- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
If you do not want to address my responses given, that's fine. Don't.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure you were (at least, in your opinion). That's why you created your strawman instead of asking for clarification, and why you didn't address the post once clarification was given.
I don't address strawmen.
You appear more concerned with trying to drill an arbitrary and unintended point, then to see the genuine nature of my responses. So have at it. But it will not address anything in which I'm saying. You will instead just be attempting to banter over manutiae.
This is the Ethics & Morality subforum. If you want to start an apologetics thread, there’s a different subforum for that. Perhaps it would be more to your liking.I'm asking for proof of existence of an absolute moral agent.
That isn't what faith is. A good working definition of faith can be found in Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "Faith is belief instead of evidence. Faith is belief without question. Faith is pretending to know something unknown. Faith is possibly continuing to choose to retain an original position, in spite of overwhelming opposing evidence.
The level of evidence you seem to be requiring is nothing short of a physical manifestation of God in front of you actually speaking. Honestly, I don't think anyone on this forum is ever going to be able to satisfy you in regards to the level of evidence you're seeking.Meaning, I need evidence of the actual moral arbiter. Until then, I remain undecided. Hence, ask for evidence on this forum, which I have been unable to obtain on my own.
God did that once. It ended with Him nailed to a cross.The level of evidence you seem to be requiring is nothing short of a physical manifestation of God in front of you actually speaking.
And yet time and again we see people being led to Christ by examining the evidence while questioning His very existence.Can you please provide your definition of faith?. I will gladly give you mine, in the mean time.
Faith is belief instead of evidence. Faith is belief without question. Faith is pretending to know something unknown. Faith is possibly continuing to choose to retain an original position, in spite of overwhelming opposing evidence.
You appear more concerned with trying to drill an arbitrary and unintended point, then to see the genuine nature of my responses. So have at it. But it will not address anything in which I'm saying. You will instead just be attempting to banter over manutiae.
So as I stated prior, I was a believer, and now have doubt. I'm asking for proof of existence of an absolute moral agent. And yes, well more than one claimed moral agent is claimed to exist (all with differing and conflicting claimed objective moral tenets.) If you wish to instead continue to rubber stamp fallacies, then please just move along.
Thnx
I responded to another poster, you interjected with a strawman, I refused to allow you to derail me with it, and here we are…again.
This is the Ethics & Morality subforum. If you want to start an apologetics thread, there’s a different subforum for that. Perhaps it would be more to your liking.
For what it’s worth, looking for proof and simply looking for arguments aren’t the same thing. If you're genuinely looking for "proof" perhaps it would be helpful to explain what "proof" you would find acceptable.
Your definition of 'proof' and my definition of proof, I would assume, clearly differs.
That isn't what faith is. A good working definition of faith can be found in Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. "
Faith doesn't need to be blind faith. Dr.William Lane Craig's ministry is called Reasonable Faith. You should look into his website, you may find it more beneficial than here.
There is substance and evidence to a Christian's faith. But at the end of the day, it is still faith, not knowledge.
The level of evidence you seem to be requiring is nothing short of a physical manifestation of God in front of you actually speaking. Honestly, I don't think anyone on this forum is ever going to be able to satisfy you in regards to the level of evidence you're seeking.
Have you read Mere Christianity, by CS. Lewis? It was the moral argument that actually lead him towards Christ, and he goes into it in his book. I would recommend reading it if you have not.
Perhaps, but you are the one demanding proof without defining what you would constitute as such. Why should anyone waste their time kicking toward your ever-moving goalposts? Your posts speak to someone looking for arguments, not evidence.
Of course, because it keeps you from having to acknowledge when someone splits the uprights.Read the post right below the one you just submitted. I would agree the 'goal posts' appear to move. But they do so for a very good reason, in my estimation....
The OP asks if morals are relative, objective, absolute, etc. If one claims absolute, then step one logically might mean to demonstrate the existence of this very specific claimed absolute standard.
Of course, because it keeps you from having to acknowledge when someone splits the uprights.
Actually, you haven't. You request people provide you "proof," yet you refuse to state what you would accept as such. Instead you dodge around and throw up strawmen like it's a scarecrow building contest.I politely ask that you no longer respond to my posts. I have tried to present my position, but you instead appear more concerned with trying to 'one up me.' It appears very juvenile.
If you are going to claim a very specific absolute moral arbiter (and you clearly do), which differs from the many differing claimed absolute moral arbiters, please expect others to ask why yours is the correct one, while also explaining how theirs is the incorrect one.
Peace
Actually, you haven't. You request people provide you "proof," yet you refuse to state what you would accept as such. Instead you dodge around and throw up strawmen like it's a scarecrow building contest.
I'm not chasing your goal posts until your dig a frost footing and anchor them.Nope, the thread can go in several directions, based upon how one may answer. I then respond to the way they answer. In your case, you state morals are absolute. Okay, lets test this...
You are a female walking down the street. Someone comes up to you and tells you that you are to where a Hijab in public. You do not agree. Why not?
cvanwey: I too would be interested in knowing what you consider "proof" You've already said you reject Scripture and sound arguments such as the moral argument, cosmological argument, etc...
Personally, I think the level of proof you're seeking is simply unattainable. Faith will always be required on some level. if it was possible to know that God exists, then faith would not be necessary, and you're talking to people who believe that faith is necessary. Though again, I would emphasize that it's not a blind faith, but a reasonable faith.
I don't entirely agree with this. When I walked into my office this morning, I sat in my chair because I believed it would hold me up. I didn't know whether or not it would hold me up, but I chose to believe, based upon historical evidence that it would. And so I sat. But I made the choice to believe that it would hold me up, even if it was subconscious.I cannot tell myself what to believe any more than I can tell myself not to believe Italy exists, and actually mean it.
There are lots of strong arguments for Christianity, and the moral argument is one. The problem here though is that you're really beating a dead horse. You've read the arguments, and you've chosen to reject them.Though I agree morals are ungrounded as absolute without some grounding standard, I'm asking to demonstrate which one is actually the true one? Anyone whom appeals to an absolute standard must demonstrate that this very specific moral agent exists.
I'm not chasing your goal posts until your dig a frost footing and anchor them.
So then, what would you consider "proof"? (staying on track...)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?