Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Just use the same source you've been using for the other scripture verses you've taken out of context. The evidence is there.

No, it's not. Prove it. Show your work. Give us the quotes that show what the Amelikites knew and didn't know.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

When has God ordered the extermination of a group of people because they were Muslim?

It was posed as a hypothetical. Please read for comprehension.

The Muslims have committed at least as many atrocities against Christians as the Amelekites committed against the Hebrews. If God ordered you to butcher them, every last man, woman, and child, would you do it?

When has God ordered the murder and rape of women and the butchering of children?

Samuel, Numbers, etc.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So let's be clear:

The bible says that god committed mass murder (Noah).

The bible says that god ordered genocide (Amelekites).

The bible says that god ordered the killing of children and infants.

So - if god ordered you to do these things, would you do them?

And you really claim morality comes from god?

"What will you tell god when you see him, Carpentier? Will you tell him he could learn morality from Vlad the Impaler?"

 

[Elioenai26]

No, it's not. Prove it. Show your work. Give us the quotes that show what the Amelikites knew and didn't know.

It was posed as a hypothetical. Please read for comprehension.

The Muslims have committed at least as many atrocities against Christians as the Amelekites committed against the Hebrews. If God ordered you to butcher them, every last man, woman, and child, would you do it?

Samuel, Numbers, etc.

Really? You must be reading a different Bible than the contemporary Biblical critics and scholars who make their living researching these matters. Maybe you should submit your findings to be peer reviewed.

 

[quatona]

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

You put the validity of your argument up for discussion. That´s the topic of the thread.

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.

It´s not "your premises aren´t true", it´s "your premises are unsubstantiated". Unsubstantiated premises are fatal for the validity of an argument.
Dont pretend to put your argument to scrutinity when your actual purpose is to discuss other people´s views.

 

[Elioenai26]

You put the validity of your argument up for discussion. That´s the topic of the thread.


It´s not "your premises aren´t true", it´s "your premises are unsubstantiated". Unsubstantiated premises are fatal for the validity of an argument.
Dont pretend to put your argument to scrutinity when your actual purpose is to discuss other people´s views.

Thanks.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Really? You must be reading a different Bible than the contemporary Biblical critics and scholars who make their living researching these matters.

1 Samuel 15:3 is quite clear. What part of "put to death" and "men, women, and children" do you disagree with? Be specific.

Maybe you should submit your findings to be peer reviewed.

I've been published in Nature and Science. Where have you been published?

 

[Elioenai26]

1 Samuel 15:3 is quite clear. What part of "put to death" and "men, women, and children" do you disagree with? Be specific.

I've been published in Nature and Science. Where have you been published?

That's terrific. However, I am not impressed. For even if you have been published in Nature and Science, you are still way out of your area of expertise in making assertions regarding Biblical Criticism.

For someone who does'nt belive in God, and for someone who believes the bible is simply a compilation of myths and legends, which I am assuming is your position, you sure do seem to think that the things the bible records actually happened!!!

 

[Gadarene]

That's terrific. However, I am not impressed. For even if you have been published in Nature and Science, you are still way out of your area of expertise in making assertions regarding Biblical Criticism.

For someone who does'nt belive in God, and for someone who believes the bible is simply a compilation of myths and legends, which I am assuming is your position, you sure do seem to think that the things the bible records actually happened!!!

So not only are you cherry-picking the Bible but you still haven't grasped what a devil's advocate argument is.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

That's terrific. However, I am not impressed. For even if you have been published in Nature and Science, you are still way out of your area of expertise in making assertions regarding Biblical Criticism.

For someone who does'nt belive in God, and for someone who believes the bible is simply a compilation of myths and legends, which I am assuming is your position, you sure do seem to think that the things the bible records actually happened!!!

Fascinating. So you're saying that the bible IS a compilation of myths and legends? Didn't know that was your position.

Now, the fact of the matter is that god orders the Israelites to commit genocide; specifically, to annihilate the Amelekites, including the children and infants and women. Now, this is reasonably early on in middle-east history: women were not going about smiting Israelites, nor were children, nor were infants.

So god ordered the murder of innocents; he ordered genocide - ACCORDING TO YOUR HOLY BOOK.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So not only are you cherry-picking the Bible but you still haven't grasped what a devil's advocate argument is.

El isn't much for logical argument. And he appears very much a newbie when it comes to discussion of biblical topics. No experience. Whereas I've defended. Twice.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Again, for El:

1 Samuel 15:3 is quite clear. What part of "put to death" and "men, women, and children" do you disagree with? Be specific.

God commanded the death of children.

How do you make him out to be the font of morality?

 

[Davian]

I am sure they can. But I have no idea what that has to do with you accepting an invitation to a debate.

This was in reference to what you said, that you may be just some deceived, pitiful, amusing individual. That may be, but the issue is with the topic, and the format.

I feel I am more than justified in using the quote. According to every atheist who I have questioned regarding their willingness to worship Christ, they have confessed that they would question what right Christ had to claim their allegiance and some have made it very clear that they would reject outright the opprtunity to love, worship, honor, and reverence Jesus Christ even if they did believe Him to be real.

Have you spoken to every atheist?

I am glad. I would'nt either. No one is asking you to prove a negative. But you do have a view on certain things. Lets say for instance the topic: "Does God exist?" I am sure you have a position on that question that you could argue from? No?

No. Again, that topic would entail proving a negative.

Try this: State your claim in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis.

Is a formal debate against policy? I have not read that it was. No one engaging in a formal debate here would be at odds with the rules and moderators of this site.

Do you speak for the moderators?

Be aware that in addition to the warnings and suspensions, I have found that posts, threads, and even users can be deleted without notice or warnings. It is quite odd to review an old thread, to find one's post have been removed (although, not always the replies).

Mainstream science? Surely you are not talking about logical positivism?

No. I am referring to subjects such as the theory of evolution and the standard cosmological model, as accepted as fact by WLC.

I never said debate was a path to truth. However, debate is a much more conducive format for getting one's points across in a clear, concise, and orderly manner.

You could simply try answering the questions put to you. That would be a lot less effort for all involved.

Dr. Craig has been debating high profile scientists and atheists for 20 plus years using the same five arguments as his base, and he still is the most well respected, most revered, Christian philosophical apologist and debater today. One atheist even confessed that he can put the fear of God in an atheist when debating. So I think you may be hesitant to debate me because you know I utilize much of his knowledge and teachings.

Now, that is pitiful.

 

[Ken-1122]

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

I disagree with your first claim. Can you provide proof?

Ken

 

[Davian]

Fascinating. So you're saying that the bible IS a compilation of myths and legends? Didn't know that was your position.

Now, the fact of the matter is that god orders the Israelites to commit genocide; specifically, to annihilate the Amelekites, including the children and infants and women. Now, this is reasonably early on in middle-east history: women were not going about smiting Israelites, nor were children, nor were infants.

So god ordered the murder of innocents; he ordered genocide - ACCORDING TO YOUR HOLY BOOK.

I try not to resort to referencing the bible, as it has a demonstrable record for its inability to resolve differences of opinion.

But you may find this link of interest, where William Lane Craig attempts to get around the "genocide" issues by playing with the definition of “ethnic cleansing”.

"But if you want to argue it wasn’t technically genocide, consider this slightly broader definition that’s been given for “ethnic cleansing”: “the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous.”

Deuteronomy’s program is pretty clearly ethnic cleansing by that definition. And while “ethnic cleansing” was originally a euphemism used by those who committed it in Yugoslavia, it has since fallen off the euphemsim treadmill and–rightly–come to be seen as morally equivalent or at least near-equivalent to genocide."

William Lane Craig on being “the apologist who defends genocide”

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I try not to resort to referencing the bible, as it has a demonstrable record for its inability to resolve differences of opinion.

But you may find this link of interest, where William Lane Craig attempts to get around the "genocide" issues by playing with the definition of “ethnic cleansing”.

"But if you want to argue it wasn’t technically genocide, consider this slightly broader definition that’s been given for “ethnic cleansing”: “the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous.”

Deuteronomy’s program is pretty clearly ethnic cleansing by that definition. And while “ethnic cleansing” was originally a euphemism used by those who committed it in Yugoslavia, it has since fallen off the euphemsim treadmill and–rightly–come to be seen as morally equivalent or at least near-equivalent to genocide."

William Lane Craig on being “the apologist who defends genocide”

That is amazingly sick. William Lane Craig claims that the people injured in genocide ARE THE SOLDIERS WHO COMMITTED IT?

That's the most nauseating thing I've seen in months. What a vile, hateful man.

 

[Davian]

That is amazingly sick. William Lane Craig claims that the people injured in genocide ARE THE SOLDIERS WHO COMMITTED IT?

That's the most nauseating thing I've seen in months. What a vile, hateful man.

Indeed.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's the most nauseating thing I've seen in months. What a vile, hateful man.

I doubt that he is "hateful".

Rather, he is twisting his brain in knots trying to defend his dogma. That's the sort of thing that happens when one places anything higher than reason.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am sure they can. But I have no idea what that has to do with you accepting an invitation to a debate.



I feel I am more than justified in using the quote. According to every atheist who I have questioned regarding their willingness to worship Christ, they have confessed that they would question what right Christ had to claim their allegiance and some have made it very clear that they would reject outright the opprtunity to love, worship, honor, and reverence Jesus Christ even if they did believe Him to be real.



I am glad. I would'nt either. No one is asking you to prove a negative. But you do have a view on certain things. Lets say for instance the topic: "Does God exist?" I am sure you have a position on that question that you could argue from? No?



Is a formal debate against policy? I have not read that it was. No one engaging in a formal debate here would be at odds with the rules and moderators of this site.



Mainstream science? Surely you are not talking about logical positivism?



I never said debate was a path to truth. However, debate is a much more conducive format for getting one's points across in a clear, concise, and orderly manner.



Dr. Craig has been debating high profile scientists and atheists for 20 plus years using the same five arguments as his base, and he still is the most well respected, most revered, Christian philosophical apologist and debater today. One atheist even confessed that he can put the fear of God in an atheist when debating. So I think you may be hesitant to debate me because you know I utilize much of his knowledge and teachings.

Have you read anything other than the work of Craig and Horner? I ask because it seems like those are your main sources. As I said earlier, I get the impression that you haven't actually read Nietzsche or Sartre or others beyond what you've seen quoted on sites like Reasonable Faith. Is that impression correct?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's terrific. However, I am not impressed. For even if you have been published in Nature and Science, you are still way out of your area of expertise in making assertions regarding Biblical Criticism.

For someone who does'nt belive in God, and for someone who believes the bible is simply a compilation of myths and legends, which I am assuming is your position, you sure do seem to think that the things the bible records actually happened!!!

Whether the events transpired exactly as recorded is not germane to her larger point, which is that the Biblical God is not worthy of being praised as morally perfect.