Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[Archaeopteryx]

The objectivity is that a Perfect God would know perfectly what we imperfect (and failure prone) human beings need to do in order to maintain right relationships. The objectivity is in God's knowledge ...

"Right relationships" according to...?

 

[The Cadet]

Wow. That's quite a claim. So you believe that there's *really* nothing wrong with Anti-Semitism, then.

He didn't say that. This is a completely disingenuous twisting of his words.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Right relationships" according to...?

According to .... the subject of my previous proposition, Arch. (God)

Maybe I can make it more clear here:

1) Humanity begins existentially with subjective choices regarding morality (i.e. do I, or don't I, believe my cultural mores).
2) In the process of making subjective moral choices, humanity often encounters "additional, metaphysical" moral claims.
3) Some of these metaphysical moral claims purport to be objective.
4) Humanity has to make additional subjective choices in response to their encounters with these metaphysical moral claims (i.e. asking "do I, or don't I, believe" these metaphysical moral claims).

5) Hence, we (humanity) remain in a subjective moral loop from which we cannot escape---unless it just so happens that at least one of the metaphysical moral claims is indeed true (and objective).

So, we need a Perfect God, with perfect knowledge, to make our understanding of morality objective, otherwise we're just whistling Dixie. And if there is no god ... well, you get the picture.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Joshua260]

"Not objective" is not equivalent to "not wrong." You've made a basic mistake here.

I don't see where I used the phrase "Not objective" in my reply, so you need to explain to me where my mistake was. Can you be more clear?

 

[Joshua260]

When one googles that quote, guess what is found? Yep... Another Craigite.

Regardless of where it came from, does that mean the quote is incorrect? Of course not...you're just replying with an ad hominem attack that has no bearing on the actual argument.

Anyway...I went and sourced it for you now. So going back to the actual discussion now ...why should I disbelieve what seems to be so obvious...that raping little girls for fun is *really *wrong? As your fellow non-believer pointed out, any argument you give me trying to prove that objective moral values and duties do *not* exist would have to be based on premises that you're going to have to defend exceptionally well!!

Good luck with that!!

 

[Joshua260]

He didn't say that. This is a completely disingenuous twisting of his words.

He said this:
"Morality = Subjective"
So you don't think he didn't mean to imply that there are no objective moral values and duties?

 

[The Cadet]

He said this:
"Morality = Subjective"
So you don't think he didn't mean to imply that there are no objective moral values and duties?

I don't believe in objective moral values and duties in the strictest sense, but that doesn't mean I have no way of telling right from wrong. That doesn't mean I think anti-semitism is correct.

 

[Joshua260]

I don't believe in objective moral values and duties in the strictest sense, but that doesn't mean I have no way of telling right from wrong. That doesn't mean I think anti-semitism is correct.

Maybe I missed it. Do you answer my question? "So you don't think he didn't mean to imply that there are no objective moral values and duties?"

 

[The Cadet]

Maybe I missed it. Do you answer my question? "So you don't think he didn't mean to imply that there are no objective moral values and duties?"

I think he meant to imply that. But that's not the same thing as claiming that there is no right and wrong.

 

[Ratjaws]

You stated that all things require a cause, but then demanded an exception for your deity, without justification. That is special pleading.

That too is problematic. Why assume it must a deity?

Your psychic abilities have failed you.

Archaeopteryx,
I apologize for being unclear... by all things I meant all material beings... if you will all beings that can be scrutinized with empirical science. Now you point to one being in our world that does not come from something else and I will reconsider my position. And note here you cannot claim the universe is one since it is not an entity, rather the universe is more properly defined as the totality of all existing things. So you have to point to a specific thing within this universe, this one-verse, and show me how it is self-sufficient in order to rid us of an uncaused Cause. In fact you have to point to many uncaused causes in order to rid us of one uncaused cause.

Why assume a deity? Well we are not assuming rather coming to the conclusion from a sequence of logical judgments. As I said we work back from what exists in front of us now, back from effect to it's cause, and go on and on like this, and we have to end somewhere or, we are faced with a universe of being that always existed, with a chain of being constantly flowing from it... OR, on the other hand, it had a beginning ready made so-to-speak. Why should we suppose either of this ideas? The first assumes infinity which we do not see anywhere in the universe. The second begs the question of how that first matter was there to start the chain of cause and effect. We simply put off the very question we are trying to answer with the second case.

So we propose there must have been a beginning to this chain of cause and effect. We also know the cause must be greater than the effect(s). So we know this first cause must be at least great enough to account for the vastness of our universe in all its beauty and splendor. It must have within it the complexity it has given to the universe of being we see all around us. It must be a power at least as great as the power(s) we see manifest in our universe. And we don't need to assume it has exhausted it's capacity and power in causing all the being we see around us. We can postulate this cause has an infinite capacity. It has infinite power. Also since there is intelligence in our world this cause must also be intelligent... in fact it must be the archetype as Plato proposed. It must be a cause that is living since it has caused life... and on and on we go. We end up defining God, or put another way, we have a definition of God in our mind, that which nothing is greater, and we simply make the logical conclusion that God fits this first cause. That First Cause which is self-sufficient is what we define as God.

None of what I say violates reason and most of these ideas come from other men who were not only better thinkers than me, but they were not Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I draw upon the ideas of the Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the most prominent of their time. I also draw upon others who purified their thought, albeit they came from a Christian perspective, and added to the deposit of knowedge we now have. Men like St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas. So your problem is not just with my thinking but men (and women like St. Edith Stein, the Jewish philosopher who was murdered by Hitler's henchmen in a concentration camp) better than me. Still in all honesty maybe the problem is with your thinking and those who mentored you??? Can you address what I say here point by point without attacking my character?

 

[Joshua260]

I think he meant to imply that. But that's not the same thing as claiming that there is no right and wrong.

huh? You're waffling. Let's review...

I said "So you don't think he didn't mean to imply that there are no objective moral values and duties?"...and you tell me "that's not the same a claiming that there is no right or wrong?"
What do you think objective moral duties are?...they are duties that are right for us to do no matter what any human being thinks. Such as *it is right* that a human being should prevent someone else from raping a little girl, no matter what any human being thinks.

So you're rebuke of me was improper. You and I both know he meant to imply that there is no objective moral right or wrong...or as I like to call them OV&Ds.

 

[Joshua260]

I don't believe in objective moral values and duties in the strictest sense, but that doesn't mean I have no way of telling right from wrong. That doesn't mean I think anti-semitism is correct.

You mean you have an opinion about what you *think* is right or wrong. You're confusing moral epistemology and moral ontology. It's a common mistake.

 

[The Cadet]

I said "So you don't think he didn't mean to imply that there are no objective moral values and duties?"...and you tell me "that's not the same a claiming that there is no right or wrong?"

Yep. Because of simple self-interest. First, we can establish that egotistical morality is self-contradictory - moral systems in which the self is first and foremost don't work. A moral dictate must work universally, or it does not work. This is simple to illustrate with an example: "Anyone who harms you will be punished, but if you punish someone, you will not be harmed". If two people harm each other, each can appeal to the separate parts of that law and we're stuck at a contradiction. Such moral statements must be universal and not inconsistent from person to person.

...Actually, I'm gonna stop here, because I'm pretty drunk, but I can come back to it tomorrow. If you want to know what I think about the issue, look up Matt Dillahunty's talk on secular morality. It's not absolute, but it's so universal among humans that it's entirely reasonable to structure our society around it.

 

[Ratjaws]

According to .... the subject of my previous proposition, Arch. (God)

Maybe I can make it more clear here:

1) Humanity begins existentially with subjective choices regarding morality (i.e. do I, or don't I, believe my cultural mores).
2) In the process of making subjective moral choices, humanity often encounters "additional, metaphysical" moral claims.
3) Some of these metaphysical moral claims purport to be objective.
4) Humanity has to make additional subjective choices in response to their encounters with these metaphysical moral claims (i.e. asking "do I, or don't I, believe" these metaphysical moral claims).

5) Hence, we (humanity) remain in a subjective moral loop from which we cannot escape---unless it just so happens that at least one of the metaphysical moral claims is indeed true (and objective).

So, we need a Perfect God, with perfect knowledge, to make our understanding of morality objective, otherwise we're just whistling Dixie. And if there is no god ... well, you get the picture.

2PhiloVoid

2Philo,
Allow me to lend a helping hand to your argument here... Morality is objective, as I said in another post, because it has to do with concrete acts of ourselves and other human beings. Your point seems to be that the rules, so-to-speak, of morality come from outside us (from the Creator). While this is true it is not why morality is an objective reality. It's not that we need the Ten Commandments to know moral truth. We have an intellect capable of discovering not only truth but what is right (our conscience), and this is the basis of moral understanding.

So as I said previously every act we can make (this includes our self as well as other persons) is potentially moral. Some acts we don't consider to be moral only because they are so insignificant (such as stealing a penny) in comparison to other acts (such as stealing a million dollars). I think what Archaeopteryx is saying is that anything in our mind is subjective by definition, and he does not realize what is in our mind comes from outside it. Thus we see an act and make a judgement. That judgment can be said to be subjective, that is in our mind, but it is there because of what is external to our mind and therefore objective.

So this is why I related moral objectivity to scientific objectivity. In both cases we "see" something outside of ourselves (including our self) and form an idea that corresponds to that external objective reality. This is what Archaeopteryx overlooks. So the argument does not rest on where moral objectivity ultimately comes from, which is what you argue, rather on whether there is only a subjective aspect to morality and from our perspective, why moral truth is both objective and subjective.

Again my point has been that this moral objectivity applies to both the scientific method as well as to moral discernment. If moral judgemnt rests just in our mind then so too does scientific scrutiny, of which, I am sure Archaeopteryx is not willing to concede.

 

[Davian]

Wow. That's quite a claim. So you believe that there's *really* nothing wrong with Anti-Semitism, then. Some people may think's it's morally right and others may think it's morally wrong, but neither belief is objectively correct.

Also, that seems to be a truth claim. Have you never heard the quote below from a fellow non-believer Louise Anthony?

“Any argument for moral skepticism is going to be based on premises which are less obvious than the reality of moral values themselves."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/intransigence-about-objective-moral-values

Ah, the false dichotomy. Objective morals, or nihilism.

You really are a WLC fan.

So you're going to have to convince me why I should doubt my sense that "raping little girls for fun" is *really* wrong. I don't see why I should believe you in spite of a reality that seems so obvious.

I think it's wrong, but I have been told by another in these forums there are circumstances where [hypothetically] someone has observed a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, allows it to happen, and says nothing to anyone about it, and, in some roundabout logic that I cannot grasp, this 'someone' is still [within the hypothetical] considered "good".

Can you imagine such a proposition?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

2Philo,
Allow me to lend a helping hand to your argument here... Morality is objective, as I said in another post, because it has to do with concrete acts of ourselves and other human beings. Your point seems to be that the rules, so-to-speak, of morality come from outside us (from the Creator). While this is true it is not why morality is an objective reality. It's not that we need the Ten Commandments to know moral truth. We have an intellect capable of discovering not only truth but what is right (our conscience), and this is the basis of moral understanding.

So as I said previously every act we can make (this includes our self as well as other persons) is potentially moral. Some acts we don't consider to be moral only because they are so insignificant (such as stealing a penny) in comparison to other acts (such as stealing a million dollars). I think what Archaeopteryx is saying is that anything in our mind is subjective by definition, and he does not realize what is in our mind comes from outside it. Thus we see an act and make a judgement. That judgment can be said to be subjective, that is in our mind, but it is there because of what is external to our mind and therefore objective.

So this is why I related moral objectivity to scientific objectivity. In both cases we "see" something outside of ourselves (including our self) and form an idea that corresponds to that external objective reality. This is what Archaeopteryx overlooks. So the argument does not rest on where moral objectivity ultimately comes from, which is what you argue, rather on whether there is only a subjective aspect to morality and from our perspective, why moral truth is both objective and subjective.

Again my point has been that this moral objectivity applies to both the scientific method as well as to moral discernment. If moral judgemnt rests just in our mind then so too does scientific scrutiny, of which, I am sure Archaeopteryx is not willing to concede.

I hate to say it, Ratjaws, but I disagree with your overall analysis as to what makes morality objective, and on several fronts (although, I'm assuming that we are denoting the same meaning about what it is for a person to attempt to be objective. Maybe we aren't on the same page about objectivity and are just speaking past each other here). However, I very much appreciate the fact that you are a fellow 'thinker' and that you give this subject matter your best effort. And who knows---maybe you're right, and I just don't see it.

In the meantime, I reserve the right to stick to a more 'Pauline' type approach to this analysis ...

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Joshua260]

Yep. Because of simple self-interest. First, we can establish that egotistical morality is self-contradictory - moral systems in which the self is first and foremost don't work. A moral dictate must work universally, or it does not work. This is simple to illustrate with an example: "Anyone who harms you will be punished, but if you punish someone, you will not be harmed". If two people harm each other, each can appeal to the separate parts of that law and we're stuck at a contradiction. Such moral statements must be universal and not inconsistent from person to person.

...Actually, I'm gonna stop here, because I'm pretty drunk, but I can come back to it tomorrow. If you want to know what I think about the issue, look up Matt Dillahunty's talk on secular morality. It's not absolute, but it's so universal among humans that it's entirely reasonable to structure our society around it.

Well, whenever you sober up, you should learn that declaring that there *is* a right and wrong is the same thing as declaring that there *are* *objective* MV&Ds. When a body of men and women get together and *decide* what they think *should* be right and wrong, they are applying their "subjective" opinions about it. It doesn't prove that objective right and wrong actually exist...they've just decided to call some things right and other things wrong. It's a totally subjective system they are developing, and that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

look up Matt Dillahunty's talk on secular morality.

First, you keep slipping back into a discussion about people's subjective opinions about moral values and that is irrelevant to the discussion. Second, I've seen several Matt Dillahunty videos, and I was not impressed with his rebuttals. For example, I've seen him speak disrespectfully about various Christians without directly engaging their arguments...Lee Strobel comes to mind. Lee is more of an author...and if you read his books, he's really consulting other professional Christian scholars and theologians. But again like I said, instead of addressing the substance of the material in the books, Matt attacks Lee personally. I have to say he's done a good job though because I hear a lot of internet atheists echo almost the same disparaging remarks that he spouts against Lee Strobel. That's a pretty common tactic with atheists, and it's even *advocated* by such atheist heroes as Richard Dawkins.

Also, Matt won't even talk to anyone who mentions Pascal's wager anymore. That's what he said himself...if someone mentions it, he said he will simply hang up on them. That's unfortunate because, after listening to him attempt to refute it one time, it became clear that he obviously does not understand Pascal's argument and now he refuses to listen anyone try to correct his misunderstanding of it.

I guess you're a fan of his and I respect that. I don't know him personally, but I'm not impressed with his arguments.

It's not absolute...

FYI, the bible teaches the existence of objective, not absolute moral values and duties.

...it's so universal among humans that it's entirely reasonable to structure our society around it

If Hitler had killed off everyone who did not agree with his anti-Semitic views, then there would have been universal agreement that Anti-Semitism is a moral good.

 

[Armoured]

Which "huge granary" are we talking about here? What "evidence" of any chariot wheels has been found in the Red Sea?
Lord of the Rings cannot be proven false. Nor can Moby Dick. Or The Famous Five.

That would be these stones?

Thanks for the response OP.

 

[Joshua260]

Ah, the false dichotomy. Objective morals, or nihilism.

The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

I think it's wrong, but I have been told by another in these forums there are circumstances where [hypothetically] someone has observed a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, allows it to happen, and says nothing to anyone about it, and, in some roundabout logic that I cannot grasp, this 'someone' is still [within the hypothetical] considered "good".

Can you imagine such a proposition?

Yes, I know what you're implying. Here's a great example of the type of inconsistency that atheists espouse. First you say that God is immoral for restricting our freedom. You atheists don't want God imposing his commands on us. Yet, when a person freely chooses to do evil, you declare that God is immoral because he didn't prevent it.

So you want God to fix all of your problems but at the same you want him to stay out of our lives.

"God...you really should punish people who do evil to me...but if I decide to do something evil, stay the heck out of my business!!"

 

[Davian]

The question I pose is "Do Objective moral values and duties exist or not?" Care to answer?

Sure. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for their existence from a religious standpoint.

Yes, I know what you're implying.

Which means this will probably be a dodge.

Here's a great example of the type of inconsistency that atheists espouse.

As I would expect. Atheism is only a theological position on the existence of gods. It says virtually nothing about one's position on morality.

First you say that God is immoral for restricting our freedom.

No, first I say, what do you mean by "God".

You atheists don't want God imposing his commands on us.

No, atheists do not believe in gods. Fictional characters do not impose anything.

Yet, when a person freely chooses to do evil, you declare that God is immoral because he didn't prevent it.

No, that was not my point. And, I not not think your "God" is anything but a character in a book, so I am not expecting it to prevent evil, good, or anything else. This is about what you think.

So you want God to fix all of your problems but at the same you want him to stay out of our lives.

He's already done that, by every objective measure to date.

"God...you really should punish people who do evil to me...but if I decide to do something evil, stay the heck out of my business!!"

And there is the dodge. I thought you drove a Chevy?

My point was, I have been told by another in these forums there are circumstances where [hypothetically] someone has observed a child being raped, and has the ability to interfere, allows it to happen, and says nothing to anyone about it, and, in some roundabout logic that I cannot grasp, this 'someone' is still [within the hypothetical] considered "good".

If you knew that I had observed a child being raped, and had the ability to interfere, yet allowed it to happen, and kept quiet about it, by your morality would I be "good" or "bad"?