1 year ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
96 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    I love the wording of this debate lol

    • a year ago

      Julian is giving perfectly acceptable answers, not sure why they're not being accepted.. @rhology why are we talking about others? he's talking about himself

      • a year ago

        @rhology you're asking him about himself, he's accordingly answering you about himself, why are you hypothetically talking about other extreme examples that fit your argument and dismissing his answers about himself?

      • a year ago

        @yaz The astute listener will note I wasn't actually asking him about himself.

      • a year ago

        @rhology perhaps i missed the beginning of the debate, but you asked him "so *you* would/wouldn't...... " several times towards the end.
        were these not direct questions?

      • a year ago

        34:11 - 34:33 you're taking Julian's natural answer of homeostasis that he himself claims to feel, and comparing that to the natural state of other sick demented individuals (time stamp above), and somehow establishing or implying an equivalence there.. that's what i mean..

        you were asking him questions on why HE wouldn't burn a hospital or abide by the golden rule of morality and then taking HIS answers and saying they're the same as other other 'natural' answers a sick person would give... that's what i specifically mean by asking HIM questions on why HE would do or not do some actions, then comparing HIS stated intentions and explanations to other sick people and I'm not sure how that achieves the intended outcome of your argument

      • a year ago

        @yaz I didn't care about his FEELINGS. I cared about his REASONS and how consistent they were.

      • a year ago

        @rhology but you don't care about his reasons. You've predetermined that because his reasons are subjective, they're irrelevant. You aren't actually interested in debating anyone, because you already know you'll dismiss anything they say unless it fits your bizarre misinterpretation of the is/ought proposition. It strikes me as incredibly disingenuous.

        You demand that finite beings claim objective knowledge of their purpose, because you irrationally think you can do that yourself. You never present any reason for why someone's subjective determination of his/her purpose can't be accepted, you just dismiss their conclusions. To you, if someone admits that his finite mind can't prove something with 100% accuracy, it means they have 0% reason to be believed.

        You have nothing to say except "so what" and then you just repeat that over and over and over. You have 1 point to make for an entire 45 minutes, and even when that 1 point has been thoroughly debunked in 3 separate debates, you still smugly ask "so what"? as if that question has any relevance. It doesn't.

      • a year ago

        @debateme13 tune in today, Rhology vs. Joel

    • a year ago

      I'm really curious to see what other fellow Christians, apologists and others that share a Christian belief system, think of these arguments (not the overall debate and your views on the debate topic, rather, the arguments being made on the Pro side in this debate specifically)

      @nellyj_misesian @max @woodox87 @the_peoples_champ

    • a year ago

      Thanks @julian!

    • a year ago

      @rhology dogs have animal instincts to protect their offspring, to serve and protect their owners, they get happy when they play and get sad when they're tortured.
      They have no understanding of God or Christianity, so I'm still not sure how the 'Meh' part applies there? I'd love to have this debate with you but can't do a video one right now, so let's discuss over text please

      • a year ago

        (note that i consider myself to be a Christian, and believe in an intelligent and benevolent Creator, but i disagree with your views about Atheists..)

      • a year ago

        @yaz Because Rhology intrigues me, and because I find conversion stories fascinating, I went and listened to his conversion story (it was recorded as part of a podcast).

        One of the takeaways was that his emotional life was very unsatisfactory for him between moving away from his former church and his conversion to a born-again state. He felt a great deal of despair, lack of meaning, fear, and I infer some loneliness. His conversion experience helped him overcome these things.

        I think it is natural that he is going to expect other people have similar feelings and experiences and that even if they put on a good face, deep in their hearts they too have a similar state of mind/heart. And he would like to lead them in the direction of salvation that he has experienced.

        I can understand how it would be difficult to get into a frame of mind of someone who experiences life very differently at an emotional level.

      • a year ago

        @sigfried I would not agree in the least with the way my experience has been characterised, if anyone cares.

      • a year ago

        @rhology I care, elaborate plz

    • a year ago

      @rhology You have a quite interesting world view..
      So if I may ask, if nothing matters, how do you live your life? e.g. how do you decide how to treat people etc?

      • a year ago

        @gigi his belief in Jesus as the Lord, is where he derives his purpose from... and if I understand correctly, anyone who doesn't believe Jesus to be the Lord is living a meaningless life because, why would they have purpose if they don't believe Jesus exists as God?

        right @rhology?

      • a year ago

        I also think, but would still like to hear from @rhology if my understanding is correct, that even Atheists deep down inside believe DO in God, but are probably in denial of it (or something of that sort), because in order for Atheists to experience good/bad, such feelings can only come from God, not from anything else..

      • a year ago

        @yaz I understand the purpose but the question still remains.. how do people decide how to live their lives?
        Sure you can read and follow the scriptures but given that these are usually high level and quite old then I assume that humans will need to translate and extrapolate from the scripture what God might want us to do every day.
        So atheist or Christian, humans do apply their own views and define their own morality based on society or religion right?

      • a year ago

        @gigi It's simple - Jesus actually is Lord. Everything has meaning. Literally everything. Literally everything is evidence of His lordship and sovereignty. Literally everything matters.

        I decide how to treat people based on His Word.

        In this debate I was taking on atheistic presuppositions and taking them to their logical conclusions, showing how atheism is absurd.

      • a year ago

        @yaz \\ anyone who doesn't believe Jesus to be the Lord is living a meaningless life because, why would they have purpose if they don't believe Jesus exists as God?\\

        Not quite right.
        I'm not talking about emotions or mental states. I'm talking about REALITY. It's really pretty simple. Imagine the universe is atheistic. Now prove that stuff matters using the same means of proof that you use for other things.
        Julian didn't. Nobody can.

      • a year ago

        @rhology Thanks a lot but I'm still trying to link these.. :-)
        So I understand that having a God to believe in, gives you the anchor/direction in life, makes sense. So you would agree that anyone who believes in something bigger (e.g. universe, nature, sun, other Gods) is essential logical, right? It's not just about the Christian God, correct?

      • a year ago

        @gigi interesting.. let's get that out of the way first..
        @rhology does it matter if a person believes in a non-Christian God for stuff to matter? or it must be a Christian God?
        my second questions is, and perhaps that's best over video, is why must there be a God at all for stuff to matter? Can we do this over video, plz? a chat, not a debate per se

      • a year ago

        @gigi \\I understand that having a God to believe in, gives you the anchor/direction in life, makes sense\\

        That is not at all how I would state it.


        \\you would agree that anyone who believes in something bigger (e.g. universe, nature, sun, other Gods) is essential logical, right?\\

        What in the world? Um, no, I wouldn't agree to anything of the kind.

      • a year ago

        @yaz \\does it matter if a person believes in a non-Christian God for stuff to matter?\\

        No, your beliefs do not change reality. Everything matters because Jesus is actually Lord in reality. Whether I follow Him or not is irrelevant. You will be judged for your sin and unbelief, and you will be condemned unless you seek His forgiveness. Everything matters.
        What I'm talking about is IF ATHEISM WERE TRUE. It isn't, but those are the presuppositions I'm working from when I say "stuff doesn't matter". If atheism were true, I'm still waiting for some evidence that stuff matters, that value exists, that moral duties exist. Regardless of belief.

        And no, another religion cannot ground meaning or value.


        \\is why must there be a God at all for stuff to matter?\\

        We could chat about it, for sure.
        I've asked hundreds of atheists the same questions. Y'all never have any answers, and that's b/c you can't answer them. PROVE that duty, meaning, and value exists. Don't ASSERT they exist. PROVE it.

        Anyway, if you want to chat about it, hit me up at rhology at gmail dot com. We'll set it up.

      • a year ago

        @rhology I'm trying to logically understand your point of view but you are not helping by saying No that's not what I mean lol. Maybe help me understand if you care?
        Again, if I understand you correctly, the only way for humans to know what is right or what is wrong is if there is a God to tell them so, correct? So is your challenge only for atheists or any non-Christians?
        If we establish this first part then we can move to the next... but you need to be a bit more explicit rather than say no..

      • a year ago

        @gigi I do care, because Jesus is Lord.
        If atheism were true, I might care but it wouldn't matter.

        \\the only way for humans to know what is right or what is wrong is if there is a God to tell them so, correct?\\

        Yes, I would agree with that statement.

        \\So is your challenge only for atheists or any non-Christians?\\

        All non-Christians.

      • a year ago

        @rhology Ok I think we're getting somewhere..
        So your premise is not that humans require a God to know right/ wrong is that only your God is the right one.. So even muslims, jewish etc also do not know right/ wrong, correct? And from all the different Christians sects is yours (what is it btw?) the only correct/ real one? Or all Christians have this moral compass regardless if they are Catholics, Orthodox, Protestans etc?
        (really trying to build a case here for your arguments to better understand them)

      • a year ago

        @rhology ok yeah let’s chat , absolutely

      • a year ago

        @rhology r u free tomorrow at 2 pm pst?

      • a year ago

        @gigi everyone has at least a foundational understanding of what is right and wrong, and that is because Jesus is Lord and because he made everybody with that understanding. However, most people deny his lordship in their profession, in their worldview. So what I am saying is that no non-Christian can ground the objectivity of right and wrong in his world view. His worldview is insufficient to ground those value judgments. But everyone knows that it is wrong to rape children. Everyone also knows that it is wrong 2 be an atheist or engage in false religion. However, to some degree, everyone suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.

      • a year ago

        @rhology Ok let me see if I understand you correctly..
        Non-Christians cannot ground objectivity based on the Christian God worldview; makes perfect sense. The same way that non-Muslims cannot ground objectivity based on Islam, or the same way that religious people cannot ground objectivity based on atheism - correct?
        Then I agree that 99% of people believe that it's wrong to rape children but I disagree that not everyone think it's wrong to be an atheist - right?

        Conclusion - you cannot base objectivity on someone else's worldview. But this doesn't mean that we should dismiss other worldview just because we cannot understand their objectivity based on our world view right?

      • a year ago

        @gigi \\Non-Christians cannot ground objectivity based on the Christian God worldview\\

        You're closer, but not there yet.
        The person doesn't matter. What matters is the internal consistency of the worldview. No worldview that is not Christianity can ground intelligibility, morality, values, and reason. Only Christianity can ground those things.


        \\Then I agree that 99% of people believe that it's wrong to rape children but I disagree that not everyone think it's wrong to be an atheist - right? \\

        If Christianity is not true, then whether you rape children or not doesn't matter. And whether you think it's wrong doesn't matter. And there's no way to know whether it's wrong or right to rape them or to think it's right or wrong to rape them. Literally nothing matters, and also we can't know anything.


        \\you cannot base objectivity on someone else's worldview\\

        I'm afraid you've come to a very incorrect conclusion. What matters is the CONTENT and INTERNAL COHERENCY of the worldview, not the fact that it is a different worldview. If Jesus is Lord, reason, intelligibility, morality, and value are grounded in His character and essence. If He is not, they'd have to be grounded in something else. I invite anyone else to give me their ideas for a necessary foundation for such things. I've examined dozens, and all have fatal flaws. Atheism is perhaps the most laughably obvious except for agnosticism.


        \\this doesn't mean that we should dismiss other worldview just because we cannot understand their objectivity based on our world view right?\\

        You're asking a "should" question; such questions only make sense if Jesus is Lord. And it has nothing to do with whether one understands. I'm not saying these things because I don't understand other worldviews. I'm saying them because I *do* understand them.
        And since He is, the answer is No - you should dismiss them because they are idolatry and rebellion against the true King.

      • a year ago

        @rhology Ok it's very difficult to have a logical conversation when the answer is always because He is God.. and you being the one assessing the content and coherency of a world view..

        I like the fact that you seem to have reviewed a number of different world views and you ended up with Christianity. But your are an infinite human.. so even if your worldview is fully respected, you need to leave some room there that you might be wrong. Otherwise you pretend to be God..
        The same way you find flaws in other world views, I hope you can accept that other people might be finding flaws in Christianity. Does this mean that Christianity is wrong? Of course not. It means that we are infinite, we cannot know absolute truth (since we are not God) and whatever we choose to believe is based on our infinite mind.. It's just a matter of choosing which worldview makes us more comfortable or seems more logical.

        Probably better to have a proper chat at some point :-)

      • a year ago

        @gigi \\better to have a proper chat at some point\\

        Very possibly. :-)


        \\when the answer is always because He is God.. and you being the one assessing the content and coherency of a world view.. \\

        Why is that a problem, when we are talking about internal coherency mostly? It would be a problem if I *didn't* start with God and then talked about how we all have to start with God, you know?


        \\you need to leave some room there that you might be wrong. Otherwise you pretend to be God..\\

        I'd like to suggest that's a false dilemma. The truth is that God is God and has made sufficient revelation such that we can know what's true with sufficient clarity and breadth of knowledge, without having to be God ourselves.


        \\I hope you can accept that other people might be finding flaws in Christianity\\

        They *think* they can, but in my experience, after reviewing hundreds and hundreds of claims, from high school dropouts to university professors and professional philosophers, not one has turned out to be reasonable. They all failed in some way (usually in multiple ways).


        \\we cannot know absolute truth\\

        It sounds like you think that's true, though. :-) I'd like to suggest that statements like that one are self-defeating. The solution is given above - God not only IS, but also SPEAKS.

      • a year ago

        @rhology Let's chat :-)

    • a year ago

      If Atheism is true, All Is Meh

      @rhology vs. @julian

      First let me start that this was a peculiar debate for me to watch. My understanding of the resolution is that Pro is making the statement that “If atheism is true then nothing matters”.

      The Pro asks the Con why should he believe in Atheism. As a viewer this is confusing to me because I don’t understand the value of this question within the topic of the debate. Also, not to input my own bias into the debate but as far as I know atheism is defined as the lack of belief. So, it’s a bit weird to ask, “why should I believe in Atheism” if atheism is the lack of belief.

      Pro please take no offense, but I really don’t understand what your case was. I don’t feel you proved your case. You just continued to say “meh”. If I was to vote on this debate I would have to vote Con because I really don’t make the Pro made any case. I’ve watched the debate three times and I can’t identify what the exact case the Pro was attempting to debate.

      Julian made a point about that he pulls his behavior from society and societies laws. And I don’t think that was addressed by the Pro. I know this response from me is going to be extremely weird, but I think this debate was just as weird.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ Basically, Pro is arguing that without god, life is meaningless. He describes existential despair or at least existential apathy as the natural outcome of an atheist worldview. It is an appeal to the idea that if a thing is not ultimate, if it is temporary, then it doesn't truly matter. AKA, what is the point of enjoying life if there is not eternal life?

        Rationally, he has a good point there. But I think the fundamental problem is that it over-rationalizes the worldview of an Atheist.

        The simple fact is, I enjoy things in my life that don't have any ultimate significance. I may listen to a piece of music and really like that. I don't feel Meh about it just because it only lasts for 3 minutes.

        Personally, I think chasing "ultimate" is a fool's errand unless you enjoy it the pursuit. While I am interested in the future, I am also aware it is finite, so I balance thoughts of the future with thoughts of the present moment, and I only project the future to a limited degree.

        Mind you Pro might say that the pleasure we get from something like a great hamburger, is just not comparable to the pleasure of religious ecstasy. I wryly think "true, they have drugs that do."

        Also, while I certainly have an emotional life, it's my experience it is not as intense as many other people I know. Though I see no difference there between the religious and non-religious. I've seen both who have very intense emotional lives.

      • a year ago

        @the_peoples_champ \\You just continued to say “meh”.\\

        Meh. You talk like stuff matters. My point was simple. If atheism is true, prove stuff matters. Julian didn't do so. He lost the debate.

      • a year ago

        @rhology Same topic?

    • a year ago

      I am actually shocked that so many people voted for con. Firstly, as a stickler for clarity, the debate topic was too vauge, yet, @rhology brought additional clairty later on. The challange 'atheism lacks an objective framework in which to differentiate moral propostions or obligatory duties' is a potent and long standing problem to non-monotheistic religions.

      @julian did not even attempt to address this problem, instead. turned his guns else where. Julian lost this debate because he attempted to argue unrelated topics, not because he wasn't convincing or that his points weren't important, they were just simply redherrings.

      Now, the affirmative propostion (Pro) is explictly true, being that without a universally bindging obligation or a morally transcendent truth proposition - like 'Rape is evil', you fall into total subjectivity. It can be shown, from an atheistic world view, why someome would find it benefical to not murder or steal, but, what cannot be shown is why you are morally obligated to not do so in the first place

      Another way of stating the problem is by using an analogy about clothing. Culturals have varied throughout history in what is conviced as 'fashionable' - or, in our world, morally correct. Some would argue that turtle necks are far more handsome than the Mandarin collar. But, as a truth proposition 'Turtle necks are better looking than Mandarin collars.' you can see that this is not universally binding, it is simply a matter of taste, preference, or, in this case, a byproduct of social climate. If morality is argued in the same fashion - no pun intended, then we are left only with total moral subjectivity.

      I think Jeffery Dahmer, the murderer, cannibal, and rapist of young men and boys, said it perfectly:

      ‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

      Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

      Julian responded with consequentialism, but a consequence is a fear not an obligation. You may be afraid that the state will exectue you for murdering children, but that fear does not bind you in not doing so - it is a deterrent, not a requirement.

      @rhology's challange still stands, that Julian was unable to produce any reason to believe that there are any real obligations in an athiest worldview, only a laudry list of preferences.

      • a year ago

        @yaz

      • a year ago

        @woodox87 what other topics? I gave a firm definition of truth and validated that whatever your belief, it is death that validates the value of life. If I wasn’t worried about preparing for an huge job interview I’d challenge you... !

      • a year ago

        @woodox87 I guessed you missed the part of being held to the standards of society, homeostasis, and resulting consequences? I don’t have to approach this debate into selling someone into being an atheist. Atheist need not be evangelical. The burden for the round was not met because it’s a poor argument that would never change anyone’s mind. Pro nor yourself offer anything worthwhile. My argument “with out the threat of death there is no reason to live at all” illustrated it is death that validates life.

      • a year ago

        @woodox87 You make Alan's argument better than he does, but it's still not a particularly good one.

        You say that "It can be shown, from an atheistic world view, why someome would find it benefical to not murder or steal". That's all you need. Just because there isn't 100% objective morality doesn't mean there isn't morality. When you say Julian points to consequentialism, you've admitted he's right. If the consequential actions are preferable one way to another, then all is not "meh". It may be subjectively determined what is preferable, but if one thing is subjectively preferable to another, then all is not meh.

        The natural desire to be alive proves that all is not meh. When faced with a choice between being alive and thriving vs. being dead or suffering, that's not a "meh" choice. Just because we can't say with 100.0% certainty that choosing to be alive and thriving is "objectively" correct, doesn't mean we go completely the other way and say it is meaningless.

        Edit: That being said, I actually agree with you that if the topic of this debate was "If Atheism is true, there are no objective obligations" then yes, Alan would be correct. But most atheists/agnostics wouldn't ever claim objective obligations, at least to 100.0% certainty.

      • a year ago

        @debateme13 would you disagree with the statement that individuals can have objective obligations as a result of a combination of their own world view, genetics, experiences, etc?

      • a year ago

        @madmike One thing I think often causes a holdup in those sorts of questions is that there are two meanings people could mean when they use the word "objective".

        1. There's the metaphysical implication of the word "objective". When I say 100.0% certainty, I refer to this metaphysical idea. When we say "objective morality" it refers to this 100.0% certainty that somewhere within the universe, there exists black and white, conclusive answers to all moral questions. That there is a 100.0% purpose to life, and all possible scenarios have a correct or incorrect result. If there is an infinite creator, then this infinite being would know all such results, and thus objective morality would exist. That wouldn't mean anything because we finite beings could never access the complexity of objective morality, but it still would at least exist.

        2. There's the human ability to determine things "objectively". For instance, I saw John hit Ben. My friend Bob also saw John hit Ben. Bob took a picture of the moment John hit Ben, and I have seen this picture. I know to the highest degree of certainty possible that John hit Ben. This is objective in the human sense.

        Now, it is entirely possible that I am actually in a video game, and John did not hit Ben but I was made to see John hitting Ben because that's what the game creators wanted me to see. I can't disprove this, because my finite mind can't know more than my senses and logic can verify. However, that refers to the metaphysical possibility. According to my human senses, I can objectively say that John did hit Ben, and there's no reason why I should distrust my senses/logic.

        If I was to say "I know objectively that John hit Ben" the statement is true according to the highest degree of certainty I have as a human. But the statement is false in the metaphysical sense, since I don't know anything with 100.0% certainty.

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So, to answer your question. I would say that there are standards and expectations which, whether by our nature, or through culture, humans are expected to uphold. We can prove to the highest degree of human objectivity that murder is problematic for society, and thus it can be reasonably expected/enforced that humans should not murder. It can be proved to the highest degree of objectivity that the golden rule has positive effects for both me and those around me, and thus it can be expected that we should follow the golden rule.

        I don't say in the metaphysical sense "humans have objective obligations" because I can't know that. But based on what human rationality can conclude, I would say that "humans have objective obligations".

      • a year ago

        @debateme13 It seems to me the when people make the statement that "Objective Morality Exists" what they are really meaning to say is that "Universal Objective Morality Exists". As you explained, there are numerous frameworks under which actions can be view objectively as moral or immoral. For Pro here to argue that because some form of objective morality might not be universal, it can't be used to judge some action as better or worse than another under some specific frame work.

        All I hear is "You might think it is wrong, but I think it is wrong more better than you because Jesus."

      • a year ago

        @woodox87 thanks for chiming in, good to have u back!

      • a year ago

        @julian

        Your very first comment is an example of how you consistently made irrelevant remarks.

        "I gave a firm definition of truth and validated that whatever your belief, it is death that validates the value of life."

        I did not say you didn't define truth, nor was it necessary to do so, also, I didn't ask you whether or not life was valuable.

        Based on your answers I'd say 'Either you see the magnitude of the problem and see no clear way to answer it rationally or you don't understand the problem.' You, like others, feel that those retorts have bite, when they seriously do not. They do not because they don't actually answer the problem. You and @debateme13 have both said that what @rhology and myself have presented is a 'poor argument', but what we are saying isn't an argument at all, it's a question. Something like Islam or Christianity would say that people are obligated to behave a certain way. This behavior is dictated by a timeless, cultureless, authority that defines what right and wrong is, beyond our own subjectivity. Why should you behave a certain way given Thiesm? Because you were designed that way; it is in your very nature to be good. The moral law in which we all adhere to has a moral law maker, a law that no one gets to change or reinterpret, grounding propositional statements like 'lying to hurt others is immoral'. It is not just true to you or true to me, it is true, period.

        Now, the question then follows: how do athiests ground moral behavior into an objectively binding system? Something not left open to interpretation. How? You say homeostasis? Homestasis could describe how mortality became normailzed, but it does nothing to explain why morality is objectively true or obligatorially binding. In Islamic countries, homestatis has normalized sex slavery. But, you, in your 21st century Christianly moral based ethics would take issue with that. But your objection is meritless without objectivity.

        Unless the propostion 'slavery is immoral' is universally, timelessly, culturlessly true, then your arguing subjective preference. This is like arguing which flavor of ice cream is the best. Best to who? You can't force other people to accept the propostion 'Rocky Road is the best flavor', because each person likes different flavors. If everyone had the same tongue, or maybe the same mental experience of the same flavor, could we possibly say which flavor is the best, but we cannot.

        The problem persists as an inability to critque others moral behavior without relying on your own subjective preference. The same goes for society, if whatever socitey dicates is what we call morally good, then any moral reform would be immidatley immoral. This would make Hitler moral, because he tried to uphold the social status quo, while making MLK immoral, because he tried to reform the morally accepted good to something he thought better.

        And, another thing, why do people argue that asking whether or not an athiest can have objective morality means that this entails an athiest is amoral? No one is saying that athiests don't have morals, that's a strawman. The question is 'How do you have a morally binding system that everyone is subject to, regardless of race, age, time, location, or knowlege?'

      • a year ago

        @woodox87 Even if a creator/objective morality exists, it is utterly irrelevant, because you yourself are still human. You can't actually claim objectivity just because you believe in a deity. For several reasons.

        1. A human interpretation of the deities words will be necessarily limited by our own finite human minds. This is why there are thousands of different Christian denominations. It’s laughable to think that because you’re a Christian you have access to objective morality when Christian’s can’t even agree on how to interpret the words that are supposedly objective morality, speaking of which,

        2. The infinite nature of morality cannot be contained in one book. Even if humans could 100% accurately interpret the objective morality that the one true God gave to those humans in a holy book, that book will contain just a sliver of objective morality, since the book is not infinite.

        3. Even if we were to say that all of objective morality is in the bible, and that humans could somehow correctly interpret that which is infinite, there’s still no way to know if what God told humans was intended to be truth. It’s entirely possible he was just screwing with the people for his own enjoyment, and everything in the bible is a lie.

        So what we are left with is this. You are exactly the same as me. You are finite. I am finite. We still want to live in a better world. So we use logic and philosophy to create systems of morality. Your system will be based on certain values, and so will mine. We can debate which ones are accurate, and that's subjective. There may be an objective answer, but unless we were to become infinite, we will never know.

        So we are necessarily grounding things in subjective decisions. That being said, like I explained to Michael, there are certain things the human mind can verify objectively according to what is possible as humans. This is precisely why we use logic and philosophy and debate to come to standards, to better determine objective measures to aid humanity.

      • a year ago

        @woodox87 you’re starting to make better claims than the ones in the video. I’ll be sure to send a challenge your way for when I have more time. I’ll have to leave the comments for the audience like I should until then.

      • a year ago

        @debateme13

        Firstly, pressing the issue back at me without properly addressing it yourself, as a type of intellectual 'hot-potato', does nothing to solve for yourself the issue at hand. Athiesm, to date, has no meritable answer for the problem of universal moral obligation.

        However, I'm going to need some clairty from you in order to properly respond to your arguments anyway. Morality is infinite, therefore, we cannot know moral truths, is that right? What does it mean for it to be infinite? Infinite in what way? I can't make sense of that comment.

        1. Non-sequitur. Simply because Christians cannot agree what the law does not lend to say that there is no law at all. Our inability to know something correctly or accurately does not mean there isn't a correct answer. That's why you still get speeding tickets even if you didn't know what the posted speed limit was. Also, the denomination of Christian sects vary of theological issues, not moral issues.

        2. I grant liberty to this comment because I don't know what you're saying here, but if you grant Christianity, then we have a full and adequte explanation for moral duties within the pages of Scripture. I mean, does the mind have to be infinite to understand that 2 + 2 = 4? Or that the first president of the United States was George Washington? Why does a mind need to be infinite in order for it to understand 'Do unto others...'? That seems like a nonsensical statement.

        3. If you grant, Theism, Christianity, and Biblical accuracy, you completely undermine this statement, because if all three are true, the contrary is patently false. If the Bible is true, God has revealed Himself to mankind with love, honesty, integrity, and faithfulness.

      • a year ago

        @woodox87 You're missing my point though. I am accepting your point. You are completely correct that atheists cannot claim to know universal moral obligation. But Christian's can't claim to know universal moral obligation either. The reason why is because you are human.

        Even if there is an infinite deity who knows all answers to all moral quandaries, the implementation of that deity's law will only be brought about by humans. This is where we get into the 3 points I was making.

        1. Humans can't interpret this correctly. Sure, there "could" be an objective moral law. There "could" be objective morality. Even in an atheist mindset, there "could" be objective morality. But we humans are the ones who have to interpret what we see. Humans can't do that, because we're finite. Even Christian's who supposedly have this objective morality, can't interpret the objective morality handed to them by God correctly. This is why it's relevant that there are tens of thousands of different Christian sects. Think about all the debate you can and likely do have with fellow Christian's about the proper interpretation of biblical passages. It doesn't matter if there is an objective morality. The interpretation of that objective morality will be inherently, necessarily flawed, by your own humanity. Unless you were to be made infinite, you will never have access to any objective morality.

        2. Objective morality is a phenomenally massive concept. Really think about it, the concept of infinity, that there are true or false answers to all the questionable moral issues in the universe. It's entirely possible that there are black and white answers to every trolley problem that could be envisaged, but the vastness of objective morality is so great, that it cannot be handed to humanity within the confines of a book. Even if we were to grant that there is an infinite God, and even if we were to grant that you humans somehow have the infinite power to correctly interpret the words that infinite God has given to you, you'd still only have the amount of objective morality that fits in the bible. That is an infinitesimal amount of morality. Even if everything you claim is entirely, 100% correct, you'd still only have a sliver of objective morality.

        3. If you start from presuppositionalism (please please please don't tell me you're a presuppositionalist) then yes this could be accurate. It's the most circular way of thinking you could possibly use, but sure if we presuppose the accuracy of Christianity, then yeah God probably wouldn't be lying to you.

        But if you are attempting to come to Christianity objectively, you don't just "assume" that something is true. From an objective perspective, you have no means of knowing if the creator is lying to you. In the same way that Alan says Atheists have no means of verifying their moral claims, neither do you. It's entirely possible that the God theists follow has lied to them, and they'd have no way of knowing because he created the universe and the moral codes you think you are following. But how do you know he isn't laughing at you after making you think something that isn't the case? You don't know that, and you can't know that. The only way you could know, is if you were infinite like the creator. But since you are not, you have absolutely no claim to objectivity.

      • a year ago

        @woodox87 What makes universal moral obligation necessary?

      • a year ago

        @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance That depends on what you assume about the nature of reality. Given athiesm, there isn't one. Moral behavior may have a utilitarian purpose, but it has nothing that makes it necessarily obligatory.

        Given thiesm, God makes it necessary. As it is God's very nature that dictates the goal of moral behavior.

    • a year ago

      Nearly 35 minutes before child rape was mentioned! It’s a new record!

      • a year ago

        @madmike Dang, I'm getting soft in my old age.
        :-D

        Actually, my daughter was in the room until around the 30 minute mark, so I didn't mention it for that reason. If she hadn't, it would have made an appearance in my opening statement, because it's just that appalling that y'all can't objectively condemn it.

      • a year ago

        @rhology that’s where you have everything so confused. We condemn the act, because based on our experiences and understanding of reality, we know it to be wrong. You condemn the act because someone told you Jesus would say it was wrong.


        What’s appalling is that you would not condemn the act if you believed God commanded a child be raped. You would justify it like you justify the God commanding the murder of countless babies or the impregnating of a young teenager.

      • a year ago

        @madmike I know, but your condemnation carries the same moral weight -- on your presuppositions -- as a dislike of broccoli.

        \\What’s appalling is that you would not condemn the act if you believed God commanded a child be raped.\\

        He has issued no such command, sorry. It is actually impossible He do so.

      • a year ago

        @rhology like it is impossible God would command the slaughter of Babies?

        1 Samuel 15 2-3
        2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

      • a year ago

        @rhology even more so, you’re a Calvinist, so you believe that God allows the rape of children, as god allows all other evil.

      • a year ago

        @rhology as a compatiblist, you believe in predestination, so every child rape is a result of God’s will.

      • a year ago

        @madmike God's plan and decree includes everything that comes to pass.
        And also, child rape is a terrible evil and it is true to say God's will is that it be totally abolished.

      • a year ago

        @madmike \\so you believe that God allows the rape of children, as god allows all other evil.\\

        You say that like you have any authority to judge someone else of doing something bad. Like when you say "that's reprehensible", it's a statement of a different quality than saying "I dislike broccoli".

      • a year ago

        @madmike \\like it is impossible God would command the slaughter of Babies?\\

        When did I ever say anything of the kind? Killing people is very different than raping them.

      • a year ago

        @rhology and here you have demonstrated your internal hypocrisy.

        God’s plan and decree includes everything that comes to pass.

        Child rape happpens.

        The conclusion you should have is that God decrees that child rape should happen. It follow directly from your first premise.

        Instead you say it is God’s will that it be totally abolished.

        You can’t have it both ways, no matter how badly you want to.

        Your worldview is nonsensical because it doesn’t even follow from your own premises.

      • a year ago

        @madmike \\The conclusion you should have is that God decrees that child rape should happen. It follow directly from your first premise. \\

        Correct.


        \\Instead you say it is God’s will that it be totally abolished. \\

        Also correct.
        Here's some helpful reading. Education is always nice before making ignorant criticisms.
        http://vox-veritatis.com/pdfs/Gods-problem-review.pdf


        \\You can’t have it both ways, no matter how badly you want to. \\

        1) You say that b/c you are ignorant. Not much shame in that, but it would be a good idea to not be ignorant.
        2) On atheistic presuppositions, it isn't good or bad to have it both ways. Who says I can't? According to what authoritative source?

      • a year ago

        @rhology You call me ignorant? Have you even read this paper? Its complete nonsense.

        You seem to believe in a God that is not that of Classical Theism.

        Instead, you like to define God in a way that fits your own narrative or that of your small minority similar believers.

        You're free to believe whatever you want. But you cannot expect me to take you seriously when your own description of God is nonsensical.

        Enjoy your hypocritical and internally inconsistent belief system.

      • a year ago

        @madmike Erm, I wrote half of it and proofed the other. So yeah, I read it.
        What's nonsense about it? If you didn't even notice that I was the author, you couldn't have read it very carefully, so I doubt your evaluation carries much weight.
        And you didn't show how it was wrong. Thus, you haven't shown any internal inconsistency in my position.

      • a year ago

        @rhology I am sure you won’t take my criticism seriously.

        Do you deny that your definition of God differs from that of Classical theism.

      • a year ago

        @madmike Yes I deny it. It isn't different. You're just ignorant of the doctrine of the Two Wills of God (and don't seem interested in learning), and that leads you to utter failure as you pursue this attempt to show internal inconsistency in my position.
        My definition of God is in line with all the major confessions of faith.
        My doctrine of election in line with the Westminster of 1646 and London Baptist of 1689, as well as a bunch of other lesser known Reformed confessions.

      • a year ago

        @rhology The two wills of God is inconsistent with the perfect simplicity of God. To believe that God can consist to two wills is to give God parts which would require that God have a creator, a position inconsistent with all forms of Christianity.

        Lets go further. To suggest that God has feeling or opinions is inconsistent with any real understanding of God, and borders of heretical personification. To suggest that an infinitely powerful, who is omnipresent, could be sad is simply inconsistent with the idea of predestination.

      • a year ago

        @rhology Let me go further to point out why the idea of the two wills of God is nonsense. What argument could you make against the idea that God has three wills? Or four wills? Or an infinite number of wills?

        None. The idea that God has more than one will is simply a method to create a loophole to smuggle in some more of your nonsensical beliefs.

        As an atheist, I can pat you on the back for your effort, while at the same time chuckling at the desperation behind your reasoning.

      • a year ago

        @madmike The arguments would be biblical ones.

        You still haven't shown any inconsistency.
        And "chuckling", when you hold to a worldview in which you have no way to know ANYthing, and it doesn't matter anyway if you do or don't... meh

    • a year ago
    • a year ago

      @yaz @julian @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance @woodox87 @debateme13 MAKE VIDEO COMMENTS WITH FEED BACK NOOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!