Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

It doesn't have to be the choir, dude, but it does need to be someone sincerely interested in a discussion. I'll not waste time with people who just sit there with arms folded going, "no it's not, no it doesn't". Someone sincere will at least follow along in an argument. So far, no one has.

So far it doesn't appear that you've presented much of an argument, or even a case for that matter.

Look, I'm not here to convince someone who's not really interested. I can freely discuss something with people who want to engage, even if we don't agree, but I don't see you guys as being that kind of person.

This is a cop-out. You came on here claiming that you have a case so strong that it would be irrational not to believe in Christianity. Yet when asked about this case, when pressed to present it, all you can offer is a litany of excuses.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It seems to me that, when you get to a point of "I don't know," the only intellectually honest thing to do would be to admit that you don't know, not to claim that you've figured it out.

The most important part of your statement.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The most important part of your statement.

Is there anything you disagree with in the substance of my post, or do you only disagree with the way it started off?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm not interested in a game of twenty questions. I'm interested in seeing this case you claim to have. You've led us along for a number of pages, so I'm curious to see what you actually have.

I will continue when you answer the question. I've seen how you don't like to answer these types of questions, but until you do, I won't go on.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I will continue when you answer the question. I've seen how you don't like to answer these types of questions, but until you do, I won't go on.

So be it. I'll call your bluff. You haven't got a case and you're just obfuscating to make up for it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So far it doesn't appear that you've presented much of an argument, or even a case for that matter.

This is a cop-out. You came on here claiming that you have a case so strong that it would be irrational not to believe in Christianity. Yet when asked about this case, when pressed to present it, all you can offer is a litany of excuses.

I've asked you two questions, and you've answered one. Until I know the answer to the second question from your perspective, I won't continue.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've asked you two questions, and you've answered one. Until I know the answer to the second question from your perspective, I won't continue.

That's funny, because I've made only one request from you, and you're doing your utmost to avoid it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's funny, because I've made only one request from you, and you're doing your utmost to avoid it.

I'm trying to answer your request, but you're not cooperating. I asked if you agree that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good. I think someone answered, but it wasn't you. The second question is, why are you absolutely obligated to be and do good?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm trying to answer your request, but you're not cooperating. I asked if you agree that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good. I think someone answered, but it wasn't you. The second question is, why are you absolutely obligated to be and do good?

What do you mean by "absolutely"? And what, if anything, does this have to with the case you purport to have? Am I correct in guessing that your case is really nothing more than a variation of the moral argument? You are either bluffing about having such a compelling case or you are otherwise terrible at keeping your cards hidden from view.

 

[Davian]

I am just trying to get caught up on this thread....was there any logical answer to what the "Origin of God's Morality" is? I could throw my two cents in if anyone cares.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

I do not think it was ever addressed. It does seem odd to me that arguments from morality are made for a god in a theology that is presented as morally bankrupt.

See post #226.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What do you mean by "absolutely"? And what, if anything, does this have to with the case you purport to have? Am I correct in guessing that your case is really nothing more than a variation of the moral argument? You are either bluffing about having such a compelling case or you are otherwise terrible at keeping your cards hidden from view.

You don't know what "absolutely" means? with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally

You really don't like Socratic arguments, do you?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I do not think it was ever addressed. It does seem odd to me that arguments from morality are made for a god in a theology that is presented as morally bankrupt.

See post #226.

You haven't shown any theology to be morally bankrupt.

 

[bhsmte]

I would have to look at your belief system and see if it agrees with mine. Not necessarily religious beliefs, but moral beliefs, at least. If you were what I consider to be moral, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not lying to me. At least I would know that yo believe it, whether or not I do.

Seems highly subjective with leaning on comfort that someone is like you.

If that works for you, all the best.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You don't know what "absolutely" means? with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally

I don't know what it means in this context. But if you are asking why I feel a sense of moral obligation, then it is quite simply because I care about wellbeing. I know that what I do matters to the lives of other people and that, in turn, what they do has a tangible effect on my life. Our actions have real consequences for real people.

You really don't like Socratic arguments, do you?

This isn't a socratic argument. This is you obfuscating after your earlier bluster.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Seems highly subjective with leaning on comfort that someone is like you.

If that works for you, all the best.

It's not subjective at all. I use my conscience. Nothing subjective about it at all

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't know what it means in this context. But if you are asking why I feel a sense of moral obligation, then it is quite simply because I care about wellbeing. I know that what I do matters to the lives of other people and that, in turn, what they do has a tangible effect on my life. Our actions have real consequences for real people.

Who determines whether something is for someone's wellbeing?
This isn't a socratic argument. This is you obfuscating after your earlier bluster.[/QUOTE]So you say. Socratic arguments ask questions in order to bring the answerer to a conclusion.

 

[bhsmte]

Wow... just... wow.

I don't think I've ever encountered a more blatant god-of-the gaps / argument from ignorance. Not even on fstdt.com

Its like that commercial; just hit the easy button.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who determines whether something is for someone's wellbeing?

What do you mean? Suppose someone were to try to decapitate you. In considering whether such an action would further your wellbeing or not, it would seem strange to ask, "But who determines whether decapitation is harmful to my wellbeing? Who determines whether grievous bodily harm is against my wellbeing?"

 

[Root of Jesse]

What do you mean? Suppose someone were to try to decapitate you. In considering whether such an action would further your wellbeing or not, it would seem strange to ask, "But who determines whether decapitation is harmful to my wellbeing? Who determines whether grievous bodily harm is against my wellbeing?"

I didn't ask who determines whether anything is against YOUR wellbeing. Who determines whether what you do is good or bad? Would you say Conscience?

 

[bhsmte]

It's not subjective at all. I use my conscience. Nothing subjective about it at all

Hilarious!