cyberman]

I was watching a Vsauce video on that just last night! Coincidence or what!