@rhology Thanks for the vigorous debate. My apologies for repeating myself a bit too often, but as you expressed that a given point was confusing, I felt compelled to try and re-phrase, but instead I came off more "broken record" on that point. Something I need to work on a better way to resolve in debates (and in real life discussions). If you attend a specific branch of Christian church, I'd be interested to know which one so I can read up on it.
@sigfried What is 2 + 2?4How do you know?Well you see mathematics are a concept that we use to measure the numerical value of what we can see in front of us, and when we have an individual object, we call that 1, and then when we have another object, we call that object number 2, and then we put that amount of numericals next to the equivalent amount of numericals, we get 4.How do you know it's right?We can measure it with our sensesHow do you know they're right?I don't, I just use what I haveSo what is 2 + 2?It's 4Are you sure?As sure as I can beSo you're not sure?I am as sure as my human mind can fathomSo you're not sure?Um... I am as sure as my mind can processYou're repeating yourselfI'm explaining how I use mathematics with my finite mindSo what is 2 + 2?It's 4You're repeating yourselfWell... yes?That's begging the question. Only through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can you answer this questionEven if Jesus exists we'll still be subjective creatures limited to our own minds. I can't know more than thatSo you're admitting you don't know?I know as much as my mind can knowYou're repeating yourself2 and 2 are 4You're repeating yourselfThis is how my human mind can functionYou're repeating yourselfI'm explaining how I use mathematics with my mindYou're repeating yourselfk.
@debateme13 presuppositionalists bore me.
@madmike Watch this one, it's the prequel to this current debate :D.https://www.qallout.com/debate/4007-when-life-begins-is-the-central-issue-to-the-abortion-debate
@debateme13 I’m about 10 minutes in. This guy has to be trolling you. Lol
@madmike Agreed, it is so narrow and so inflexible that it doesn't make for leading to any new insights. I'm fairly confident They see my worldview as so "squishy" and mutable that it has no substance. No "meaning" But in a way, that's what draws me to this subject.My core thesis tends to be that the world of mankind looks a whole lot squishier than it does firmly order. But their explanation that this is a battle between Satan and God rather than one of Man vs Man. But it's this kind of perspective switching that firm presuppositionalists have a hard time even discussing. (at least in my expereince)
@sigfried you handled his sophomorish appeal to absurdity like a champ. I wouldn’t have been able to take him seriously after the first ten minutes
\\it is so narrow and so inflexible that it doesn't make for leading to any new insights\\Nonsense. We learn new things all the time. Science for one thing is entirely dependent on the truth of the Bible. For another, we apply our moral foundation and whatnot to new questions like IVF, cloning, sex with robots, etc. But we can't learn that child rape is good. That's a false thing. It doesn't count as learning if you learn something false.\\My core thesis tends to be that the world of mankind looks a whole lot squishier\\Implies that order is morally preferable to squishiness, thus losing the debate.\\But it's this kind of perspective switching that firm presuppositionalists have a hard time even discussing.\\What do you mean by this, @sigfried?
@madmike Unbroken streaks of victories bore most people, but that's the burden a presuppositionalist has to bear.
@rhology wait you’re flat out admitting you’re a presuppositionalist? And then you’re trying to debate other people on the rationality of their worldview?
@rhology /Unbroken streaks of victories bore most people/My friend, you really think you won that debate? This isn’t one of your fictional absurdities.
@rhology Unbroken streak of victories? The vote is against you. On what basis do you claim victory?
@debateme13 Yes I am a presuppositionalist. I am not at all sure you know what that means. :-)
@behind_the_veil_of_ignorance \\On what basis do you claim victory?\\My own opinion, which is just as good (or bad) as anyone else's, apparently. LOL
@madmike \\you really think you won that debate?\\Actually, yes, it wasn't even close. Not that it matters.
@rhology you realize everyone can see the voting percentages right??
@madmike Usually I'd discount the popular vote since it's often biased, but at least in the case of this debate and the one he had against me, there's a pretty clear reason the vote bar is stacked against him lol.
@qallout can you unlock this debate? I must have hit the wrong button in making it.
Oh brother. Cons opening statement. Sig, you handled that with more poise than I would have!
@madmike Hopefully you'll have a chance - aren't you and I debating atheism soon?
@rhology I do hope so.
@rhology I’m free Sunday mornings from 9:30 to noon. If you aren’t busy.
Con argument takes the form:If x, then y. The argument is logically SOUND, but has not been demonstrated to be VALID (the premise has never been demonstrated to be true, it was merely asserted).
@bronsonkaahui you saw an argument in all that nonsense?
@madmike Yeah, he has a sound argument, just not valid. It's logically consistent but based on undemonstrated premises (which as far as I can tell he never even tried to demonstrate the truth of his premises -- he simply asserted them to be true and the followed from the truth of that premise.
It actually IS the case that "if x (Jesus is God) then morality is objective" since there is an actual *objective* moral giver. The problem is that we don't know if X is true in the first place, it's merely asserted to be true. His conclusions do indeed follow from the premise.
@bronsonkaahui not sure I buy that. Seems that as long as humans are considered free individuals with free will, morality will be subjective
At least from the humans perspective
@madmike both your perspective and what Bronson was explaining are correct.If there is an infinite being, then that infinite being would have infinite knowledge, thus objective morality would be known by that being, so if Alan’s God exists, then he’s right that objective morality also exists.However, even if there is an infinite creator, you’re absolutely right that we individual humans can’t actually know it. We can’t access the infinite, since we’re finite. We can’t know the full, objective, morality. We could create our own subjective systems of laws, but we can’t grasp that which is beyond us and claim to know absolute morality.What Alan doesn’t realize is that even if his God is real:a. 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,b. 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.c. 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 yeah, the existence of an infinite God would mean objective morality exists, but that doesn’t get you anywhere lol, so Alan’s position is bunk.
@bronsonkaahui \\ It's logically consistent but based on undemonstrated premises\\They are demonstrated. You don't accept them. Those aren't the same thing.
@debateme13 \\ even if there is an infinite creator, you’re absolutely right that we individual humans can’t actually know it.\\Unless He were to communicate it to humanity, which He has. Once again you argue against deism and not biblical Christianity.\\A human interpretation of the deities words will be necessarily limited by our own finite human minds.\\An infinitely powerful being can create finite creatures in such a way that this limitation is irrelevant. As is the case.\\This is why there are thousands of different Christian denominations.\\This is just your unsubstantiated opinion. The real reason is manifold, as I explained in our debate. Sin, different preferences, traditions of man - those are the explanations.\\Christian’s can’t even agree on how to interpret the words that are supposedly objective morality\\Yes we can. I agree with tons of Christians about tons of things. If you mean that ALL people who claim to be Christians can't agree on ALL things, I don't know why that would be any sort of challenge to the internal consistency of my position.\\The infinite nature of morality cannot be contained in one book\\I'm not sure what "infinite nature of morality" means. Can a book communicate ONE thing about morality? Yes.Can it communicate, say, 700 things about morality? If so, it can easily tell us all we need to know RIGHT NOW about morality.\\Even if we were to say that all of objective morality is in the bible\\Sorry, who says that?\\there’s still no way to know if what God told humans was intended to be truth\\Yes, there is. I recommend you do some reading and study to find out why I say that.\\It’s entirely possible he was just screwing with the people for his own enjoyment, and everything in the bible is a lie.\\In that case, blue Tuesday the flies and the more the much business hiralooooiidddhh8787878
@rhology what do you mean by "demonstrated?" You have to understand that nobody alive today was there, and that we are taking it on faith that this is true. That is not what most people mean by "demonstrated." Skeptics demand proof. You of course have no "proof" of God because otherwise there would be no need for faith. Nobody KNOWS for sure that God exists. We must believe in Him.
@bronsonkaahui \\Skeptics demand proof.\\They do so inconsistently. I don't see them demanding proof for the existence of proof.\\ You of course have no "proof" of God because otherwise there would be no need for faith\\Misunderstanding of the nature of faith.\\Nobody KNOWS for sure that God exists\\Everyone knows He exists.
@rhology "Misunderstanding of the nature of faith."Feel free to explain it then. Do you have "faith" that gravity exists? What is faith? "Everyone knows He exists."And yet, there are people who don't believe that he exists, which contradicts your assertion.
@bronsonkaahui faith is being sure of what is hoped for. IOW, believing the promises of God. I am certain that God exists. That is not a matter of faith. It is incontrovertible and all of your reasons against are bunk.
@rhology It's bizarre that you don't see a contradiction in what you just said. What is "hope?"
@bronsonkaahui Hope is a desire for something one doesn't have yet.You see contradictions where they don't exist and don't see them where they do.
@rhology so when you hope that your team wins or that your baby doesn't have any complications that's actually a fact that hasn't come to fruition yet? You have extremely poor logic, just so you know.
@bronsonkaahui You got your terms mixed up. An argument is VALID whenever the conclusion follows from the premises. An argument is SOUND whenever it is VALID and it's premises are true. So con's argument is valid, but not sound (assuming con's conclusion follows from his -false- premises).EDIT: also, I would say his argument isn't even valid either since I don't think his conclusion follows from his premises. The existence of the Christian God does not demand the existence of objective morality.
@bronsonkaahui \\when you hope that your team wins or that your baby doesn't have any complications that's actually a fact that hasn't come to fruition yet? \\Correct. Who hopes for what he already has?\\You have extremely poor logic, just so you know.\\Given what I've seen of your reasoning powers so far, I'd be terrified if you thought I had good logic.
Wow...a lot to digest. 6.75 minute opening argument by PRO, and 5 minute response by CON. Lots of points made - hard to keep track.Who did better? Well - since morality is subjective - and I liked CON's sweatshirt better (much classier) - I should vote CON (yes...a contradiction ....but still, voting is subjective...)I loved the way CON would get PRO to agree that certain things were bad....yet if morality is subjective - the bad is bad is bad....and a bad person thinking it is not bad - is wrong and bad.Lots of twists ...and hard to keep track and keep score. BUT - it was interesting!
@mvineyard "I loved the way CON would get PRO to agree that certain things were bad....yet if morality is subjective - the bad is bad is bad....and a bad person thinking it is not bad - is wrong and bad."I thought this was sufficiently explained by the fact that just because sigfried (or anyone else for that matter) agrees with a particular moral view, does not somehow make it "objective."
What we call "reality" itself could be described in this way. "Reality" is simply the things which all the subjective experiencers tend to agree on, even though everyone has a *slightly* different reality picture. The brain should really be thought of as a "reality generator" since what we are experiencing is really a picture created by the brain rather than "the thing in itself" as it were. We are all bound by it. We see colors and hear music even though these things don't "objectively" exist outside of our minds. Chairs don't even exist. There is something there, but it's not a "chair" until we create it in our minds, and this is true of all objects. There is no *objective* way to distinguish between chair and non chair, the painting from its background, etc.
@bronsonkaahui \\I thought this was sufficiently explained by the fact that just because sigfried (or anyone else for that matter) agrees with a particular moral view, does not somehow make it "objective."\\But the way he kept referring to moral value judgments to substantiate other value judgments (for example - growth and perpetuation of society, respecting others' likes and preferences, order and not chaos) does indeed show that he thinks it's objective.
\\ "Reality" is simply the things which all the subjective experiencers tend to agree on, even though everyone has a *slightly* different reality picture\\Some people think raping children is in reality a good thing. That would be "slightly" different, right?Lots of people hold POLAR OPPOSITE views on a wide variety of things. This statement from you makes no sense.\\The brain should really be thought of as a "reality generator" since what we are experiencing is really a picture created by the brain rather than "the thing in itself" as it were\\So you don't actually know anything about the world you think is external to you, do you?\\ There is something there\\Sorry, you can't know even that for sure if atheism is true.\\There is no *objective* way to distinguish between chair and non chair, the painting from its background, etc.\\Sounds like there's no way to know anything.Including that there's no way to know anything. This is absurd.
@rhology "But the way he kept referring to moral value judgments to substantiate other value judgments (for example - growth and perpetuation of society, respecting others' likes and preferences, order and not chaos) does indeed show that he thinks it's objective."No...where is the logical connection? How did you go from "I believe this is true" to "therefore it is objectively true." I agree that's what YOU are doing, but I don't think his argument takes that form at all.
@rhology "does indeed show that he thinks it's objective"It does not. Why would you presume what I think is not what I say I think?I suspect you are so used to thinking of things as you do, it is very hard to imagine other perspectives. You have this idea that a person cannot say "that is wrong" without calling on some divine standard. We don't need one in the secular world, nor do you really. But that doesn't stop us from doing things on our own authority.I have no illusions that my views are anything but mine alone. I acknowledge the many influences that formed them, but they are unique as am I. As are we all. Inescapable individuality. You too, as much as you have "enslaved yourself to Jesus" I believe you still make your own choices and think your own thoughts.Were you 100% in tune with the divine will and mind, you would be like Jesus himself, for that is how he described himself in the gospels. But being a mere mortal, that isn't really possible for you, even in your own theology. Thus, you are doomed to have a subjective view, even if you reach towards what you feel is an objective standard.
@sigfried if you do not mean it that way, you should stop talking like you mean it that way. Don't use words that communicate thoughts you are not expressing. Use different words.
@rhology "Some people think raping children is in reality a good thing. That would be "slightly" different, right?Lots of people hold POLAR OPPOSITE views on a wide variety of things. This statement from you makes no sense."Which part are you having trouble with? The parts you quoted are just basic facts. It's a simple fact that everyone is an individual and thus, by default, have a slightly different reality picture (it's never the case that you can absolutely know what it is to be not you i.e. another person). You can imagine, you can think/believe/theorize/construct, but you can never KNOW for sure what it is to be someone else. Your experience is the only thing that you can even know for certain. That you have experienced the perception of existing simply cannot be denied (even if it's fake, you have still experienced the fake world).. If you believe that you exist, that is philosophically the only thing you can know for certain. It is the base unit of any other "knowledge" that you might have. If YOU don't exist then you can't know that God exists since there is no YOU to verify/know that in the first place. Like all humans, you are bound to the phenomena of experiences. You know nothing outside of your mind's ability to know. "So you don't actually know anything about the world you think is external to you, do you?"Like you, I know what I have learned from my experiences. I just happen to subscribe to the view that shared reality is probably the most accurate picture -- even though I have no way to verify the truth of this belief. I think there is probably something to this physical world because it seems to affect all of us equally (gravity for example, or the strong nuclear force). I would never claim that physics is *objectively* true in the absolute philosophical sense (though in the common tongue, yes, physics is true), but it seems to be a truth by which all OTHER potential (human) minds are bound by. So if it's the case that I'm real, and that there are other things/people that are not me, and they are also real, and if we are all bound by this common "shared reality" of physics, then it doesn't seem to me that we can easily dismiss it as nonsense. The burden must be higher than this minimum standard.
@rhology "Sorry, you can't know even that for sure if atheism is true."No dispute there..."Sounds like there's no way to know anything.Including that there's no way to know anything. This is absurd."Nothing with certainty. You know that. What is faith?
Do you know for certain that God exists or do you have faith that he does?
@rhology The words are perfectly functional to convey my meaning, all you have to do is not smuggle in your presumption that all morality is objective. Especially when the debate resolution specifically denies that claim.It really helps in worldview debates if you can detach yourself from your own long enough to consider the perspective of someone else's. BTW I'd be very interested in hearing your conversion story some time, that is if you are keen on sharing it.
@sigfried please explain how the statement "child rape is wrong" differs in quality from the statement "I dislike broccoli". I forgot to follow that line of questioning in the debate and regret it now. As for my conversion, you can Google Alan Maricle Reconstructionist Radio once dead and find it in audio.
@sigfried Here's the link. Sorry, I was on my phone before. http://reconstructionistradio.com/once-dead-alan-maricle/
@sigfried Oh, also, you'd asked about my church affiliation and I forgot to answer before. Sorry. I'm an abolitionist. http://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242https://youtu.be/PEcg2CYnztE
@rhology Thanks for answering my questions, I'll check those links out. :)So... what is the difference between a moral view and a statement of preference? AKA Don't Rape Children and I Dislike Broccoli. Since I hold both those views, I'm well poised to answer. :)Similarities-Both are subjective in origin as they are based on my personal feelings and preferences. They are, human opinions.The Fundamental DifferenceDon't Rape Children is a moral rule. It is what I think Ought to not happen in society in my view. As a moral rule I will be judging other peoples actions, as well as my actions based on this rule. If I were to do this horrible thing, I would be breaking my moral rules and would feel guilty and feel the punishment was deserved. And severely because of how strongly I hold to this view. Likewise, if others break this rule, I will want them punished and if I can will take steps to ensure that they are.As where my Broccoli view is not a moral rule, it is a personal taste preference. I will not feel any guilt for eating Broccoli, only a mild sensory displeasure. I do not begrudge anyone else who eat's Broccoli, indeed I am happy for them to enjoy it, or for them to eat it purely for health. It is not a social question or view, therefore it does not count as morality.-So, you might wonder why one is a moral view and the other isn't?The answer is because the first is an interaction between two people where one is harming another. Societies are formed for the mutual benefit of its members. Moral rules are designed to help ensure that society functions in a way that is beneficial and not harmful to its members. Rape is considered a fundamental harm, a very serious breach of social understandings. Therefore, those who break it are subject to social judgment and punishment.In the case of a food preference, it is not a question of anyone being harmed but yourself, and even then, only in some mild level of discomfort.--NoteIt's not clear if you really don't understand the difference and seek to learn, if you are simply trying to challenge me to satisfactorily explain it in the spirit of challenge, or if you feel this argument is simply rhetorically appealing to a wider audience.Which of these, or some other leads you to ask the question?
@sigfried "Harm" is in your imagination, just as "broccoli is yucky" is.
@rhology Neither are in my imagination. Are you a solipsist now? I am not.What we feel is not imagination. Imagination is when we posit possibilities that do not exist, aka are fictional. God, for instance, is, in my view, very likely imaginary. Human pain and suffering are very real. Something easily demonstrated.
@sigfried \\Are you a solipsist now? I am not.\\On atheist presuppositions, solipsism is inescapable unless one takes on massive incoherencies.\\Imagination is when we posit possibilities that do not exist, aka are fictional.\\Like "stuff matters" and "meaning exists if I think it exists".\\Human pain and suffering are very real.\\Those are the results of mental states which are themselves the result of deterministic chemical processes, just like love, pleasure, joy, and contentment. So what?
@sigfried \\Societies are formed for the mutual benefit of its members\\Begs the question. We can't go any further.
@sigfried \\It's not clear if you really don't understand the difference and seek to learn\\I've heard this nonsense from several hundred other atheists. I haven't learned anything yet on QO.
@rhology If I may ask, when was the last time that you actually heard/ discussed something that truly challenged your views? Just curious to understand the circumstances and what it would take..
@rhology "On atheist presuppositions, solipsism is inescapable unless one takes on massive incoherencies."I don't use presuppositions in any formal sense. I only seek to best describe what I experience. And I am very much not a Solipsist. I think that reality exists outside of myself and that I am simply a small part of reality."Those are the results of mental states which are themselves the result of deterministic chemical processes, just like love, pleasure, joy, and contentment. So what?"So those are things that are real."Begs the question. We can't go any further."By what means does it beg the question? A society has morality, much like a car has wheels. It does not beg any questions nor rely on itself. They are simply observations of inherent properties, not arguments."I've heard this nonsense from several hundred other atheists. I haven't learned anything yet on QO."Yet you don't have the open honesty to simply answer a question. Instead, you turn it into a passive-aggressive remark. I doubt that you came here looking to learn anything. I would guess that you came here looking to preach and to glorify yourself as a powerful servant of Jesus who could show us all the light and the truth.I'd say you have a long way to go for that to happen. There are other apologists here on Qallout who do a better job with that. If you wish to learn, I suggest studying their debates. If you want to be more persuasive I could also help you with that. And if you want to be more of an open searcher for truth, there are others who can assist you there as well.My advice to you is to look at it this way. If Jesus led you here, perhaps it wasn't to show your superiority as an apologist but to help you learn to become a better servant and a better apologist. To do that you may need to let go of some of your own pride that you borrow from the glory of whom you claim to serve.
@sigfried Presuppositions are inescapable.You're not a solipsist b/c you are inconsistent.\\A society has morality\\That has never been the question. The question has always been: Which morality is CORRECT?You act and speak (sometimes) as though your version of morality is correct, when you use words like "benefit". It begs the question.\\ I doubt that you came here looking to learn anything.\\So what? Maybe according to my system of morality, it's morally obligatory to not learn from people with whom I disagree.Such a moral value is not worse or better than yours, even if it were the opposite. It's also not better or worse than child rape.\\I would guess that you came here looking to preach and to glorify yourself as a powerful servant of Jesus who could show us all the light and the truth.\\In reality, it is to glorify Jesus and not myself, which is why I talk about Jesus all the time and deflect attention away from myself.\\There are other apologists here on Qallout who do a better job with that\\Again you assume you know what is good and better, thus again you are inconsistent with your stated position.\\if you want to be more of an open searcher for truth\\You already said that pursuing true beliefs is good in your view but there is no way to know whether it is superior in any other sense to its opposite.\\you may need to let go of some of your own pride\\1) Shrug. I don't see any prideful thing I've said.2) Maybe on my moral position being prideful is good and ignoring correction on pride is morally obligatory. No better or worse than your position, or raping children.
@gigi \\If I may ask, when was the last time that you actually heard/ discussed something that truly challenged your views?\\Today and yesterday. It's happening all the time. In particular, it was about my views on immigration and hormonal birth control.I think it's hilarious how people are questioning someone who has intentionally joined QallOut of all websites so as to debate people of different viewpoints, about how much of an echo chamber he lives in.
@gigi When's the last time you listened to your conscience and honestly asked Jesus is He's really there and if He's really outraged about your filthiness and sin?
@rhology Thanks for your response! So why did you change your opinion on these topics and how did that happen? (just trying to understand your worldview) i.e. if nothing matters apart from God why do you even have an opinion on these matters?I honestly was not questioning you.. only trying to get a better understanding of your beliefs and way of living cause I find it interesting, that's all. And joining a site is not enough to show that you are interested in discussing different viewpoints, actually listening is the key and taking the time to process the info (as open-minded as possible) and then make your own assessment. I personally think that you are very eloquent and firm with your beliefs, I find it admirable. But the way you come across is a bit arrogant and apprehensive.. like it's either your way or the highway without necessarily engaging in true conversations to explain yourself (this is just an impression but I hope you are not really like that.)I listen to my conscience every day..and the Christian God that I know is the One who is kind, forgiving etc. He is the One who cannot get outraged because of "your filthiness and sin", your arrogance and dismissal.. the One who accepts you for who you are with all your sins and faults.
@gigi I didn't say I changed my opinion on them this time. I said I had been challenged extensively on them. I have changed my view on quite a lot of things. Used to be an atheist. Used to hold to libertarian free will. Used to hold to an Old Earth model. Used to be in favor of US military interventions outside the country. Used to be pro-choice. Was a Democrat, then was a Republican, now an abolitionist. Learning all the time. \\if nothing matters apart from God why do you even have an opinion on these matters?\\That's a better question for an atheist to answer. God is, and nothing is apart from Him, so...\\ actually listening is the key and taking the time to process the info (as open-minded as possible) and then make your own assessment. \\If you say so. I'm actually listening a lot more, I find, than my opponents, for I have identified the incoherencies in their worldviews whereas my opponents have barely even managed to understand, let alone interact with, my own worldview. \\the way you come across is a bit arrogant and apprehensive\\OK\\like it's either your way or the highway\\When it comes to this question, is it your way or the highway?\\the Christian God that I know is the One who is kind, forgiving etc.\\He is that way... to the REPENTANT. Not to those who hate Him and are in rebellion against Him.\\He is the One who cannot get outraged because of "your filthiness and sin",\\I'm afraid you're describing a different god at this point. Not the God of the Bible. Psalm 7:11 for example - God is a just judge and is angry with the wicked every day. Isaiah 57:21 - there is no peace, says the Lord, for the wicked. \\the One who accepts you for who you are with all your sins and faults.\\Don't create a god in your own image. Worship and serve the One True God.
@rhology " Presuppositions are inescapable."You say that, yet it appears to me that your faith is full of them and you employ them constantly. For instance...."You're not a solipsist b/c you are inconsistent."This statement implies the presupposed claim that I am inconsistent. Something you wouldn't be in a position to know. And if you say I am inconsistent because I am a nonsolipsist atheist then you re making a circular argument. AKA Begging the question as you accuse me of in this next statement..."You act and speak (sometimes) as though your version of morality is correct, when you use words like "benefit". It begs the question."I already explained to you my moral view. That I am an authority over what is right and wrong, just as others are. I deem what is right and what is wrong based on that authority. So when I say "That is morally wrong it means I have judged it to be so." You judge things to be wrong based on what you think God judges. The only difference is I speak for myself and you claim to speak for a god. There is no difference in the act of judgment, only the entity judging.There are only two points of difference between our views.1. You are acting as a second party rather than the direct party2. You claim your God is more powerful than I amHere is what you are likely thinking...Q: Sig, is murder evil?A: Yes, murder is evil.Q: Sig, what gives you the authority to determine thatA: My viewpoints are created by my own authority.Q: But Sig, what gives you moral authority over me?A: Nothing, I never claimed such authority think whatever you likeQ: OK, I'm going to murder you then(A fight ensues, Sig ends up winning.)Q: Why didn't you let me murder you, it was the right thing to doA: You thought it was right, I didn't, your moral views came into conflict and I won because I was stronger. And by the way, your moral view is stupid because it would logically lead to your own destruction. As a fellow human being, I imagine, like me, that you don't seek your own destruction. Thus you may want to re-consider your moral view.@rhology You have a frame of view that there is always a master and there is always a servant and the only question is, which one are you? If you are not the master then you are the slave. So when I claim moral authority you automatically means that I claim moral authority over you. I don't, at least not until my views and your views come into conflict in some way. You are not my slave, I am not your master, and you are not my master or slave. We are equals. And I don't believe there is a God so he's not my master either or yours. You think there is, and he's master of us both. I can at least look at your view and understand it. But you are so entrenched in yours, that you cannot even fathom my frame, or so it seems."In reality, it is to glorify Jesus and not myself, which is why I talk about Jesus all the time and deflect attention away from myself."Well, that is not the impression you give me. I see a man who uses Jesus as a proxy to make himself feel powerful, brave, and important. I don't know your heart, but that is what appears to me."Again you assume you know what is good and better, thus again you are inconsistent with your stated position."Well, my judgment is based on my own perception of them being much more persuasive and consistent and making fewer logical errors in their argumentation. They are also more personable and relatable. I am far more likley to take what they say seriously."You already said that pursuing true beliefs is good in your view but there is no way to know whether it is superior in any other sense to its opposite."That is a strange claim. The value of true beliefs is fairly easy to test. Take those beliefs and put them into practice in trying to gain something you desire. If they work, then you have found the utility of a true belief. If they fail, then you have discovered they lack truth and thus utility. This is the basis of empiricism as a system of knowledge. Put ideas to the test, and if they hold productive, then they are true to the extent you have tested them."Shrug. I don't see any prideful thing I've said."Your self-certainty is a matter of pride. If you have no doubts in your worldview, then you have the utmost pride in your ability to observe and reason. Your automatic presumptions of what I and others think is another. You act as if you were omniscient. Rather than ask questions, you give answers about others.
@sigfried This whole comment was full of self-unaware hypocrisy, naked assertions, and items already refuted in our debate. One thing: When everyone is an authority, nobody is. You've robbed the word "authority" of any meaning at all.
@rhology No I don't rob authority of its meaning, I give it a realistic context as it plays out in the real world rather than using it in some kind of sense of ideas and platonic truths. Authority is force and choice and nothing more or less. You can choose to give someone authority, or you can choose to fight against it. If you choose to fight, then it comes down to who is stronger.That is how our world operates based on every observation I've ever been able to make.I would contend that you seem to imagine authority to be something it is not, a cosmic force of truth that is undeniable etc... One that cannot be opposed or circumvented. A messy world where you often have to fight for what you think is right doesn't appeal to you much, but it is the world we live in. Others will not bow to you or your god just on your say so.
@rhology "This whole comment was full of self-unaware hypocrisy, naked assertions, and items already refuted in our debate. "You didn't manage to refute much of anything in our debate. If you look at the voting, that's pretty clear. Apparently, two other people are in agreement with you while 12 are not. That does not determine truth, but it is a good indication that your opinions are pretty much limited to you here.I had the same debate with others, and the voting was much closer so you failed to be persuasive in your case.
@rhology Ok I'm going to try to follow your style.. :-)//I didn't say I changed my opinion on them this time. I said I had been challenged extensively on them. I have changed my view on quite a lot of things. Used to be an atheist. Used to hold to libertarian free will. Used to hold to an Old Earth model. Used to be in favor of US military interventions outside the country. Used to be pro-choice. Was a Democrat, then was a Republican, now an abolitionist. Learning all the time//Quite a story there, thank you for sharing :-) I was referring more to your views after you became an abolitionist (again trying to understand further your worldview) because I've heard you saying a lot "so what" "nothing matters" etc which adheres with your current wolrdview but how do you even challenge this going fwd if nothing matters?//That's a better question for an atheist to answer. God is, and nothing is apart from Him, so...//Why? I'm interested in your worldview not the atheist so I would prefer if you answer straight..If God is, then why your opinions matter/ change?//When it comes to this question, is it your way or the highway?//Absolutely not.. That's why I'm asking questions, to better understand. In fact, I never even expressed my views so you don't even know my way//He is that way... to the REPENTANT. Not to those who hate Him and are in rebellion against Him//The Christian God that I know and was taught is actually the One who opens his arms to the EVERYONE especially the ones who do not fit the perfect "Christian" definitionI could easily copy paste parts of the Bible showing how God has the attributes that I described which shows you how easily is for infinite humans to understand differently God (@the_peoples_champ you can probably do better this)Daniel 9:9 The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving even though we have rebelled against him"The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.” – Psalm 145:8 “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” – 1 John 4:8“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” – Matthew 18:22“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” 1 Corinthians 13: -47Nehemiah 9:17"They refused to listen, And did not remember Your wondrous deeds which You had performed among them; So they became stubborn and appointed a leader to return to their slavery in Egypt But You are a God of forgiveness, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness; And You did not forsake them.“So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.” John 13:34-35
@gigi \\I've heard you saying a lot "so what" "nothing matters" etc which adheres with your current wolrdview but how do you even challenge this going fwd if nothing matters?\\If atheism were true, there would be no way to challenge it. :-)And it wouldn't matter that there were no way. And it wouldn't matter whether one challenged it or not. \\If God is, then why your opinions matter/ change?\\Good question. This is known via a combination of biblical teachings. Jesus is the truth (John 14:6).Jesus does not change (Hebrews 13:8).I am commanded to obey Jesus (John 15).The law of the Lord is the guideline for what is good and bad (Psalm 19, 119). I will be held accountable for whether I follow His law (Romans 2:4-7). I am to love God with all my strength and mind (Matthew 22). God deserves all the glory in all the universe from everything and everyone at all times (https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/biblical-texts-to-show-gods-zeal-for-his-own-glory).\\In fact, I never even expressed my views so you don't even know my way\\Implicit in the statement "it's your way or the highway" is a disapproval of what you seem to see as a "black or white" view on my part. But OK, I'll accept that you were making no implicit value judgment. :-)It isn't that it's MY way or the highway. I'm just a messenger, warning people (Ezekiel 3). It's Jesus' way or the highway, yes, that's true. And I am correctly representing Jesus, by His grace, so yes, almost everyone ought to be a lot more like me and a lot less like they are. And then they ought to surpass me in righteousness and zeal and teach me a thing or three as well. \\The Christian God that I know and was taught is actually the One who opens his arms to the EVERYONE\\I would agree that He does accept anyone, but on the condition of repentance and faith. The proud and unrepentant He resists - see the book of James.\\especially the ones who do not fit the perfect "Christian" definition\\Anyone who comes to Jesus to be rescued from the righteous wrath of God needs to lay aside all pride in themselves and submit fully to the King. There is no room in the kingdom of God for those who look down their noses at anyone else. Those who come to Him in repentance and faith are then molded by His Spirit into the kind of people He wants them to be. This is about how merciful *He* is. We have nothing to offer Him.
@rhology So you believe that you are correctly representing God??? As a human being??? And that everyone else should be like you? Bold statement...:-)If religion was true, there would be no way to challenge it. :-)And it wouldn't matter that there were no way. And it wouldn't matter whether one challenged it or not. / you can apply the same logic for any belief...Your quotes don't really make sense to me...if anything, it reinforces the fact that whatever you say, it doesn't matter. Only God matters and us, human beings, should follow His word. The question here is what word exactly? And how do you interpret His word? I hope you agree with me that there are quite a lot of interpretations of the scripture which are reflected in the different Christian sects. So is there actually any human being who could correctly reflect God's words? No cause this person would be God. Are you 100% sure that you know His word? How did you decided which Christian sect better represents God?I grew up in a Christian Orthodox country and we studied Christianity almost throughout the 12 years of our school years. My personal view and the way I perceive God is that He/ She/ It doesn't need our worship or us calling him God or Allah.. none of these matter. He/ She/ It is One and you can call him whatever you want. We are all part of Him/ Her/ It as the rest of the world. So if we actually prioritize treating ourselves, the people around us, the environment with love, humility, forgiveness etc rather than spending our time worshipping, preaching or fighting who is the right God then we would all end up closer to God.
@gigi First, just because a religion may be true DOES NOT mean anyone can challenge it, but nobody can challenge it and succeed against that true religion; Clearly because that religion is true by the means of truth. Something that is untrue could clearly not prevail over something that is true.There was no logic in your second premise.Only the individual observing could say what matters to themselves, but in external matters, dictating what matters belongs to a source that cannot be incorrect or wrong in that dictation.Your assuming that God has multiple sources that disagree with each other when in fact if a source truly comes from the Lord, it would be self evident and that source must be interrupted to other means than what He says. If we are imperfect and God is perfect, then couldn't our interpretation of the perfect source also be imperfect? You are correct in that there are lots of sects that choose to interpret, but by doing so they prove they are not Christian.Every human being is capable of reflecting God's word without prideful interpretations. The word reflect means to think deeply about.We can be 100% certain we know His word by His prophecies coming true and the testimony given by those who witness them come true. Eye witness accounts are evidence and true testimony in the court of law, in science, and in philosophy.God is not Male or Female, because these traits are given to humanity, God is still gives a masculine trait, not feminine.We are most certainly not a part of Him like the rest of the world, until we are saved and forgiven of sin, otherwise, the evil in this world and in humanity would then be a part of God, which inherently is impossible considering God is perfect, good, and cannot be evil or be a part of evil or with evil. If it were possible then this thing would not be a true God and one would need to find the true God, who is perfect and all good.We worship God to give Him glory and not ourselves. We do this to not acknowledge our works for there is evil and no value in self-righteousness. We Preach so that others may learn that He exist and to not be righteous in our ways, but to live out the will of God in His ways, which are more perfect than our own.the True God is not a pagan god, but there are many who claim Christianity who commit themselves to pagan worship and pagan ceremonies, and traditions of there own minds and there own pleasure.Please accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior with all your heart mind and with your mouth if you haven't already!
Pattern Recognition is the name of the game guys. There is no correct pattern.
Profound against Conman. Thanks, this was epic! ;-)
A difference needs to be made whether or not something is moral by its own means, or by the means we choose. Clearly it can't be by the means we choose considering we are imperfect beings, therefore the morality we wish to seek must be by a means more perfect than ourselves; Otherwise the definition we may use may also be imperfect and incorrect.
@johnathon_morris What do you mean by imperfect? What is a perfect being? By what standard to you measure its imperfections? We can say what is a perfect circle because we have a definition to measure it by, and any deviation makes it imperfect.But for a being, no such measure exists, so the word perfect becomes meaningless and measureless. So you ask for something logically impossible, which I think makes it a nonsensical request. Without knowing what is perfect or being able to describe it, you can never identify what is imperfect. And unable to identify it, you cannot say that it is imperfect.
Also, what value is it, to live in a society that dictates its own morality, when they would submit, knowingly, that what they would agree may change or be incorrect? Would it be wiser to agree on the basis of morality that would be from an absolute perfect source or not? And ought we to or ought we not?
@johnathon_morris It's the only kind of society you can live in because it is the only kind we can find that exists. Again, you use the word perfect, but without defining in what way it is perfect or by what standard it is perfect, the term is without real meaning. Its like saying we should all wear perfect shoes. What is the perfect shoe? How do I know any given shoe is the perfect shoe? Where do I get the perfect shoe?
Lastly, Is something good because we choose it to be, or by its owns means of being good and by what means then are we believing something is good, by any source more perfect than an imperfect source that is capable of incorrectness, evil, imperfections, and faults?
@johnathon_morris Same thing. Imagine i have an two objects that are half spheres with a flattened exterior side. (like a bowl)One has many holes in the bottom. One does not.Which one is the perfect one and why?