Theists... (reject, Creator, Earth, soul, evolution)

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Valid, to you, because it got Stalin what Stalin wanted. Citing what other people is a non sequitur (and some still regard him as a hero).

Which just goes to show that your opinion of the validity of Stalin's morality is as subjective as morality itself.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

What's "supernatural"? What's "objective"?

Does circular thinking ever make you dizzy?

Only when I'm trying to follow you.

[matthew.william]

Originally Posted by rojse

The concept of omniscience is exactly this. I see that bandied about quite a lot here.

I'm quite aware of the definition of omniscience, rojse, however, I fail to find anywhere in the Bible where it says that God knows all and everything, always has, and always will.

~matthew.william~

[Jaiket]

Hi, Rolling Stone,

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Just one question: what makes it bad if there's no God?

Your question is a bit vague. As a general rule though, the properties that make something 'bad' are unaffected by the presence or absence of God.

I imagine my values or ethics differ very little from yours.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

Just one question: what makes it bad if there's no God?

Any hypothetical imperative cannot be morally binding because one can simply claim to be disinterested in the goal of that imperative.
For example:
1) A: If you think harming others is bad then you should not murder. B: I don't care whether I harm others or not and so I am not compelled not to murder.
2) A: If you think chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla then you should not buy vanilla ice cream. B: I don't care about buying better ice cream and so I am not compelled to not buy vanilla ice cream.
3) A: If you think God decides what is moral then you should not disobey his commandments. B: I don't care about whether God decides what is moral and so I am not compelled to not disobey his commandments.

Categorical imperatives on the other hand avoid this. They are ends in themselves. All other morality is arbitrary.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Any hypothetical imperative cannot be morally binding because one can simply claim to be disinterested in the goal of that imperative.
For example:
1) A: If you think harming others is bad then you should not murder. B: I don't care whether I harm others or not and so I am not compelled not to murder.
2) A: If you think chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla then you should not buy vanilla ice cream. B: I don't care about buying better ice cream and so I am not compelled to not buy vanilla ice cream.
3) A: If you think God decides what is moral then you should not disobey his commandments. B: I don't care about whether God decides what is moral and so I am not compelled to not disobey his commandments.

Categorical imperatives on the other hand avoid this. They are ends in themselves. All other morality is arbitrary.

Any person can rationalize their actions, arbitrary or not, logic is usually not the basis of morals, or particularly actions.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

That's the one.

I have seen the Incredibles. What did you want me to take from that movie, in the form of intellectual ideas and debate?

[rojse]

Originally Posted by matthew.william

I'm quite aware of the definition of omniscience, rojse, however, I fail to find anywhere in the Bible where it says that God knows all and everything, always has, and always will.

~matthew.william~

I would not know whether this is contained in the Bible or not. Anyone?

Whatever the case, the Bible is not the only source of information about God. We have personal experience, divine revelation, the Apocryphic books, and so forth.

Secondly, the Bible is open to interpretation.

[matthew.william]

Originally Posted by rojse

I would not know whether this is contained in the Bible or not. Anyone?

Whatever the case, the Bible is not the only source of information about God. We have personal experience, divine revelation, the Apocryphic books, and so forth.

Secondly, the Bible is open to interpretation.

Personal experience and divine revelation generally don't hold up well in a debate/discussion as it turns into a 'he said - she said' argument. As for the apocryphal books...Not too many Christians regard it as holy text as is origins are a bit sketchy, never claims to be the Word of God, etc.

Sure the Bible is open to interpretation, but where would you interpret the message that God is all-knowing and all-powerful?

My point is that if God never claimed to be, or was never said to be all-knowing/all-powerful, then how can we hold Him to those standards?

~matthew.william~

[logician]

Originally Posted by matthew.william

Personal experience and divine revelation generally don't hold up well in a debate/discussion as it turns into a 'he said - she said' argument. As for the apocryphal books...Not too many Christians regard it as holy text as is origins are a bit sketchy, never claims to be the Word of God, etc.

Sure the Bible is open to interpretation, but where would you interpret the message that God is all-knowing and all-powerful?

My point is that if God never claimed to be, or was never said to be all-knowing/all-powerful, then how can we hold Him to those standards?

~matthew.william~

If a god is not omnipotent, omniscient, or benevolent, then what makes it worthy of worship? Even if one can rationalize that it is benevolent, what makes it worthy of worship, it's really nothing more than a highly intelligent alien.