1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does God Exist?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by BrandenTownsend, May 1, 2004.

  1. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    Dudley Thoth -- "If the Bible is false and Jesus didn't really defeat evil Then my faith is worthless."

    It is possible though, isn't it?

    Dudley Thoth --

    "The Dao is not a dualism of good and evil."

    The Eternal Tao is the perfect balance between ALL opposites. Good and evil are in fact opposites are they not?


    "The Dao is a dualism of 'positive' and 'negative'.

    Good is a balance of 'positive' and 'negative'."

    That is subjective.


    "Evil is an imbalance of 'positive' and 'negative'."

    Also subjetive.


    Is this correct?"

    First you must recognize that good, evil, balance, imbalance, positive, and negative are all opposites. The Eternal Tao is the perfect balance between these. Taoists would avoid extremes, so therefore they would say that too much evil is unecessary, and too much good is unecessary. For yes, it would cause imbalance. So good isn't good, and bad isn't bad. What we want is balance. Good and evil are subjective to our ideas and definitions of them. Now to say that the Tao does not exist for its perfect balance would allow imbalance everywhere else would be so if the Tao dictated anything. The Tao doesn't tell us how to live, or give us laws. For imbalance is still part of the Tao, it's just within one side of it. While balance is in the other. And for some, balance would be subjective as well. The Eternal Tao is so perfect a union that either opposite almost ceases to exist in it. Therefore, the natural Tao allows us to understand the way of the universe using opposites, for our knowledge of the Tao is limited.
     
  2. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    "I do not believe God is an essence."

    This is why god and Tao are not the same ideas.

    And yes truth is objetive, but does anyone know the ultimate truth? Of course not, therefore what we do know is subjective.

    "Yet, it would not be impossible for an intelligent God to reveal the truth, would it?"

    Of course not, but which intelligent god(s) or goddess(es) do you think revealed this truth? Even the answer to this question is subjective.

    "C.S Lewis makes a fair case that the universal way is a ethical/moral one, and so I feel He uses the term fairly. The Dao can also be compared with other cosmic orders that uphold moral principles."

    The Tao in itself is beyond ethics and morals. These terms are human terms which through their subjectivity allow us to live within the world and the Tao.

    "The universe and the order which sustains it is not subjective. As you now say. Our individual or collective perceptions do not dictate reality."

    It in itself is not subjective, but no one person can know its objectiveness completely therefore it still exists subjectively.

    In the end all things within the human world and all worlds run by perception and ideas, will be subjective.
     
  3. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,682
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    Perhaps to you and me, a Nazi deviates from the objective moral law in not realizing that Jews are people too, and that all people should be respected. To a Nazi, we are the ones who are deviating by not realizing that Jews are inferior. I can't justify why I think all people should be respected, that's just how I feel. Nazis feel otherwise. You say that their view of the world was subjective and perverse. Nazis would say your view is subjective and perverse. Are you suggesting that your view of the world is not subjective and perverse? I'm still not seeing where the all-encompassing objective moral law comes in that proves either we or the Nazis or anyone group's morality is "wrong" according to the universe.

    Dehumanization of Jews was not an attempted justification of their beliefs--it was a consequence of them. They beleived the Jews were subhuman, that's why they dehumanized the Jews. The belief that the Jews were subhuman was not a result of dehumanization, but the other way around.

    The Nazis, according to their worldview, did murder people. They knew Jews, gypsies, communists, etc were people, they just didn't think they were equal people. Whether one feels another person is "equal" or not is a subjective, not an objective feeling. Thus our morality (that it is good to treat all people equally) is not logically superior in any way to a different morality (that all people should not be treated equally). The Nazis did think it was acceptable to cheat and steal--Hitler promised not to invade Poland, but Nazis were glad when he turned out to be a liar. The Nazis stole A LOT of stuff during WW2, and they thought this to be right.

    I didn't say anything about comitting acts or not. I was talking about everyone agreeing on what was wrong and what was right, regardless of whether they acted on their morality or not.

    Roman citizens, maybe. But not all people. I beleive that no person should be enslaved. The Romans disagree.

    I agree, it doesn't follow with just that evidence alone. If that was all we knew, we could argue that the Romans did not crave power and wealth, and only gained their wealth and power by coincidence or peaceful means. Based on what we know about Roman conquest, this isn't the case however. Clearly at the very least the political leaders of Rome craved power and wealth above freedom and equailty for all people (not just Romans). My own standards of morality disagree--freedom and equality should be more important than my personal power and wealth.

    What does the universe's one true objective morality say on this? No one can know, all we know is that we disagree.

    It is the basis for many morals, but not all. Not everyone wants to live (though most of these people are dead already, I would assume :killme: ). And not everyone who wants to live wants to live to the same degree or under the same conditions. For example, one person may want to live, no matter what. This person runs in battle. Another person wants to live, but not if it makes him look like a coward. So he stays and dies. Their feelings on whether they want to live and how much are the basis of their moral decisions.

    But he would deny that there is no one true objective moral code. He is going wrong, because he's taking his own religion's/culture's emotional axioms (like altruism, peace, equality) and assuming that they are the universal objective axioms for all cultures/religions. The problem, according to Lewis, is that we have a hard time figuring out how best to acheive these axioms; but he says we can discover how best to acheive them using objective logic (if I'm wrong about Lewis on this please correct me).

    I think peace is a good thing. I could probably use logic to figure out how best to acheive peace. But if someone else feels that conquest and plundering is preferable to peace (Vikings, Mongols, Romans...) then all we know is that we feel differently. You can't use logic to prove that war is bad to a hardened warrior who loves the thrill of battle. Liking or disliking war, and how strongly, is an emotion and therefore subjective.

    Even if the universe does have morals, we don't know whose morals come closer to them....all we know is that we disagree.
     
  4. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    Basically, if I understand what Master Vigil is saying on this point, it's that the existence of both evil and supreme intelligence is contradictory.

    God is not ambivalent to evil. It was counteracted in the Eternal creation and cast out. Our true home is the Eternal creation. Jesus' death on the cross was not an act of indifference.


    see above

    see above

    see above
     
  5. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    Ah, but Mr_Spinkles, that is the not the point I was trying to make. I think that the views most people have on the universe are ILLUSION... because it is based entirely on our binary system of meaning which is in itself an illusion (if you have no idea what I'm talking about, take a look at my Binary System post in the... World Philosophy?... forum)

    Simple example. Our human senses percieve the sun as being bright, and being warm. Yet is it really? These feelings are based purely on human senses... other creatures would not necessarily sense the sun in this way. Then, we take it one step further. Within our minds we assign certain connotations to the sun, light, and warmth, connotations that are NOT based on our sensory observation but rather on our experiences and our ability to connect one subject to another. Sun: male, harsh, loving, life-giving.... light: truth, enlightenment, good, holy. Warm: comforting, safe, mother...

    Physical science, psychology, religion... all attempts to understand and explore what is basically an illusion based entirely on human perception of things...
     
  6. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    From an ignorant standpoint it would be unwise to accept or reject anything. However, I did not come to a belief in Jesus by way of the head.

    How did you reach the conclusion that the philosophy of the Dao was the way? (no pun intended)

    Good and evil are opposed, only not in the Daoist sence. Good is eternal. Evil is the by-product of non-conformity to the true reality.

    Would they? Balance and imbalance are extremes. Perhaps the Daoist should seek a mid-point between balance and imbalance? Yet, suppose they did. Would they not find another extreme to contend with? And so on forever?

    It would seem to me that you are caught between two mirrors.

    Again, I point to 'Illustrations Of The Tao'

    Can you refute these 'illustrations'?

    God Bless 8)
     
  7. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    Please, Mr Spinkles, I encourage you to examine my argument critically. Then you will be able to dismantle it critically. Attack my foundations. If you keep attacking the 'roof' of my argument, all I need do is rebuild it, ready for another round. And on and on and on.

    Attack my foundations.

    I acknowledge subjectivity.

    God Bless 8)
     
  8. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    To Master Vigil 8)

    We agree on three things:

    1) The universe is an objective reality.

    2) An intelligent deity can reveal truth.

    3) No one can know ultimate truth (hence our subjectivity and ignorance).

    If an intelligent deity can reveal truth, then, it would follow, we can know whatever that deity may choose to disclose to us. I agree, no one can know God (or, in your case, the transcendent Dao) with complete understanding or Objectivity, but our subjectivity and ignorance does not nulify the truth that God may choose to reveal.

    My subjective perception of God will differ from other Christians, still, it may well be the same God who reveals himself to us. If our relationship with God depended upon our knowledge of God we Christians would be in obvious trouble. However, our relationship with God is based on love and trust:

    "No eye has seen,
    no ear has heard,
    no mind has conceived
    what God has prepared for those who love him"

    But God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
    1 Corinthians 2:9-10 N.I.V

    We live by faith not by sight 2 Corinthians 5:7 N.I.V

    God Bless!!!
     
  9. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    All societies, in order to exist, attempt to live by a set of principles which are measured against an invisible yardstick of what is considered to be good. We all do it because it is our nature.

    That this yardstick exists, we, by our behaviour at least, cannot deny, but because it is impossible for us to truly grasp, we are unable to agree upon exactly what it is. If only we knew what it was, then we would be happy and all goodness would flow accordingly.

    Many people have attempted to take hold of this ellusive goodness. Many world views have sprung from such attempts. but still it would seem that it elludes us.
     
  10. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    If an intelligent deity can reveal truth, then, it would follow, we can know whatever that deity may choose to disclose to us.

    Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the intelligent deity is waiting for mankind to discover how the universe works and educate themselves in all manners of nature before revealing this truth?
     
  11. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    I did say that it would be logical that IF an intelligent deity exists, it could reveal truth. However, I did not say it was logical that an intelligent diety exists. For a perfect being would have perfect intelligence, and therefore everything it would tell would be absolute truth and there would be no subjectivity towards it. Therefore ALL would know it as truth. But this is not the case. And even if an intelligent deity revealed truth, our subjectivity would not let us discern from everything to find this truth. So in the end, we cannot know the complete truth. And since your relationship with god is built upon "love and trust" which are subjective terms, your only choice is then the knowledge and belief that what others have said (bible) is true. But since no one knows if the bible is true, and it is very possible that everything in the bible is just a subjective story, christians could be in trouble.

    Also, the invisible yardstick would set what is "right." Not necessarily good. For sometimes the right thing to do may not seem to be good. And still... good, right, wrong, evil, comfortable, uncomfortable, clean, dirty... are all subjective terms. What one wants is to allow these terms to lose their foothold and cease to be important. Once this happens, all things, good and bad, will flow accordingly and one will understand them. One wants to not live within humanity, but live within the Tao.
    --

    When the great Tao was abandoned,
    There appeared humanity and justice.
    When intelligence and wit arose,
    There appeared great hypocrites.
    When the six relations lost their harmony,
    There appeared filia piety and paternal kindness.
    When darkness and disorder bgain to reign in a kingdom,
    There appeared loyal ministers.

    Chapter 18 - Tao Te Ching
    --

    Drop wisdom, abandon cleverness,
    and the people will be benefited a hundredfold.
    Drop humanity, abandon justice,
    and the people will return to their natural affections.
    Drop shrewdness, abandon sharpness,
    and robbers and thieves will cease to be.
    These three are the criss-cross of Tao,
    and are not sufficient in themselves.
    Therefore, they should be subordinated to a higher principle.
    See the simple and embrace the primal,
    diminish the self and curb the desires!

    Chapter 19 - Tao Te Ching
     
  12. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,682
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    Dudley--
    And I encourage you to examine my argument critically. I doubt you have done so, because if you had you would see that I do indeed attack your foundations.

    The foundation of C.S. Lewis' argument is that our morals are based on an (attempted) objective understanding of the Kosmos. I've said that this is not true, our morals are based on how we feel about something, not what we know about it. I've attacked your foundations quite a bit. Reread my post.
     
  13. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    First off, the existence of both evil and supreme GOOD is contradictory. And since god did not destroy evil yet, he could be ambivelant to it. You do not know for sure.

    The philosophy of the Tao is a way. And a way that makes sense due to its simplicity. And if you understand eastern thought, you can understand the sense it makes.

    "Good and evil are opposed, only not in the Daoist sence. Good is eternal. Evil is the by-product of non-conformity to the true reality."

    Good and evil are subjective ideas within our minds. Good is not the only eternal side, for both good and evil will exist eternally.

    Balance is against extremes, so therefore imbalance is extremes. Not both.


    "Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv. 23; cf. xii. 2)"

    Confucious did not talk about the Tao, or anything spiritual.

    'He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no one.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, iv. 4)"

    This talks about the ancient idea of simplicity. And simplicity of goodness would be no extremes.

    'When the people have multiplied, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Enrich them. Jan Ch'iu said, When one has enriched them, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Instruct them.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, xiii. 9)"

    I do not understand what this has to do with positive or negative. For enriching could be viewed either way, so could instruction.

    'It is upon the trunk that a gentleman works. When that is firmly set up, the Way grows. And surely proper behaviour to parents and elder brothers is the trunk of goodness.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 2)"

    But what is proper behavior. That is also subjective.

    'If a ruler ... compassed the salvation of the whole state, surely you would call him Good? The Master said, It would no longer be a matter of "Good". He would without doubt be a Divine Sage.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, vi. 28)"

    Exactly, once you get passed the idea of good, you get a sage. The sage is not necessarily good, or evil. But should in balance between the two.

    'When proper respect towards the dead is shown at the end and continued after they are far away, the moral force (tĂȘ) of a people has reached its highest point.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 9)"

    Again, proper respect is also subjective.

    'The Master said, Respect the young.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, ix. 22)"

    This talks about the concept of returning. How everything in the beginning is yound, and at the end is young and the cycle continues.

    'The Master said, Be of unwavering good faith.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)"

    Unwaivering good faith to what. What what is good faith.

    "[The gentleman] must learn to be faithful to his superiors and to keep promises.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 8)"

    For if one wasn't, then they would be killed. That would be against simplicity and necessity.


    The biggest problem is that whoever wrote that site was trying to compare eastern and western ideas, but you cannot do so easily. They have a wholy different way of thinking. And even confucious and lao tzu had differences in thinking.
     
  14. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    To Mr Spinkles 8)

    We all deviate from the objective moral law. So it would follow that a Nazi does too. We all deviate from our subjective perception of the objective moral law, so again, a Nazi does too. This does not go against what I'm saying.

    We share different world views. I accept we all share different world views. I accept that we see things differently. I've covered this.

    Alright then.

    Yes I do. Yes they do.

    No, I'm part of the human condition too.

    No, your part of the human condition too. No one can see it.

    The belief itself is dehumanization.

    I'm sure that it was not concidered to be murder.

    We are all restrained by our subjectivity (see above).


    Argue that if you want. Personally I feel that by treating all people equally we achieve moral objectivity.

    --

    Prove this.



    Prove that this was in accordance with Nazi morality. Furthermore, prove that it was in accordance with Hitlers personal standard of morality.

    People, regardless of their own particular laws, steal. But did they consider it to be stealing, that's the question?

    I can't remember what was originally said, so I'll let you have that one.

    Your right. But all acts of war and conquest are morally justified.

    Yes. But leaders do not always adhere to their own, or their countries, principles. Power and greed undid the Roman empire in the end.

    What do you mean by "standards of morality"?

    Yep. no argument there.

    Okay then. No argument.

    He demonstrates that there are "universal objective axioms" by covering a wide range of cultures who have very different universal views (You can't get much further apart than Hindu's and Greeks!) . There is no assumption.



    I doubt it.

    That's true. You cannot separate the 'I' from 'everybody else'. Were all in it together.

    Okay.

    Yep, we disagree.

    Only someone who can see the ultimate moral standard can fulfil it.
     
  15. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    To Master Vigil

    Whats the difference between rightness and goodness?
     
  16. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    In the nearly sixty years since the fall of Nazi Germany, most accounts of Hitler and his followers have stressed their depravity and utter disregard for notions of right and wrong. Though it may be repugnant to consider these mass murderers acting in accordance with an ethos that they believed vindicated their crimes, a survey of the historical record of the Third Reich suggests that this was often the case. In popularizing their racial notions, and planning the large-scale genocide ultimately known as The Final Solution, Nazis at every level-from Hitler down to minor party functionaries-followed a coherent set of severe ethical maxims derived from broad philosophical concepts.

    The rationale for genocide

    Thus, 'The Nazi Conscience', the title of Claudia Koonz's chilling saga of how the National Socialists transformed vulgar anti-Semitism into a racial ideology that was credible to a vast majority of ordinary Germans, is not an oxymoron. Her careful reading of the voluminous Nazi writings on race shows how the infrastructure and rationale for genocide was developed. Challenging conventional assumptions about Hitler, Koonz locates the source of his charisma not in his summons to hate but in his appeal to the collective virtue of the ethnic German people, the 'Volk'.

    From 1933 to 1939, the Nazi regime accustomed the bulk of the German population to see Jews-a minority of less than 1%- as some sort of grave peril that justified the most drastic measures to get rid of them. The book studies the process by which the members of an advanced and highly cultured society were moved toward a willingness to exclude their neighbors from any sense of moral obligation, and either participate in, or condone, their killing. Using excellent examples, and numerous illustrations from contemporary Nazi publications, Koonz shows how the ragime -with the support of convinced believers and academics- created a public concensus on the alleged ethnic grounds for mass murder. Covering education, mass media, and the churches, she demonstrates how Germans came to consider genocide to be ethically necessary and good.

    The term "Nazi Conscience" describes a secular ethos that excluded reciprocity only to members of the aryan community, as defined by the racial scientists of the day. Four assumptions define this ethos: 1) The life of a 'Volk' is like that of an organism, marked by birth, growth, expansion, decline and death. 2) Every community develops values appropriate to its nature and the environment within which it evolves. 3) Outright aggression against "undesirable" populations living in conquered lands is justified if it serves the victors' long-term advantage. 4) The government has a right to annul the legal protections of assimilated citizens on the basis of what the government defines as their ethnicity.

    "lofty ideals" of racism

    What is frightening about the racist public culture within which the Final Solution was conceived is not its extremism, but its ordinariness -not its savage hatreds but its lofty ideals. The bedrock of Nazi morality is best summed up in a slogan paraphrased in 1933 by Carl Schmitt, a distinquished political theorist and avid Hitler supporter: "not every being with a human face is human."


    Book review of 'The Nazi Conscience' by Claudia Koonz (professor of history at Duke university), published by Harvard University Press.
     
  17. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    The difference is only what you want it to be. There is no clear difference, for the two are subjective terms. And since you have recognized your own subjectivity and the subjectivity of the human race, then back to the original idea. The Bible could very possibly be false. Whether or not the morals of differing nations are similar. The idea of human subjectivity proves that the bible was written by subjective people. As was all other religious books and doctrines. I never argued against the moral ideas it presented. Only the fact that it should not be taken as literal as people think. And people should not try to prove the existence of god by using the bible, for it is not proof, only subjective stories about a truth we will never understand. In the end, good, evil, love, hate, right, wrong, they are all subjective terms. There is not universal law for these. There is only nature. In nature animals kill to eat, sometimes their own offspring. Is that murder? Not to the animal who needed to survive. And since nature seems to define our objective moral law, and seem to see differently than that animal, maybe it is us humans who are straying from this law. Or is it that there is not objective moral law. And that it is all subjective but we are too egotistical to notice it. To think that an all powerful being chose us above all the other creatures of the world is a bit egotistical. Maybe it is the animals and nature that should be teaching us, not a book.
     
  18. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    To Master Vigil

    I can see no clear difference either.

    I would still argue that ultimately they are not.

    Thank you for sharpening my understanding concerning The nature of Object/subjectivity. Still, my position has remained consistent throughout.


    "Very possibly" isn't definitely.

    And they are.

    You're right. It's not the 'Book' itself that is infallible (admitedlly This is not the opinion of many Christians). The message Itself, though, is solid.

    The Idea that the bible is the 'Word of God' (verbium Dei) or the 'voice of God' (Vox Dei) is a human tradition. The bible cannot be The Word of God in the definite sense.

    You argued against moral objectivity. That was, and is, my contention.

    That's a very generalistic comment. Some truth in it. Not much, but some.

    The existence of God cannot be proved, except by God's Spirit. I have said this from the start.

    You haven't demonstrated this though have you?

    We both believe that there's more than nature, I think. But I see what you mean.

    All death is wrong. But the nature of the universe brings life from death. The curse of death is in nature self defeating ('though in a kind of ever revolving and futile way).

    Perhaps you could elaborate?

    Mmm.

    Not if it's true.

    Maybe It's God who should be teaching us.

    God Bless 8)
     
  19. Master Vigil

    Master Vigil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
    Ratings:
    +607
    The fact that we are arguing over this makes it subjective. For I believe one way, and you believe another. That makes it subjective. There is no proof that the bible is truely the word of god, even its teachings and messages were written by imperfect subjective men. Therefore it is not solid. There is only subjective people who claim it to be. It is also very possible that god in the christian sense does not exist. It is possible that it does, but that isn't a definite. And the possibility of it not, holds more weight. Indeed I argued against moral objectivity. Only because everything including morals is subjective. There is one truth yes, but no two people will know that truth completely and exactly the same. Therefore there is a difference between truth and perception of truth. Humans are bound by perception. And all perception is subjective, therefore, all things are subjective. You say all death is wrong, but that is a subjective statement, especially because animals need to kill to eat. Even in christianity, animals are pure. Therefore how can a pure animal have a different idea of what is right and wrong than we do. Who is right? The pur animal, or the sinful man? Easy, it is all subjective. I will try to elaborate on what I said... All things in nature hold to their own moral standards, and since we try to be above nature, we try to put our moral standards above nature's. And since animals do things that humans believe to be wrong, than maybe it is us who have the wrong idea of morality. Maybe the animals understand it better. And I do not believe it to be true that humans are any more important than animals. And maybe god is trying to teach us but we are too egotistical to realize that the animals already know what "god" taught. Therefore, if we live with the morals of the animals, than we would be living more like what "god" wanted. And again, no one knows what god teaches, for all of the teachings of god are subjective to human perception.
     
  20. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    8) The fact that you have a problem with what I believe shows that you believe your subjective understanding to be more acurate than my own. How does your belief deal with that? Anyway, we could (and probably will) go on like this forever. In the end though my argument counts for nothing. I cannot prove to you that God's Spirit lives in my heart. I cannot show you the transforming effect God has had on my life. I just want you to see that it's not as impossible as you think it is. Anyway, keep it up. 8) 8) 8) God Bless and may the force be with you 8)
     
Loading...