1robin vs The_Fisher_King: What forms of religion would account for objective morality?

[The_Fisher_King]

I am not sure what to proceed with. I have answered your questions, you seem to have accepted my responses. Do you challenge anything I have said thus far?

Well, I don't fully agree with your definition of God but it seems a reasonable basis for an argument about objective morality. Now, I must say, I can't quite remember why we started this thread! But I have a vague recollection it was partly about objective morality in general and partly about the Christian account of objective morality and why it is the best account (or why Christianity is the best or only true religion). Do I have that right?

 

[1robin]

Well, I don't fully agree with your definition of God but it seems a reasonable basis for an argument about objective morality. Now, I must say, I can't quite remember why we started this thread! But I have a vague recollection it was partly about objective morality in general and partly about the Christian account of objective morality and why it is the best account (or why Christianity is the best or only true religion). Do I have that right?

I do not remember the motivation for the creation of this thread. Let me just give you a terribly oversimplified template to illustrate my point.

Theoretical moral arguments for God's existence can be understood as variations on the following template:

1. There are objective moral facts.
2. God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
3. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Therefore a very horrific truth emerges. If God does not exist objective moral values and duties cannot possibly exist. If a society operates consistently with the premise of atheism you would wind up with something like Stalin's Russia. As Dostoevsky said: There’s a famous passage from “The Grand Inquisitor” section of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want. Some philosophers, like Jean-Paul Sartre, have assumed that Ivan is right; without God there is no moral law that tells us what we ought to do. But is Ivan right? If God does not exist, then can we do what we wish?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I do not remember the motivation for the creation of this thread. Let me just give you a terribly oversimplified template to illustrate my point.

Theoretical moral arguments for God's existence can be understood as variations on the following template:

1. There are objective moral facts.
2. God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
3. Therefore, (probably) God exists.

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Therefore a very horrific truth emerges. If God does not exist objective moral values and duties cannot possibly exist. If a society operates consistently with the premise of atheism you would wind up with something like Stalin's Russia. As Dostoevsky said: There’s a famous passage from “The Grand Inquisitor” section of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want. Some philosophers, like Jean-Paul Sartre, have assumed that Ivan is right; without God there is no moral law that tells us what we ought to do. But is Ivan right? If God does not exist, then can we do what we wish?

But are there objective moral facts (premise 1)?

 

[1robin]

But are there objective moral facts (premise 1)?

Therefore God exists. I don't see the point of disagreement.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Therefore God exists. I don't see the point of disagreement.

Your argument seems to proceed from premise 1 to 2 and then to 3. If that is the case, what if premise 1 does not hold? What if there are no objective moral facts? Now of course the whole point of this discussion seems to be about what might ground objective morality, so that is our starting point - we assume there is such a thing and proceed from there. But in your post you seem to be turning the argument on its head, saying that if God does not exist, there can be no objective morality. But it seems there you have a different starting premise (the existence of God, from whence we can try to argue for the existence of objective morality). Maybe I'm moving the goalposts (although I must admit, I've altogether forgotten where the goalposts are!), but for me the interesting question is whether there is such a thing as objective morality at all in the first place (not whether, if such a thing exists, God exists too, or not).

 

[1robin]

Your argument seems to proceed from premise 1 to 2 and then to 3. If that is the case, what if premise 1 does not hold? What if there are no objective moral facts? Now of course the whole point of this discussion seems to be about what might ground objective morality, so that is our starting point - we assume there is such a thing and proceed from there. But in your post you seem to be turning the argument on its head, saying that if God does not exist, there can be no objective morality. But it seems there you have a different starting premise (the existence of God, from whence we can try to argue for the existence of objective morality). Maybe I'm moving the goalposts (although I must admit, I've altogether forgotten where the goalposts are!), but for me the interesting question is whether there is such a thing as objective morality at all in the first place (not whether, if such a thing exists, God exists too, or not).

1. Your previous post emphatically stated the moral facts exist.
2. Now you question their existence.
My position is composed of two simplistic if then statements.
A. If objective moral values and duties exist then God must exist.
B. If God does not exist then no objective moral facts and duties can possibly exist.
3. Your reversing of you previous stance simply means that the if then statement B describes reality instead of statement A.

The way this argument usually goes is that we are intellectually warranted to trust our personal experiences in the absence of strong evidence against it. Humanity perceives an objective moral realm and our experiences are consistent with that perception. No strong evidence against the existence of objective morality exists therefore premise one is fully warranted. There are almost no certainties so the argument many times uses the terms indicating an extreme high probability of premise 1 instead of absolute certainty.

I did not make the argument by presuming God to derive objective morality but that can be done but it does not have as high a probability as the reverse (which is what I actually used).

As far as goal posts my positions A and B that I bolded above could serve. Those two statement define my position. Either one or the other must be true and I am arguing that the probability is far higher that statement A. is the one that describes reality instead of B.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

1. Your previous post emphatically stated the moral facts exist.

Which post of mine specifically?

2. Now you question their existence.

I'm always open to questioning things that some appear to take for granted!

My position is composed of two simplistic if then statements.
A. If objective moral values and duties exist then God must exist.
B. If God does not exist then no objective moral facts and duties can possibly exist.

Good idea. Let's re-start with these goal-posts.

Humanity perceives an objective moral realm and our experiences are consistent with that perception.

All of humanity? I don't, for starters. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. My experiences certainly don't corroborate that there is certainly (or there is necessarily a high probability of) an objective moral realm. Where's your evidence to back this statement up?

No strong evidence against the existence of objective morality exists therefore premise one is fully warranted.

As I have indicated above, I don't see any strong evidence for premise 1 either. So I'm not sure it is fully warranted.

Since we're re-starting, would you mind running your arguments for premise 2 past me again? Many thanks!

 

[1robin]

Which post of mine specifically?

My bad, I went back and looked. I didn't see the question mark. So at least we have a point of disagreement. I (and the philosophical arguments I quoted) believe that objective moral facts almost certainly exist and you doubt their existence.

Do you not think that anything is actually wrong? That would mean that torturing and raping children isn't actually wrong it is just something you do not like. Is that really your position? I can guarantee you that you act as if objective morality exists, we all do, even psychopaths. We may not all believe in the exact same set of objective moral values and duties but we all act as if at least a few exist. For you to be right then every objective moral value and duty people believe in (trillions of them) would have to all be wrong.

I'm always open to questioning things that some appear to take for granted!

We do not live our lives based on absolute certainties. If you were considering marrying someone but decided to wait until you had enough data to be certain you would both be dead before you got engaged. Our lives are lived primarily based on probabilities. My argument is that the probability that objective moral facts and duties exist is greater than their non existence.

Good idea. Let's re-start with these goal-posts.

Ok

All of humanity? I don't, for starters. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. My experiences certainly don't corroborate that there is certainly (or there is necessarily a high probability of) an objective moral realm. Where's your evidence to back this statement up?

1. Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no genetic benefit.
   
2. The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists. (including you)
   
3. There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
   
4. The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.
   
5. Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world.

1. 
   
   Do Objective Moral Values Exist?

As I have indicated above, I don't see any strong evidence for premise 1 either. So I'm not sure it is fully warranted.

Keep in mind my argument is that objective moral facts probably exist. Very little can be known with certainty.

Since we're re-starting, would you mind running your arguments for premise 2 past me again? Many thanks!

No molecule in the known universe nor collection of molecules has a moral component. To have objective morality then morality can't be based in anyone's opinion. To be objective morality requires a foundation that transcends the natural (or material world). It must therefor be supernatural.

There is a famous saying in moral philosophy. It's called the "is" "ought" gap. Nature can only tell us what is, it can never tell us what ought to be.

Lets go back a bit so you can keep a couple things in mind.

I am talking about the ontology (nature) of morality, not epistemology (how we come to know moral facts).

The Ontology of morality must be one of the following two types:

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

This is what I mean by objective morality. A moral value or duty which is not based on the opinions of the subjects of that moral system. There are some who try and say that God's morality is subjective instead of objective because he simply invented morality. This is called Euthyphro's dilemma. However there is no dilemma because God's eternal nature is where his morality comes from not his opinions. At least that is true of Yahweh and is probably true of many monotheistic religions.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Do you not think that anything is actually wrong?

Only going against what God desires/prefers.

That would mean that torturing and raping children isn't actually wrong it is just something you do not like. Is that really your position?

I don't think it is always wrong. Most of the time, yes. But not always.

We may not all believe in the exact same set of objective moral values and duties but we all act as if at least a few exist.

How so?

For you to be right then every objective moral value and duty people believe in (trillions of them) would have to all be wrong.

Not wrong. Just relative, rather than objective.

We do not live our lives based on absolute certainties.

Sure, I accept that. But just because something is more likely compared to alternatives doesn't mean that's the way it actually is.

Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're right though. Is vs ought.

The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists. (including you)

Again, how so?

There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.

As above, is is not the same as ought.

The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.

Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world.

That doesn't make them right.

To be objective morality requires a foundation that transcends the natural (or material world). It must therefor be supernatural.

But why the Christian notion of God?

 

[1robin]

Only going against what God desires/prefers.

You do not seem to actually have a position.

I don't think it is always wrong. Most of the time, yes. But not always.

Give me an case where it would be morally right.

Now I have to introduce another distinction to explain this. Objective does not necessarily mean absolute. I claimed that objective morality exists, I didn't argue that absolute morality exists. Let me explain.

1. Saying though shall not kill is a statement about absolute morality. This is not what I am arguing for.
2. Saying though shall not murder is a statement about objective morality. This is what I am arguing for.

The difference is that it is acceptable to kill to protect your children's lives, etc.... However murder (unjustifiable killing) is always objectively wrong.

Do you see the difference between objective and absolute?

How so?

As all children who have ever lived have cried in every language that ever existed, you have at least once considered something unfair (unjust). That requires a belief that objective moral values and duties exist. That is just one of a trillion examples I could give.

Not wrong. Just relative, rather than objective.

Relative would literally equate to wrong in this context. If my belief about the truth of anything does not correspond to the actual truthfulness of the thing in question I (or anyone) would be both relative and wrong.

Sure, I accept that. But just because something is more likely compared to alternatives doesn't mean that's the way it actually is.

That is why Christianity is called a faith instead of a certainty.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're right though. Is vs ought.

It makes it much more probable than not. As in the belief that the world is round is believed by far more people than those that believe it is flat. No one is talking about necessary certainties. My original argument contained the word (probably) for a reason.

Again, how so?

I either explained it above or you could read more at the link I gave.

As above, is is not the same as ought.

That statement is true but has nothing to do with what you responded to.

That doesn't make them right.

It makes it more likely. I keep talking about probabilities and you keep attacking certainties.

But why the Christian notion of God?

That is a whole other subject, and a good one. Do you want to switch topics? Your call.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

You do not seem to actually have a position.

I have some clear beliefs about what God desires/prefers. That gives me a position.

Give me an case where it would be morally right.

I believe in reincarnation.

I also believe in the existence of Demons, Devils and Satans who can take multiple forms, including those of children.

Wrt reincarnation, if someone has raped a child in one life it might be entirely appropriate that by way of recompense or an opportunity to learn, they be raped as a child in a future life.

Now I have to introduce another distinction to explain this. Objective does not necessarily mean absolute. I claimed that objective morality exists, I didn't argue that absolute morality exists. Let me explain.

1. Saying though shall not kill is a statement about absolute morality. This is not what I am arguing for.
2. Saying though shall not murder is a statement about objective morality. This is what I am arguing for.

The difference is that it is acceptable to kill to protect your children's lives, etc.... However murder (unjustifiable killing) is always objectively wrong.

Do you see the difference between objective and absolute?

I'm afraid not. Statement 1 has killing is absolutely morally wrong. So how is it acceptable to kill to protect your children's lives given that statement?

As all children who have ever lived have cried in every language that ever existed, you have at least once considered something unfair (unjust). That requires a belief that objective moral values and duties exist

I'm afraid I don't see how.

It makes it more likely. I keep talking about probabilities and you keep attacking certainties.

Yes, I think this is going to be a sticking point! I think I can follow your reasoning if one accepts the probabilistic element. Trouble is, I don't run with the probabilistic approach. Many great women and men, Prophets, Saints, Jesus (pbuh), have swum against the tide.

That is a whole other subject, and a good one. Do you want to switch topics? Your call.

I think I now recall where the idea for this whole one-on-one came from - the first part of it was what we are now discussing - as a prelude to a discussion about the argument for a Christian notion of God.

Let's stick with the former for now. But if you are going to follow a similar line of reasoning, i.e. on balance of probability for the latter too, I think we will quickly reach an impasse.

 

[1robin]

I have some clear beliefs about what God desires/prefers. That gives me a position.

So far you appear to have no firm position about either God's or objective morality's existence. If you do have a firm position on either what is it and what is it based upon?

I believe in reincarnation.

I find that specific belief absurd. If you believe in the traditional mainstream idea that humans come back to life as new people or as some other form of life then you have a lot of explaining to do.

1. Why does the total number of life forms on earth vary over time?
2. What is the purpose of reincarnation?
3. If you believe that we keep coming back to become more enlightened then I ought to have perfect memory of all my past lives readily available. Since I do not, I can't use those past lives to gain ever increasing knowledge and will never become "enlightened".
4. What is you definition of enlightened?
5. Why is there so little (virtually no) evidence of reincarnation? Virtually no one has any awareness of past lives lived, unlike an almost universal awareness of objective moral values and duties.

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

I also believe in the existence of Demons, Devils and Satans who can take multiple forms, including those of children.

I agree with most of that except for why you believe in more than one Satan.

Wrt reincarnation, if someone has raped a child in one life it might be entirely appropriate that by way of recompense or an opportunity to learn, they be raped as a child in a future life.

Virtually no one remembers any actions from any previous lives lived. Whoever it is that is causing reincarnations to occur is extremely inept and cruel.

I'm afraid not. Statement 1 has killing is absolutely morally wrong. So how is it acceptable to kill to protect your children's lives given that statement?

I didn't say that statement 1. was true. I just said that if it was true then it would be an example of a moral absolute.

I'm afraid I don't see how.

You don't see how what? That all children and most adults consider some things unjust or unfair?

Yes, I think this is going to be a sticking point! I think I can follow your reasoning if one accepts the probabilistic element. Trouble is, I don't run with the probabilistic approach. Many great women and men, Prophets, Saints, Jesus (pbuh), have swum against the tide.

Are you actually telling me you always choose the least probable position? You believe the worst team will always win the championship? That you won't fall if you jump off a cliff? That left to itself your house will get cleaner over time? That you will win every lottery you participate in? Etc.... ad infinitum. No one lives like that, including you.

I think I now recall where the idea for this whole one-on-one came from - the first part of it was what we are now discussing - as a prelude to a discussion about the argument for a Christian notion of God.

Let's stick with the former for now. But if you are going to follow a similar line of reasoning, i.e. on balance of probability for the latter too, I think we will quickly reach an impasse.

Are you saying you still do not believe objective moral values and duties exist, but want to keep discussing it? I would suggest that if the existence of an objective moral realm is unconvincing we move on to another argument for the Christian notion of God but it is up to you.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

First things first, apols for the delayed response - I was on holiday.

So far you appear to have no firm position about either God's or objective morality's existence. If you do have a firm position on either what is it and what is it based upon?

I believe that God exists. That belief is based on gut instinct.

I am sceptical about the existence of objective morality. Hence this thread.

1. Why does the total number of life forms on earth vary over time?

Well, for starters, beings reincarnate all over the shop, not just Earth.

2. What is the purpose of reincarnation?

To fight the Devil.

3. If you believe that we keep coming back to become more enlightened

I don't.

5. Why is there so little (virtually no) evidence of reincarnation? Virtually no one has any awareness of past lives lived, unlike an almost universal awareness of objective moral values and duties.

Because the vast majority of us who return to Earth have become lost, unaware of who we are and our purpose.

I agree with most of that except for why you believe in more than one Satan.

Satan = adversary. So there can be more than one adversary.

Virtually no one remembers any actions from any previous lives lived. Whoever it is that is causing reincarnations to occur is extremely inept and cruel.

See above on this point.

I didn't say that statement 1. was true. I just said that if it was true then it would be an example of a moral absolute.

Okay.

You don't see how what? That all children and most adults consider some things unjust or unfair?

I don't see how the statement 'As all children who have ever lived have cried in every language that ever existed, you have at least once considered something unfair (unjust)' 'requires a belief that objective moral values and duties exist.'

Are you actually telling me you always choose the least probable position? You believe the worst team will always win the championship? That you won't fall if you jump off a cliff? That left to itself your house will get cleaner over time? That you will win every lottery you participate in? Etc.... ad infinitum. No one lives like that, including you.

But we're not talking about everyday things.

Are you saying you still do not believe objective moral values and duties exist, but want to keep discussing it? I would suggest that if the existence of an objective moral realm is unconvincing we move on to another argument for the Christian notion of God but it is up to you.

I'm afraid I do remain unconvinced, so it might be better if we move on to the latter..

 

[1robin]

First things first, apols for the delayed response - I was on holiday.

No apology required.

I believe that God exists. That belief is based on gut instinct.

That is what's called superficial faith. I am afraid that at least within Christianity there is no neutral position. Your either a born again heaven bound Christian, or if you die without being born again your bound for eternal separation from God. Christianity is kind of binary.

There are a couple of quotes I like about this.

There is no hero in neutrality.
and
If you choose not to decide you have still made your choice.

My advice would bet to set everything possible aside and spend all available time investigating whether Christianity is true or false. That is what I did, one day I decided to investigate it until I had a fixed position one way or the other. I decided it was true, asked Jesus to forgive me, and was blown away by a spiritual experience which confirmed the bible's primary claims.

I am sceptical about the existence of objective morality. Hence this thread.

You just have to decide whether the reasons I gave for belief in objective morality are more probable than not. That is pretty much how we make all our decisions. I believe that if I show up to work for the next two weeks the evidence that I will get a check afterwards is stronger than the evidence against it. So I decide to get up and come in everyday.

Well, for starters, beings reincarnate all over the shop, not just Earth.

There is zero evidence for that belief. Why would you be skeptical of what has mountains of evidence but buy into what has zero evidence?

To fight the Devil.

How exactly does that work? Since mankind seems to be just as evil or worse than ever it does not seem to be working. We now kill our young in the womb on an industrial scale and have developed the means to destroy every known life form in existence, and are so morally insane we have almost done so at least twice.

I don't.

Then you do not hold traditional reincarnation beliefs. How does your reincarnation beliefs work?

Because the vast majority of us who return to Earth have become lost, unaware of who we are and our purpose.

What evidence do you have for the bolded part above?

Satan = adversary. So there can be more than one adversary.

Satan is a being. Adversary is an orientation. They are not coequal.

See above on this point.

There is zero evidence for what you have said above this point.

I don't see how the statement 'As all children who have ever lived have cried in every language that ever existed, you have at least once considered something unfair (unjust)' 'requires a belief that objective moral values and duties exist.'

To claim something was unfair requires an objective value or duty that was violated. You can not violate a law or rule that does not exist.

But we're not talking about everyday things.

You were not getting the actual so I tried an analogy. I am trying to show that in words your using double standards. Your using probability to determine everything except moral ontology.

I'm afraid I do remain unconvinced, so it might be better if we move on to the latter..

So you want to debate the evidence that Yahweh instead of another God? If so which God do you want to compare evidence for against the biblical God?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

That is what's called superficial faith.

I don't see how.

I am afraid that at least within Christianity there is no neutral position. Your either a born again heaven bound Christian, or if you die without being born again your bound for eternal separation from God. Christianity is kind of binary.

On some readings of Christianity, that is indeed so.

My advice would bet to set everything possible aside and spend all available time investigating whether Christianity is true or false.

Well, I was born into the Christian faith and contrary to everyone else in my family, I researched it extensively before eventually deciding it wasn't for me. So I believe it to be false.

That is what I did, one day I decided to investigate it until I had a fixed position one way or the other. I decided it was true, asked Jesus to forgive me, and was blown away by a spiritual experience which confirmed the bible's primary claims.

My views about Christianity notwithstanding, it's always good to meet people who do the research, so respect.

You just have to decide whether the reasons I gave for belief in objective morality are more probable than not. That is pretty much how we make all our decisions.

Most decisions, sure. But this matter is something else entirely.

There is zero evidence for that belief.

Well, I believe and do all sorts of things on the basis of little or no evidence!

Why would you be skeptical of what has mountains of evidence but buy into what has zero evidence?

See above. It feels right. And my Otherworldly experiences haven't let me down.

How exactly does that work? Since mankind seems to be just as evil or worse than ever it does not seem to be working. We now kill our young in the womb on an industrial scale and have developed the means to destroy every known life form in existence, and are so morally insane we have almost done so at least twice

That's because the Devil is winning at the moment.

Then you do not hold traditional reincarnation beliefs. How does your reincarnation beliefs work?

Do you mean what is the purpose of reincarnation?

"What evidence do you have for the bolded part above?"

It makes sense to me.

"Satan is a being. Adversary is an orientation. They are not coequal."

I believe in a chief Satan (God's chief Adversary) (whom many call simply 'Satan') as well as a multitude of other Satans (lesser adversaries, under 'Satan'),

"There is zero evidence for what you have said above this point."

Evidence (of the objective kind) isn't everything.

"To claim something was unfair requires an objective value or duty that was violated. You can not violate a law or rule that does not exist."

A law or rule (that has been properly communicated), sure. But why an objective one? Why not a relative/subjective one?

"You were not getting the actual so I tried an analogy. I am trying to show that in words your using double standards. Your using probability to determine everything except moral ontology."

Well, I do all sorts of other things on gut instinct too! And they turn out alright!

"So you want to debate the evidence that Yahweh instead of another God? If so which God do you want to compare evidence for against the biblical God?"

Yes, let's do that. Is it worth opening a separate thread for this? Just to keep things a bit easier to follow? As for which God, let's go with my God! Allaah.

 

[1robin]

I don't see how.

Merely intellectual consent to a proposition is superficial.

On some readings of Christianity, that is indeed so.

Yeah, on the parts that determine where you go when you die.

Well, I was born into the Christian faith and contrary to everyone else in my family, I researched it extensively before eventually deciding it wasn't for me. So I believe it to be false.

No one has ever been born with Christian faith. Everyone of us is born separated from God. The bible says if you diligently search for God you will find him. Think of the Gospels as a treasure map that billions of people have followed and claim to have found the treasure it promised. Maybe you didn't follow the map, maybe you got distracted before you made it to the treasure.

My views about Christianity notwithstanding, it's always good to meet people who do the research, so respect.

In my case I had the cable cut off, threw my VCR (yes, that long ago) in the lake, and spent my time following the map until one evening I found the treasure.

Most decisions, sure. But this matter is something else entirely.

Not in any relevant way I can think of.

Well, I believe and do all sorts of things on the basis of little or no evidence!

We usually gather an amount of evidence proportional to the decisions importance. Theological decisions are the most important decisions possible but there is more than enough evidence for Christ to believe in him. Just one example of thousands, there is more textual evidence for Christ's existence and character than any other figure of ancient history.

See above. It feels right. And my Otherworldly experiences haven't let me down.

What are you talking about? You have never left this world, probably never left your country.

That's because the Devil is winning at the moment.

Then whatever God you believe in is inept as well as undetectable.

Do you mean what is the purpose of reincarnation?

Yes.

Looks like you got the formatting mixed up from here to the end of your response. I will try and fix it.

It makes sense to me.

What makes sense to you and why?

I believe in a chief Satan (God's chief Adversary) (whom many call simply 'Satan') as well as a multitude of other Satans (lesser adversaries, under 'Satan'),

Add unnecessarily confusing to inept and undetectable as your God's attributes. The bible is far more specific. Satan was at one time God's most beautiful angel but rebelled and along with a third of the lesser angels were cast out of heaven. There is one Satan and many demons.

Evidence (of the objective kind) isn't everything.

You haven't given me any evidence of any type. You have not even made an attempt.

A law or rule (that has been properly communicated), sure. But why an objective one? Why not a relative/subjective one?

Because subjective laws have no absolute sovereignty.

Well, I do all sorts of other things on gut instinct too! And they turn out alright!

Most blind choices do not turn out all right. That is why you do not drive with your eyes closed.

Yes, let's do that. Is it worth opening a separate thread for this? Just to keep things a bit easier to follow? As for which God, let's go with my God! Allaah.

Ok, but if you want another thread can you please create it. I am running short on time.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Merely intellectual consent to a proposition is superficial.

What makes you think my consent is merely intellectual?

Yeah, on the parts that determine where you go when you die.

Not all Christians take that view though.

No one has ever been born with Christian faith.

I never said I was born with Christian faith. Rather, merely into Christianity.

Everyone of us is born separated from God

I disagree. I believe we all remain part of God, always.

The bible says if you diligently search for God you will find him.

Well, the Bible isn't the only text to say that!

Think of the Gospels as a treasure map that billions of people have followed and claim to have found the treasure it promised.

Claim to being the operative two words there!

Maybe you didn't follow the map, maybe you got distracted before you made it to the treasure.

Or maybe I was following a different map, to a rather bigger treasure!

What are you talking about? You have never left this world, probably never left your country.

How do you know?

Then whatever God you believe in is inept as well as undetectable.

Why has your God not yet dealt with Satan then?

Yes.

I have already told you, the purpose of reincarnation is to fight the Devil (that is also the purpose of life).

Looks like you got the formatting mixed up from here to the end of your response. I will try and fix it.

I think perhaps it was you who got the formatting wrong initially, but no worries!

What makes sense to you and why?

The bolded part above. It is part of my worldview, which is the one that makes the most sense to me!

The bible is far more specific. Satan was at one time God's most beautiful angel but rebelled and along with a third of the lesser angels were cast out of heaven. There is one Satan and many demons.

Show me your evidence for the above (not that scriptural quotes mean so much to me, but given that evidence of this kind is important to you).

You haven't given me any evidence of any type. You have not even made an attempt.

My evidence is subjective, but that works for me. That is typically in the nature of spiritual experiences (though I have had a couple such experiences corroborated by others independently).

Because subjective laws have no absolute sovereignty.

I fail to see what that has to do with your statement that 'As all children who have ever lived have cried in every language that ever existed, you have at least once considered something unfair (unjust)' 'requires a belief that objective moral values and duties exist.

Most blind choices do not turn out all right. That is why you do not drive with your eyes closed.

That's why I don't drive!

Ok, but if you want another thread can you please create it. I am running short on time.

Sure, will do.

 

[1robin]

What makes you think my consent is merely intellectual?

Because only Christianity offers every believer an experience with the divine at the moment we first believe.

I heard of a guy who was both blind and deaf since birth but was struck by lighting and could then see and hear. I don't know if the story was true or not but lets pretend it is. His faith in the existence of color and music was merely superficial before being struck by that bolt of lightening.

Not all Christians take that view though.

There are 2 billion of us, of course we are not all in perfect agreement on every issue. It only matters what Jesus and the apostles taught, not some monolithic block of Christians who must all believe the same thing. Jesus taught exclusivity, truth it's self is exclusive.

I never said I was born with Christian faith. Rather, merely into Christianity.

Then that fact is irrelevant. I was raised in a church and at one time I had sincere superficial faith. Then my mom (a true Christian) got cancer. The worse she God the less sincere was my faith. By the time she passed I both denied God's existence and hated him as well. Only years later and after much more experience did I finally decide to get to the bottom of faith. Upon starting I expected to be able to safely ignore any religion, upon finishing I knew God personally.

I disagree. I believe we all remain part of God, always.

So Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc.... are still in unity with God to some degree? That is one unjust God.

Well, the Bible isn't the only text to say that!

There are billions of Christians that will claim to have personally met God as the bible promises. No other faith even offers personal union with God to all believers and you will struggle to find a handful that claim to have from any other faith.

Claim to

being the operative two words there!

In addition you can find plenty who demonstrate it as well. Look at the lives of Johnny Cash, George Foreman, or millions like them who went from Godless thugs to born again Teddy bears. Or compare Muhammad and his disciples to Jesus and his disciples. One group has a mountain of evidence the others virtually devoid of it.

Or maybe I was following a different map, to a rather bigger treasure!

By definition there is nothing better, bigger, or lovelier, than Yahweh. But just for the fun of it what map and what treasure did you follow and find?

How do you know?

Because I work in the fields where mankind's flight technology is at it's highest (my Dad was even an Apollo engineer), and there is zero evidence for alien's visiting the earth. Virtually nothing is certain but the above is about as close as we can get.

Why has your God not yet dealt with Satan then?

Why should he have? God is not subject to our preferences. The only thing that binds God is what he said he is or will do.

I have already told you, the purpose of reincarnation is to fight the Devil (that is also the purpose of life).

There is zero evidence for that, and unending evidence against it. You ever done any prabalistic calculus.

I think perhaps it was you who got the formatting wrong initially, but no worries!

I don't think so but it doesn't matter.

The bolded part above. It is part of my worldview, which is the one that makes the most sense to me!

I don't see anything bolded above.

Show me your evidence for the above (not that scriptural quotes mean so much to me, but given that evidence of this kind is important to you).

I do not have any evidence for the above but I do have two reasons to think it is true.

1. It comes from a book that where it can be tested it always passes. Concerning thousands of historical claims, for example.
2. Occam's razor - never multiply entities beyond necessity.

My evidence is subjective, but that works for me. That is typically in the nature of spiritual experiences (though I have had a couple such experiences corroborated by others independently).

That is like saying despite the objective evidence the sun is hot your subjective evidence that it is cold is good enough for you.

I fail to see what that has to do with your statement that 'As all children who have ever lived have cried in every language that ever existed, you have at least once considered something unfair (unjust)' 'requires a belief that objective moral values and duties exist.

I don't think your going to get this one, I suggest we just drop it.

That's why I don't drive!

When I typed what you responded I thought if you don't drive or are blind I would sure be wasting my time. However even if your one or the other you still should get the point. Humankind on average looks before they leap.

Sure, will do.

Sounds fine, send me the link when you can. Let's try and keep these posts shorter if possible.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Because only Christianity offers every believer an experience with the divine at the moment we first believe.

Well, your version of Christianity might, but I'm not sure every version does.

I don't know if the story was true or not but lets pretend it is.

Let's pretend it is?

There are 2 billion of us, of course we are not all in perfect agreement on every issue.

I quite agree, but then you can't go claiming that within Christianity there is no neutral position.

Then that fact is irrelevant.

You recommended that I spend all available time investigating whether Christianity is true or not. I said I have done that.

So Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc.... are still in unity with God to some degree?

Yup. So is Satan.

That is one unjust God.

Your opinion. My view is that nothing can exist outside of God.

There are billions of Christians that will claim to have personally met God as the bible promises.

Billions?

No other faith even offers personal union with God to all believers and you will struggle to find a handful that claim to have from any other faith.

Not all of Christianity does. A lot of Hindus believe in such a concept. As do Sikhs and many others.

millions like them who went from Godless thugs to born again Teddy bears.

I have met or known of many Muslims who have become much better people as a result of embracing Islaam.

Or compare Muhammad and his disciples to Jesus and his disciples. One group has a mountain of evidence the others virtually devoid of it.

Look back at the history of Christianity if you want to find (lots of) examples of people claiming to be followers of Jesus (pbuh) who behaved like seriously Godless thugs. Not to mention those who claim to be Christians today acting in unGodly ways.

By definition there is nothing better, bigger, or lovelier, than Yahweh.

Allaah is.

But just for the fun of it what map and what treasure did you follow and find?

The map to Allaah. Allaah.

Because I work in the fields where mankind's flight technology is at it's highest (my Dad was even an Apollo engineer), and there is zero evidence for alien's visiting the earth.

I wasn't talking about aliens. Moreover, you also claimed to know that I had probably never left my country.

Virtually nothing is certain but the above is about as close as we can get.

Your opinion.

Why should he have? God is not subject to our preferences. The only thing that binds God is what he said he is or will do.

I quite agree. But you described my God as inept on the basis of Her not (yet) having dealt with Satan..

There is zero evidence for that,

Doesn't mean to say it ain't the case. We just don't have the tools right now to find and show the evidence in scientific terms.

unending evidence against it

Show me.

I don't see anything bolded above.

You bolded some text in your original post responding to a post of mine which we are discussing.

I do not have any evidence for the above

Just because you don't, doesn't mean to say there isn't any.

That is like saying despite the objective evidence the sun is hot your subjective evidence that it is cold is good enough for you.

Not it's not. We're talking about matters of faith, not the objective evidence of the sun's being hot.

I don't think your going to get this one, I suggest we just drop it.

Or you could try to, more patiently, explain it to me again, in a different way. As you would a child, perhaps.

Sounds fine, send me the link when you can. Let's try and keep these posts shorter if possible.

I've created a new thread in this sub-forum (one on one debates) with our names in the title. I'm afraid I don't know how to link to it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello Fisher King, it seems you really want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes concerning morality and it's source. So before we dive in I want to make sure I understand what it is you wish to concentrate on. Once you confirm or deny what I think you are asking for then I will begin, unless you wish to.

1. I believe from our prior discussions that you wish to initially concentrate on the types of theological world views that can account for objective morality.

2. And then perhaps once we resolve which religions can account for the existence of an objective moral realm of facts and duties. Then did you wish to switch gears to the evidence and arguments which justify my claim that of those religions that can account for morality that Christianity has by far the highest likely hood of being true?

So in summary do you wish to concentrate on no 1, and then if we reach a consensus or an understanding then dig into no 2? Please confirm this or if I am mistaken then please tell me what specifically you want to investigate. Then we will begin.

I haven't been in on the previous discussion(s) about this, and am not going to spend a great deal of time here other than follow the thread. However, I have a basic question. How can morality ever be objective when it depends upon a deity? To be truly objective, should it not be independent of any entity and always be true regardless of what a deity says/thinks? I mean, gods seem to change their minds all the time about what is right or wrong, so how can that be objective?