Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[Simon Moon]

When did you show that morality is eternal? All I've ever seen you do is assert it.

The best minds in philosophical thought debate morality, and there is no consensus. And you, some random forum poster, have solved it.

I don't think so.

Believe me, we all understand your arguments. Better than you do actually, because we are able to point out the fallacies and flaws that you obviously miss.

Lol, thanks Simon.  What's this guys' deal anyway?!

it looks like you pretty much have his "deal" figured out.

His most used debate technique is, unsupported assertions. 

And then he thinks we are the ones missing something when we don't buy his crap.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, thanks Simon.  What's this guys' deal anyway?!

it looks like you pretty much have his "deal" figured out.

His most used debate technique is, unsupported assertions. 

And then he thinks we are the ones missing something when we don't buy his crap.

Ugh...I'm new here...and I am trying to be...well behaved and accepting, but a person can only take so much blithering crap!

[Mystic]

Another way to frame the argument is to say, "If no hypothetical creator can decide or create morality from nothing in a hypothetical world, then neither can anything else".

Anyways, it's a shame. I have a lot of arguments. But if you don't want to discuss them, that's up to you. You want to believe there is no good arguments out there, that's up to you. There is even a paradox of consciousness in naturalism which we once had interesting discussion about, till someone (won't mention name) spit fired a bunch of things in frustration of where the topic was leading to that didn't deal at all with the issue at hand, but put an end to the discussion. As for that one, I don't know the strength of it, to be honest, will try to get into a discussion with it with scientists that know about the issue deeply before reaching conclusions, but from the scent of it, it does seem to point to a Creator.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The arguments as strong as they are, are a means, not an end. The end is to know God by God, to witness Her through Her being you and you being Her and then realizing how insignificant you are, and how significant she is.

Dude, if you understood any of the history of this earth which is recorded in the rocks, much less the rudiments of astrophysics, then you would know you don't need a god to understand and contemplate your own relative insignificance. You bring to this discussion the canard you've been taught that atheists are all self-conceited, and you insult us with it - so who's the asshole really?

There is many more arguments. From perpetual identity, to the nature of inheriting our actions, argument from rank, etc...just wait and see. There is many arguments a lot.

Oh goody - more arguments! Will it never sink through your head that arguments are useless here when you bring in the claim to knowing something we don't?

On an existential question, there are only two appropriate answers:
1. Present evidence which all can observe
2. Admit it's absence when that's the case
In the case of 2, stop making the assertion!! When it comes to this, feel free to go seek out a better idea, or stick around and actually consider the ideas of others.

Argument by itself is NOT evidence. By itself it can never be concrete nor circumstantial, and this is why they are always at best non-sequitorial. All that you will ever succeed at doing when you argue that way is insult people who aren't already believers. Please, stop that!

However if you ask me why I personally believe, it has nothing to do with these arguments. God is the manifest King to me. I don't follow some dead code called "morality", I follow a living guidance/light who is the light of the universe and all those in it.

...and you are asserting that to atheists, which is why we have the right to demand that you either tell us why you think it's the factual truth, or stop making that assertion here. HINT: Truth <> Ideological reasons for believing. So how do you know that "light" isn't all the workings of your own mind?

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='1165263' dateline='1452221924']
Another way to frame the argument is to say, "If no hypothetical creator can decide or create morality from nothing in a hypothetical world, then neither can anything else".


Okay....or....morality is a natural, biological reality that has nothing to do with gods or creators of any other mystical nonsense.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Another way to frame the argument is to say, "If no hypothetical creator can decide or create morality from nothing in a hypothetical world, then neither can anything else".

That's an unscientific presumption. It has been observed beyond scientific doubt by the brightest minds all over the world that the entire mass of this current universe (including the unobservable dark matter which later formed) existed at in the space of an infinitesimally small pinpoint! Even they still don't know for sure the basic underpinnings which drive quantum physics, so why can't you just let them work on that? It's what they're good at, and you shouldn't be throwing shit at their efforts just to satisfy your own need to feel superior to them through your devotion to the little voice inside your head which tells you things.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Mystic.  Buddy...really?  "If my magic man can't do it, it can't be done!" That's an entirely illogical proposition.  Let me illustrate:

Your inability to form a rational argument does not imply or determine that no one else can form a rational argument.

I wonder what the relevance is though, why you dove off the board into the deep end of irrationality over that particular claim? Who thinks that morality comes from nothing.....?

As to what you think points to a creator, tell me something that doesn't... You see djinn everywhere you look, and everywhere you can't.

[Mystic]

I can rephrase that as to create morality/goodness with morality/goodness not already existing. The Creator is not used as needing to exist or possibly exist in the argument. It's mainly a place holder to show, we know, no hypothetical creator can create morality/goodness and decide what it is, without it already existing. I use to say, that would make morality arbitrary. And people would say, yes morality is arbitrary or you haven't proven it isn't. I decided to show an example, ie. it would mean it could be the case that a Creator creates goodness and makes it so that it's good to torture a being for no crime it committed. Since people can see how absurd that it is, I decided it was better to state an example than the usual "morality/goodness is not arbitrary" premise.

That said, why is it the case the Creator cannot just make goodness what he wants after it not existing? It's by it's nature necessarily eternal. But what I'm saying is if the biological structure of the brain created by evolution can create goodness after it didn't already exist in some form, with no link to eternal reality, then a Creator would of been able to create it after it didn't always exist. But we show if that was the case, morality would be arbitrary. It would be that it can make it that it's good to torture forever with intense torture a being for no crime on it's own.

Now it's a robust strong argument.

The conclusion is if morality is real and not just a delusion, it is eternal. And it's nature is such that it takes perception of it to exist, which means an eternal seeing one of it existed.

Getting caught on "if a hypothetical creator..." as if it's making the assumption that such a Creator exists is missing the argument and is being dishonest to it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Morality is specific to the human species, and easily explainable by the science of evolution.

How would a uniquely human capacity for moral judgement exclude the possibility of an objective morality? The uniquely human capacity for reason presumably references real independent facts.

Having evolved behaviours and dispositions says nothing about the moral value of execising them.What am I missing?

[The Grand Nudger]

no hypothetical creator can create morality/goodness and decide what it is, without it already existing.

The scenario described by this proposition makes any further discussion of gods creating morality absurd.  It already exists, QED.  

I use to say, that would make morality arbitrary.

-which is an argument to consequence......made out of a non-sequitur.  But who cares....we would expect to find fallacies in a discussion that, as per the above, begins at the point of absurdity.  It's nonsense, and as a result our attempting to describe it is made nonsense.  

That said, why is it the case the Creator cannot just make goodness what he wants after it not existing? It's by it's nature necessarily eternal. But what I'm saying is if the biological structure of the brain created by evolution can create goodness

Sorry, lol..I have to interject.  Goodness isn't created by the brain, it's assessed by the brain.  

after it didn't already exist in some form, with no link to eternal reality, then a Creator would of been able to create it after it didn't always exist. But we show if that was the case, morality would be arbitrary. It would be that it can make it that it's good to torture forever with intense torture a being for no crime on it's own.

Now it's a robust strong argument.

No, it's the same argument to consequence......made out of  a non-sequitur.

The conclusion is if morality is real and not just a delusion, it is eternal.

You have failed to establish that any of this is even related........while failing to provide a rational means of inference upon which to arrive at the conclusion.  I, personally, am not compelled by formal logical fallacies.  

And it's nature is such that it takes perception of it to exist, which means an eternal seeing one of it existed.

fap fap fap fap

Getting caught on "if a hypothetical creator..." as if it's making the assumption that such a Creator exists is missing the argument and is being dishonest to it.

Except that I'm not caught on your creator....as usual, I'm caught on your poor logic and your grandiose claims to have presented compelling arguments for your ludicrous faith.