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.
Yeah, but only humans are busy killing each other over their homosexual behaviors. My dog, for example, is too busy getting it on with anyone or anything to really have time for that.
And ironically, humans hate on gays based on what their god said in their religious books. Or, in other words, because their adherence to divine command theory.
God says it's wrong, so it must be wrong. Right?
I don´t need to "accept" it, because it was implicit in my initial statement.I'd say that morality expresses its power through being "convincing" as you say.
We both win.
Shut up and just accept it. Please.
(emphasis added)Isn´t that exactly when it becomes convenient to appeal to a deity that allegedly sides with you: if you want to establish a "morality" that otherwise nobody would accept?
Several things.
First, an argument is only as good as its premises. I have yet to be presented with an argument for the existence of a god of which the premises aren't loaded with logical fallacies. I really don't understand how a person like William Lane Craig can be taken seriously by anyone.
Secondly, I don't see how such arguments matter at all. A philosophical argument by itself is not capable of showing the specific actual existence of anything without having actual empirical data to support it. Pure philosophy has its place, but distinguishing existence from non-existence of specific objects or entities is not one of them. Not without empirical data.
Since the OP of this thread is the broad question "does a god exist?" with a request to offer the evidence and arguments... how about YOU propose an argument to support your position that a god exists? I'll show you how it's fallacious, don't worry
Observing that there is suffering and injustice are things consistent with a universe not ruled by a loving god who cares and has the power to interfere.
I wouldn't really call it evidence as it could be that this guys has his reasons not to interfer and that somehow it's the moral thing to do. It could be that we don't see the big picture.
But it could also be that we live in the matrix.
As you say, we look for the best explanation. The best explanation is generally the one that needs the least assumptions, even if it turns out to be wrong in light of new evidence.
Seeing as your entire proposed explanation is completely for 100% dependend on faith based assumptions, it could not possibly be the best explanation. It's not even an explanation. Your entire story is a gigantic faith based assumption.
In science, the explanation also needs to be plausible. Anything is possible. Evidence for a specific thing makes the thing plausible.
There is no evidence of gods.
And "god-dun-it" is not an explanation. In fact, it's a thing that requires it's own ginormous explanation. Your "explanation" needs an explanation. That can't be good.
Okay, now I'll really get complicated. Morality involves sets of ideas that actualize a previous non-ideological sense of universality. Two savages walk up to one another and one hits the other; both sense, by appealing to universality (whether or not you say it's evolutionarily adapted), that there's something wrong with this action. Putting it into rules just makes this sense of wrongness much more concrete.
This is one of my problems with theism. "Hey, there's this thing we don't quite understand, and it seems too complicated to have a naturalistic explanation, so let's assume it exists eternally with no explanation necessary in this thing called God." Um, how can that be satisfying? If this is something that you're really curious about, something you need to have answered, why is the "God did it, no further explanation necessary"-style of answer at all satisfying?
Except there is no universality
Let us formally debate what it is that you think is the most convincing argument against the existence of God.
Then tell that to atheists who want to condemn as universally immoral, the actions of Yahweh.
Wrong position, that isn't what atheists argue.
Then tell that to atheists who want to condemn as universally immoral, the actions of Yahweh.
You have never heard of the argument from evil which seeks to show that God does not exist because evil exists?
No. I have heard of an argument that goes like "If evil exists, an omniscient omnipotent creator of everything can´t be omnibenevolent."You have never heard of the argument from evil which seeks to show that God does not exist because evil exists?
You don't find ordering pregnant women's bellies to be torn open, their unborn children killed in front of them, and then killing the women after that torment immoral? Morality isn't universal in that opinions of what is and isn't immoral to the majority of society change over time. At some point clearly this was considered to be acceptable, now not so much.
You have never heard of the argument from evil which seeks to show that God does not exist because evil exists?
Sarah, maybe no one has told you this, but you need to know.
If what is moral or immoral is solely a matter of human opinion and feeling and preference, then your opinion that killing pregnant women is immoral is like you saying pizza is nasty. Many might share your opinion and agree with you. Those that do not simply do not.
That is an argument that a completely benevolent, omnipotent god couldn't exist, not that a deity without those qualities couldn't exist
Sarah, maybe no one has told you this, but you need to know.
If what is moral or immoral is solely a matter of human opinion and feeling and preference, then your opinion that killing pregnant women is immoral is like you saying pizza is nasty. Many might share your opinion and agree with you. Those that do not simply do not.
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?