Origin of God's Morality.

[Root of Jesse]

Any theology where one is held accountable for things beyond ones control, such as what one believes.

Well, that scratches Catholic. But we do believe that you have a conscience and know what's right and wrong. Nobody goes to hell for things beyond one's control.

 

[Davian]

Well, that scratches Catholic. But we do believe that you have a conscience and know what's right and wrong. Nobody goes to hell for things beyond one's control.

In #229, did you not say: "Yes, you will be held accountable for your beliefs."?

 

[bhsmte]

Without God, there is no science. Most scientists are humble enough to know what they know, what they can know, and what they won't ever know. That's not ignorance, that's intelligence.
The First Cause is just that...first.

Why dont you back up a bit and first demonstrate, there is a god?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why dont you back up a bit and first demonstrate, there is a god?

The simple fact that you don't believe is insufficient evidence that He does not exist. God has been shown to exist untold times on this forum; your personal disbelief changes none of that.....

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why dont you back up a bit and first demonstrate, there is a god?

I'm trying, but you guys just want to put everyone in categories, or declare that you already know the argument, or whatever other excuse to not engage. I should ask you to prove there's not a God...in fact, there's your tossup:

Prove there is no God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I have tried to consciously change my beliefs, but have been unable to do so.

I tried to quit smoking, consciously tried, and failed numerous times. That didn't mean I couldn't quit smoking.

But this is not about me, it is about the evasion and obfuscation that results when you are challenged on this, such as:

I make no excuse for my beliefs. "I am not convinced" needs no excuse.

Neither does "faith".

I can only take responsibility for them as far as educating myself about the world around me, discussing with others, in an attempt to form an accurate description of reality.

We already have an accurate description of reality...

Where have I done so?

I do not think that the religionist can wave the "strawman" card with any authority, since it simply puts them in the position of having to produce their actual god, or gods, as a means of demonstrating any alleged misrepresentation.

If one could produce their actual God, that means it ain't God. Just ask Thor.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm trying, but you guys just want to put everyone in categories, or declare that you already know the argument, or whatever other excuse to not engage. I should ask you to prove there's not a God...in fact, there's your tossup:

Prove there is no God.

I think this is outside the scope of the OP. This is not about proving the existence of God because the question in the OP was asked with the assumption that God does exist...although it does not specifically say which God.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Commander Xenophon]

But we Christians do not leave it at that. Exactly my point.So?
To use your phrase...DUDE...you do realize that a great many of the scientists that discovered the stuff we know today were Christian? But the fact is that the very existence of everything requires a cause.

Stephen Hawking unwisely interjected some New Arheist theology into A Brief History of Time, which is otherwise very good. Specifically, he claimed the fact that time began at the Big Bang, and that the question of what happened before the Big Bang, in a zero dimensional singularity with no possibiloty for time, is meaningless, and on this point he was right. He also correctly said this rules out causality. Correctly in part.

It rules out linear causality, that is to say, that some specific divine event preceded and iniatiated the Big Bang, necause such linear causality would depend on time.

But here is where he stumbled. He made the mistake of believing that Christians regard the eternity of God as simply an infinite expanse of time in which God operates, and the creation as the creation of the universe as a specific point in time.

In fact, we say God is torally unbounded; and we reject dualism, so there can be no temporal dimsension independent of God, in which God merely moves and exists. What creation ex nihlo requires is that all components of reality come into existence: spacetime, causality, matter, and energy. Thus we must reject the Platonic idea of God as the unmoved mover, and instead say that God is the creator of movement by virtue of having created time in which movement can occur.

We also must in turn redefine the word "create." Creation ceases to become a discrete temporal event requiring an already existing temporal dimension. God is not the First Cause, but the creator of the Firat Cause. Creation ex nihlo represents instantiation. Thus we can say that with "Let there be light," God made, out of time, not as an event but as an extra-temporal instantiation, the singularity, which in turn became the Universe. God was not in the Universe; the Universe is His creation and he is unbounded by it, and exists outside of its limits in terms of spacetime.

Hawking did accurately manage to refute the Gnostic idea of a demiurge, by accident, however, so I salute him for unwittingly crushing one of the oldest Christian heresies. But the rest of his theological polemics failed miserably; he showed a familiarity with St. Augustine but a complete ignorance of the Cappadocians, Psuedo Dionysius the Aeropagite, or St. Gregory Palamas. Specifically, a reading of Psuedo Dionysius and of St. Basil and St. Gregory more or less deflates his attempt at atheology.

Atheologians, as I like to call them, dislike logical fallacies and dishonest debating attacks, but they continually strawmanize the Christian faith by attacking only the beliefs of the poorly catechized evangelical fundamentalists; I have yet to encounter any atheist who tackled in a systematic way the theology of the early church Fathers (other than St. Augustine, who is the only Patristic figure most people in the West seem to care about), and frankly I don't think they can. The USSR's spectacular failure to wipe out the Russian Orthodox Church testifies to that (I think Russian Orthodoxy today is healthier than at any point since the Nikonian Schism).

 

[Davian]

I tried to quit smoking, consciously tried, and failed numerous times. That didn't mean I couldn't quit smoking.

I do not recall where I might have suggested that my beliefs were unchangeable.

Neither does "faith".

...until what you have faith in is asserted as an accurate description of reality.

We already have an accurate description of reality...

Who is this "we" that you speak for in that instance?

If one could produce their actual God, that means it ain't God. Just ask Thor.

Then you would agree on the inappropriateness of the religionists' use of the strawman rebuke.

 

[Davian]

I'm trying, but you guys just want to put everyone in categories, or declare that you already know the argument, or whatever other excuse to not engage.

As that is your excuse not to engage.

I should ask you to prove there's not a God...in fact, there's your tossup:

Prove there is no God.

I do find the asking of someone to prove a negative to be intellectually bankrupt, and would agree with Jason that this strays from the OP.

If you ever come up with a testable, falsifiable definition for your "God", be sure to start a new thread with it.

 

[Davian]

...
Atheologians, as I like to call them, dislike logical fallacies and dishonest debating attacks,

As much as religionists like to use them.

but they continually strawmanize the Christian faith

There is the difficulty in the playing of the strawman card by the religionist when the religion they speak of is subject to interpretation by every one of its (in this case) millions of adherents.

by attacking only the beliefs of the poorly catechized evangelical fundamentalists;

That may be; personally, I am not concerned about the religious beliefs of others, until those that have access to our government, education system, and my children, begin to present such beliefs as fact.

I have yet to encounter any atheist who tackled in a systematic way the theology of the early church Fathers (other than St. Augustine, who is the only Patristic figure most people in the West seem to care about), and frankly I don't think they can.

Can this theology be presented in a manner that is testable and falsifiable, and even if were falsified, would anyone care?

The USSR's spectacular failure to wipe out the Russian Orthodox Church testifies to that (I think Russian Orthodoxy today is healthier than at any point since the Nikonian Schism).

Sure, but it is only evidence of how tightly one can cling to ones beliefs and a fallacious appeal to popularity. It is not an indication of their veracity.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm trying, but you guys just want to put everyone in categories, or declare that you already know the argument, or whatever other excuse to not engage. I should ask you to prove there's not a God...in fact, there's your tossup:

Prove there is no God.

Your argument stands on it's own merits, no matter what anyone else says.

Don't blame others, because you choose to not make an argument.

 

[bhsmte]

The simple fact that you don't believe is insufficient evidence that He does not exist. God has been shown to exist untold times on this forum; your personal disbelief changes none of that.....

I didn't say a God didn't exist, did I. For me personally, I just don't see any reason to believe one exists, but I may be wrong.

Now, please point to where God has been shown to exist untold times on this forum.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I didn't say a God didn't exist, did I. For me personally, I just don't see any reason to believe one exists, but I may be wrong.

Now, please point to where God has been shown to exist untold times on this forum.

Willing to accept theological and biblical evidence? If not, we are just wasting time.

 

[bhsmte]

Willing to accept theological and biblical proof? If not, we are just wasting time.

What does theological and biblical proof look like and how does it relate to well evidenced reality?

 

[civilwarbuff]

What does theological and biblical proof look like and how does it relate to well evidenced reality?

I asked a question; please don't answer with a question....

 

[bhsmte]

I asked a question; please don't answer with a question....

I can't answer your question, because I don't know what you mean by; theological and biblical proof. Is this proof you mention, different than what we look to support non theological arguments? If so, why?

If you have an argument, present it and support it with evidence and I will comment as to whether it is something I would believe or not.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I can't answer your question, because I don't know what you mean by; theological and biblical proof. Is this proof you mention, different than what we look to support non theological arguments? If so, why?

If you have an argument, present it and support it with evidence and I will comment as to whether it is something I would believe or not.

If we talk chemistry we listen to chemists and chemistry books....
If physics then physicists and physics books....
cosmology then cosmologists and cosmology books....
But for atheists when it comes to theology....Christianity....theologians and the Bible are not trustworthy.....
We have no common point of reference unless you are willing to accept the Bible and theologians as acceptable sources of information and reference.

 

[bhsmte]

If we talk chemistry we listen to chemists and chemistry books....
If physics then physicists and physics books....
cosmology then cosmologists and cosmology books....
But for atheists when it comes to theology....Christianity....theologians and the Bible are not trustworthy.....
We have no common point of reference unless you are willing to accept the Bible and theologians as acceptable sources of information and reference.

Physics, cosmology and the like (science), involve objective evidence to support it. I have yet to see, anyone present independent verifiable objective evidence to support a God, or a specific theology.

I have no problem with folks believing in a God and or a specific theology based on faith, but I wouldn't be shocked, when others don't have the same faith and or, see no logical reason to believe as you do.

You see, I don't care so much what someone believes and I fully expect people to have a variety of theological beliefs, which include 2/3 of the worlds population having different theological beliefs than Christians or no theological beliefs at all. I am most interested, in how one justifies their beliefs, not what they believe. If a Christian states; I believe on faith and don't claim they have "proof" that someone else is missing, I never question them. But, if they start claiming they have "proof" and anyone who disagrees with them is either misled, hates God and is simply wrong, then the challenges will come.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Physics, cosmology and the like (science), involve objective evidence to support it. I have yet to see, anyone present independent verifiable objective evidence to support a God, or a specific theology.

And how many different variations of the sciences are there? How many points, counter-points and counter-counter-points are there.....yet you accept the general premise with little (no) argument. Yet Christianity seems to raise the hackles of atheists (and you) and their only defense of that position is "God does not exist" or some variant of that thought.

You see, I don't care so much what someone believes and I fully expect people to have a variety of theological beliefs, which include 2/3 of the worlds population having different theological beliefs than Christians or no theological beliefs at all.

Of course you care otherwise you would simply be wasting your time here attacking christianity and I don't believe you think you are wasting your time. May I ask you how much time you spend on Muslim, Buddhist, Confuciionist, etc sites attacking their beliefs? My bet is it is almost none. Why is that? Would they even allow you to attack their beliefs? Is that the primary reason for being here, that your atheistic beliefs are tolerated rather than them (and you) being tossed out? Why is attacking christianity so important to you and your fellow atheists? Do you fear us that much?

This is probably something for another thread but I thought I should at least ask those questions.....