Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[madaz]

Pardon me, madaz didn't even address my request for evidence.

Evidence of a negative? Is that what you are requesting from me?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's your opinion. You are entitled to it. I have already submitted my work on premise (2). Feel free to view it at your leisure. Or you don not have to.

I have silently admitted no where that the moral argument has broken down, so I think you are mistaken.

It certainly has broken down, regardless of your admissions or not. For the first premise is not only unsupported, it is a tautology. You have made at least some effort to support the second premise. However, given that we have no reason to accept the first it does not lead us to your desired conclusion.

 

[Ken-1122]

It is off topic because it fails to address either of the two premises of the moral argument.

It is also an informal fallacy of the red herring stripe.

It is also a violation of the OP's request that informal fallacies not be used in this discussion.

It is also inappropriately posted in this forum. There is a specific sub-forum for questions regarding biblical interpretation.

As I have already stated, several times, I would be more than thrilled to answer this question. I just will not be addressing it in this forum.

The above are the main reasons why I have literally begged for anyone here to engage in a formal debate with me. A formal debate will eliminate all unnecessary arguments, red herring tangents and strawmen constructs.

Would you like to engage in a formal debate with me regarding the topic of your choice in an agreed upon format?

It is on topic because it is in response to your false claim on post $323. IMO just another example of you refusing to answer a question.

K

 

[madaz]

Pardon me, madaz didn't even address my request for evidence.

Pardon me, I didnt even know you made a request until I noticed this post. I'm sorry.

It was answered by someone else so that's even MORE telling.

Telling? What do you mean?

Why is the standard of evidence different for the atheist than the theist?

Because the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

Especially when the atheist is making the same claims of knowledge?

What claim of knowledge are you referring too? If it was the claim that we wouldnt be having this discussion if god(s) existed then it is not a knowledge claim. It was made in the same way as we wouldnt be discussing the existence of moon because we know the moon exists.

 

[Gadarene]

Because the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

And aside from anything else, if you're arguing with someone who lacks belief in gods because of a lack of evidence, going "show your evidence for the claim that god doesn't exist" just demonstrates that you aren't paying attention.

The quickest way to proceed when presented with someone whose stance is the above is, funnily enough, to present the best positive evidence for the existence of deities. The person best placed to do that is the theist. Denying this just smacks of a rather desperate attempt to avoiding justifying one's own position, which is hardly going to fill someone unconvinced of it with confidence that it's a good position to hold.

 

[madaz]

Yes, but since no one has a regard for my desires, I have decided to humor you guys for a while and see where it goes.

Why should anyone regard your desire, if your desire is to assert the existence of an entity that is absent.
You have been humorous and it is getting you nowhere.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Elioenai26,

1. Are you going to accept and acknowledge the valid points that have been presented to you?

2. When you have been corrected on an issue you still continue with the original error, as if you are consciously refusing to accept it, are you embarrassed or just simply in denial?

3. Opportunities like forum discussions are great ways of educating ourselves, are you actually learning anything?

4. Are you just purely motivated to perturb atheists because you have a disdain for them?

5. If you are going to ignore these questions please at least answer #1.

 

[KCfromNC]

Question of evidence aside....

Evidence is only persuasive if one is open to where the evidence leads.

If the last example I pointed out wasn't an example of poisoning the well, this implication that non-believers wouldn't accept evidence even if it existed as an excuse to avoid presenting it is a textbook case.

And it's off topic for this thread. Red herring! Red herring!

 

[KCfromNC]

That´s not new. You have done it all the time: "Humoring" people with your red herrings, and complain when people respond to them. A special form of baiting. Rest assured, your debate tricks don´t go unnoticed.

While simply abandoning those discussions that are to your points.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your premise 2.
Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim that moral subjectivists are unable to live up to this view.

I'd also like to know if the OP feels that the Bible is correct in the fact that people who dash babies' heads against rocks are blessed. Especially in the context of his claims that people who feel torturing babies is always wrong somehow establishes an objective morality.

Seems that would put him in a position where he would have to disagree that the word of God provides an objective morality to be consistent with his claim of things which are evidence for an objective morality. Which means that either premise 1 or premise 2 has to go, whichever he decides.

 

[madaz]

Btw, you *can* prove some negatives.

Please demonstrate with these non hypothetical examples...

1. Humans do not exist on the moon.
2. Polar bears do not exist in Antartica.
3. Penguins do not exist in the arctic.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

The moral argument as it has been formulated in the OP is logically sound.

A valid conclusion can only be made if the premises are true, if one premise is not true then the conclusion is invalid.

Why do you refuse to accept this basic rule?

 

[Asvin]

I think he has some kind of weird obsession with William Lane Craig. He uses some phrases exactly the same way that WLC uses them. WLC's followers are known for spreading these phrases in hopes of coming across as intellectuals, but they have no interest in engaging in actual discussions.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

A valid conclusion can only be made if the premises are true, if one premise is not true then the conclusion is invalid.

Why do you refuse to accept this basic rule?

I think he does. He claims the argument is sound (which it is); we're claiming it's not true because the premises aren't demonstrated to be true. Heck, they're not even probably true.

He's only tried to demonstrate #2, and that by a series of fallacious arguments. We haven't even touched #1.

 

[Elioenai26]

If anyone would like to debate me, then the invitation remains open to all of you. I look forward to actually being able to engage in a structured, formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend their counter-perspective.

If I am so bad at defending my arguments, I see no reason why any atheist here would refuse to debate me.

I have been waiting for some time now for someone to step up to the plate.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

If anyone would like to debate me, then the invitation remains open to all of you. I look forward to actually being able to engage in a structured, formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend their counter-perspective.

If I am so bad at defending my arguments, I see no reason why any atheist here would refuse to debate me.

I have been waiting for some time now for someone to step up to the plate.

You have not responded to questions put to you; you have avoided arguments that directly challenged your claims; you have accused others of using logical fallacies and misrepresentation when they have been clear and accurate about your positions.

Up to this point, you have not made any attempt to argue or discuss in good faith. Could you explain why you think it would be worth anyone's time and energy to 'debate' you?

 

[Elioenai26]

You have not responded to questions put to you; you have avoided arguments that directly challenged your claims; you have accused others of using logical fallacies and misrepresentation when they have been clear and accurate about your positions.

Up to this point, you have not made any attempt to argue or discuss in good faith. Could you explain why you think it would be worth anyone's time and energy to 'debate' you?

It would give you the opportunity to make a case for your position and show why your position is better supported than mine.

It would give the people here who are so confident in their views to actually put their money where their mouth is and do more than just sit back and say: "your premises are not true" , or some other assertion like that.

You are new here, would you like to debate me?

 

[Elioenai26]

I think he has some kind of weird obsession with William Lane Craig. He uses some phrases exactly the same way that WLC uses them. WLC's followers are known for spreading these phrases in hopes of coming across as intellectuals, but they have no interest in engaging in actual discussions.

Let's agree to enter into a formal debate. I would love to engage in a debate with you. You pick the topic and we will talk about a format.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

It would give you the opportunity to make a case for your position and show why your position is better supported than mine.

It would give the people here who are so confident in their views to actually put their money where their mouth is and do more than just sit back and say: "your premises are not true" , or some other assertion like that.

You are new here, would you like to debate me?

But people have not just sat back and said such things. They have actually addressed your assertions and given arguments as to why you are wrong. You have ignited them, or dismissed their posts without addressing your points.

You have established a pattern of evasion and dismissal. Why, if you are dishonest about this, would debate with you go better?

That's an honest question by the way. Why would you debate any better than you currently post?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Oh, and El? We have already shown that our position is better supported than yours. What NEW arguments could you bring to a debate? Have you debated elsewhere? Are their samples of your debate style for perusal? Are you capable of debating with an open mind?

 

[Davian]

Question of evidence aside....

Evidence is only persuasive if one is open to where the evidence leads.

The real issue is: Christians maintain that Christ rose from the dead bodily. If there is historical support for this, then it is reasonable to believe that He did in fact rise from the dead, which would be all the evidence a person who is open to where it leads would need. This would prove a great many things and would open up a whole new way of viewing reality.

From WLC's web page:

"So you’re asking for non-canonical sources. I think one reason Bill didn’t want to answer is because the non-canonical sources don’t bear out his position. The non- canonical pagan sources in fact never refer to the resurrection of Jesus until centuries later. Jesus actually never appears any non-canonical pagan source until 80 years after his death. So clearly he didn’t make a big impact on the pagan world. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus but didn’t believe in his resurrection. There are non-canonical Christian sources that talk about the resurrection, but unfortunately virtually all of them that narrate the event, although they are non-canonical Gospels, narrate the event in a way that disagrees with Bill’s reconstruction. They don’t believe that Jesus was physically, bodily raised from the dead. For evidence of that simply read the account of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth or read the account the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter; just go down the line. We do have one account in which Jesus comes out of the tomb. It’s in the Gospel of Peter; it’s an apocalyptic account. Jesus comes out of the tomb as tall as the skyscraper; following him is a cross which speaks to the heavens, clearly a legendary account of very little use to historians wanting to know what happened."

Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith.org

So, if there is no historical support for this event, then it is not reasonable to believe that it happened.

Did you have anything to add, Elio?