Why Morality cannot come from God

[tayla]

For the classic Christian view William Craig: “Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

For the skeptic view of 'objective morals: William Lane Craig Doesn’t Believe in Objective Moral Values

Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree that the brain participates. But the subjective experience of consciousness is not explainable via materialism. The philosopher David Chalmers agrees and posits that there is an additional property of matter called mind or whatever. Perhaps you would enjoy viewing videos of him on YouTube.

Oh, I've read him. His philosophical zombie concept is both fascinating, and ultimately incoherent. I agree more with Daniel Dennett.

 

[blü 2]

I agree that the brain participates. But the subjective experience of consciousness is not explainable via materialism. The philosopher David Chalmers agrees and posits that there is an additional property of matter called mind or whatever. Perhaps you would enjoy viewing videos of him on YouTube.

Thanks. I'm aware of Chalmers' views, but the trouble with hypotheses about immaterial things like 'minds' is that no objective test (a thing dear to materialists) will distinguish the 'immaterial' from the imaginary.

 

[Apologetics]

You first have to assume (and prove) that the revelation (the Bible and Christian teaching) providing God's opinions about such things are trustworthy.

Thats every persons obstacle. Doubt. Your greatest enemy. The creator can make the Universe but he can't communicate with it? He can create the ear that hears or the mind that understands but he can't speak to it.

Yes he can .And he does. You can know the creator if you will only believe. The answers to all your doubts and questions are solved if you will only believe and watch the creator work in your life in the most vivid, clear and unobscured way.

 

[Muffled]

You believe? Or you actually have proven it?

I believe many things. That doesn't necessarily make then true.

I believe there are levels of proof. I believe one and one makes two but that has an assumption of the decimal based system behind it.

I believe it is very difficult to prove the identity of a spirit other than by the context of what it says. So the proof that I have heard from a spirit is there in the experience but the identity of that Spirit as God comes from context.

I believe that is why we debate to see if there is a rationale behind the belief.

 

[Muffled]

It doesn't really matter if you believe you have. Where's your nobel prize and your name written down in history?

I believe they don't give out Nobel prizes for Christian experience and there is already enough history in the Bible so mine isn't needed. My proof just reaffirms what has already been written.

 

[Muffled]

All of this is a fallacious appeal to things which don't seem to be knowable. People talk about the characteristics of God with such arrogance--like they know anything about God. Its ridiculous really. I mean how do these people know any of it?

I believe it works the same way you know what you are saying. You hear yourself saying it. A person knows about the Characteristics of God because they hear His testimony.

 

[Muffled]

Our morality is grounded in evolution and natural selection and on which behaviors are beneficial or detrimental for the well-being and survival of our society and the people in it, not in our subjective opinions. In that sense it's objective.

I believe that is still subjective because you are defining what is beneficial or detrimental. That is still man's view of benefit which may or may not align with God's view.

 

[tayla]

The creator can make the Universe but he can't communicate with it? He can create the ear that hears or the mind that understands but he can't speak to it.

Yes, God communicates. Listen to what the universe and our conscious experience say, and that is God communicating to us.

 

[tayla]

You first have to assume (and prove) that the revelation (the Bible and Christian teaching) providing God's opinions about such things are trustworthy.

Yes he can .And he does. You can know the creator if you will only believe. The answers to all your doubts and questions are solved if you will only believe and watch the creator work in your life in the most vivid, clear and unobscured way.

Yes, we must believe. But what exactly should we believe? That which we can discern through our senses, perception, reason, soul, and intuition; or rather, that which is revealed via revealed religion? All of these systems of revealed religion contradict and clash. Why should we choose one over another?

 

[Apologetics]

Yes, we must believe. But what exactly should we believe? That which we can discern through our senses, perception, reason, soul, and intuition; or rather, that which is revealed via revealed religion? All of these systems of revealed religion contradict and clash. Why should we choose one over another?

Your describing the definition of what the Bible calls Lost Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

 

[Apologetics]

Yes, God communicates. Listen to what the universe and our conscious experience say, and that is God communicating to us.

The universe has no conscious its all matter Like oxygen hydrogen ect. It cant communicate Gods will and purpose for your life. It can't tell you about salvation. He can't tell you about the future God has planned for eternity. Neither does your conscience have that information. God chose certain men to convey his will to mankind. All you have to do is believe in his word the bible and he will reveal himself to you in the vivid clear unobscured manner.I know because it happened to me. I used to be exactly where you are right now. Once I began to believe it all opened up and my eye where opened to the truth. It can happen to you also.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe that is still subjective because you are defining what is beneficial or detrimental.

No I don't. If people in a society help each other the society prospers. If people in a society all kill each other for fun the society collapses. That's just evolution and natural selection automatically selecting for one behavior over the other. Nothing to do with my subjective opinion.

 

[McBell]

To: To Whomever it May Concern
From: Your Doting Uncle Sunstone
Date: March, 23, 2018
Subject: Have You Gotten "the Memo" Yet On Proving a Negative?


In folk logic, it is impossible to prove a negative. So it is impossible, according to folk logicians, to prove that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, Bigfoot, and @Debater Slayer's morals don’t exist.

*cough* *cough* However, all or almost all professional logicians would laugh at such a notion. "Hah! Hah!", they would laugh! "Hah! Hah!" (<--------- Disclaimer: This is a mere simulation of logicians laughing. Real logicians might or might not laugh in a similar manner. No logicians were hurt during the creation of this simulation.)

Seriously, I have yet to come across even a single paper by a professional in logic or in epistemology that says you can't prove a negative. Not one! Moreover, I've come across papers in peer-reviewed journals that argue (persuasively, in my opinion) that you can indeed prove a negative -- just as well as you can prove anything else (and both inductively and deductively).

Just one example here, just one example to keep things short and to the point:

One of the most basic rules or laws of logic is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Here's one formulation of it: "A proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time." Nothing is both true and false at the same moment.

Please take a moment to notice that the law is a negative statement.

Now, I won't go into the gory details here, but you can actually prove that law is true, prove it according to rigorous, air-tight, reasoning (although it's a little complicated). So, right off the bat, with a very basic law of logic, we have a case of proving the negative.

Inductively speaking, you can also prove negatives! To be precise, you can prove them just as well as you can prove anything else inductively.

So you have now "gotten the memo" on whether you can or cannot logically prove a negative.

Please enjoy the rest of your day and accept my apologies for yet once again being insufferable.



cc @Terese

I can prove I am NOT pregnant...

Just saying