Does morality exist without God?

[selfinflikted]

Does any verifiable information get mentioned? Something you can use to test whether the communiqué is genuine?

We all know this doesn't happen. Just ask Pat Robertson. lul. He's been wrong about all his "visions" in the past.

 

[david_x]

But isn't that a form of circular reasoning? The Bible is verified by personal phenomena, which we know are true because they are verified by the Bible, which we know is true because... etc.

No, the Bible is not verified by personal phenomena. I don't think I ever said that. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the Bible is already verified by reasoning (Even if you disagree with the reasoning).

The visions are therefore measured by the Bible and other Christians and their works which are assumed from reason.

Does any verifiable information get mentioned? Something you can use to test whether the communiqué is genuine?

You mean like future events and the like? Yes it has happened. I'm not sure I should share an actual event, but I will say that one time I was a tested and I failed when I did not heed the knowledge(It was not a vision that time).

 

[david_x]

From here…

and here…

To envision is to picture to oneself. As you’ve noted, to envision something is to imagine it. You picture the messages from your God in your mind so you are envisioning or imagining whatever it is you think your God is telling you. As soon as you claimed you converse with the supernatural (beyond the visible, observable universe) you precluded any chance that it could be present to your senses or observable in any way. Consequently, not only are you imagining the messages, but your God also is not present to your senses and you have never before wholly perceived it in reality.

Suppose I told you I receive inaudible messages from Santa Claus and as evidence supporting my belief, I claim to have visions. Would it be reasonable to say I was credulous?

You claim you receive inaudible messages from your God and that the evidence supporting your belief is your bare assertion that you have visions. I’m simply observing that you are ready or willing to believe, especially on slight or uncertain evidence.

Okay I thought you were trying to say that I envisioned God himself. lul.

From what I gather you misunderstand the argument. The messages I receive are visions and knowledge. The point was never actually put to me to defend my explanation until recently by the former Wiccan.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

if u believe in the creation of the universe by the BANG BANG THEORY


and that life had happened by accident n without purpose


then, therefore its not obvious


u r wrong

Since God doesn't exist and morality does, the answer is obvious!

Now that that's out of the way. If you are a Christian then I'd advise reading Romans 2 and accepting that Paul believed that God has written the law on ALL our hearts.

So the question remains is HOW does morality come from God or how does morality exist if God does not.

Take your pick

 

[3sigma]

From what I gather you misunderstand the argument. The messages I receive are visions and knowledge.

Oh I understand your argument. I just don’t believe your argument because it isn’t sound.

 

[razeontherock]

No, Ray, it is true for all normal humans. Unless you can prove that you possess some hitherto undiscovered physical sense

Just because you say a sense must be physical, does not make it so.

your mental image of your God remains the result of your imagination. There is no other reasonable explanation.

There is no other carnal explanation, but there is also the Spiritual mind, and then there is the mind of the Spirit. And none of this is determined by what you may or may not consider "proof;" it is what it is, with you or without you, and is unaffected either way.

 

[3sigma]

Just because you say a sense must be physical, does not make it so.

Well if it isn’t physical then it’s all in your mind, correct? You are saying you cannot physically sense your God at all and that your only sense of it exists entirely within your mind. In other words, it isn’t real and you are only imagining it.

There is no other carnal explanation, but there is also the Spiritual mind, and then there is the mind of the Spirit. And none of this is determined by what you may or may not consider "proof;" it is what it is, with you or without you, and is unaffected either way.

Oh please. “Spiritual mind” in this context is nothing but a euphemism for “credulous mind”. Yes, it is what it is and that is a belief without sound evidence or sound reasoning.

 

[Mud Hole]

Hmm, sounds a lot like this:

John 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

lol Scriptural touché!

 

[razeontherock]

Well if it isn’t physical then it’s all in your mind, correct?

No.

“Spiritual mind” in this context is nothing but a euphemism for “credulous mind”. Yes, it is what it is and that is a belief without sound evidence or sound reasoning.

Not in the least. What it is is something you don't understand.

 

[razeontherock]

lol Scriptural touché!

I was hoping you might appreciate that

 

[Mud Hole]

I was hoping you might appreciate that

Yes indeed! Scripture to word association can be entertaining.

 

[3sigma]

No.

Is that all you can do, simply gainsay my argument with a single monosyllable? Explain how your mental image of your God that you cannot physically sense is not just all in your mind.

Not in the least. What it is is something you don't understand.

If you think your belief that your God is real is based on sound evidence or sound reasoning then please provide it. All you’ve given us so far is unsupported nonsense.

 

[david_x]

Oh I understand your argument. I just don’t believe your argument because it isn’t sound.

I'm not making an argument. (I said argument in the last post, but meant it in a different context. Oh semantics, lol)

I was asked to state how I communicated. I made the statement that I received them in visions and knowledge. This is an explanation, I'm not trying to prove anything and therefore it is not an argument.

You may choose to prove that visions and knowledge are not real or do not come from God, but I have not tried to defend these until recently.

 

[3sigma]

I was asked to state how I communicated. I made the statement that I received them in visions and knowledge. This is an explanation, I'm not trying to prove anything and therefore it is not an argument.

No, that isn’t an explanation of how the communication (verb) occurs. You are telling us what you imagine the communication (noun) is. We want to know how these visions are communicated. In other words, how do you receive these visions? What is the mechanism of the communication? Through what medium is the communication performed?

You previously said this:

When I say vision and knowledge I mean something very similar to how communication is normally done. For example let's say that I tell you to picture an apple. You picture an apple in your head. You thus have a vision of the apple without actually showing you an apple.

The communication portion of that process is your telling me to picture an apple. In this case the medium through which the communication occurs is the Internet and the mechanism involves your physically typing the post and submitting it, the transmission of the bits through communications lines, switches and routers, its storage on a server and subsequent retransmission to my PC then finally my physically seeing it on my screen.

My vision of the apple is due to my imagination. It isn’t part of the communication process because I can picture an apple in my mind at any time. I don’t need you telling me to do so. I’m picturing an orange right now, but no communication was involved.

So again, how are these visions communicated: by what mechanism and through what medium? So far, you haven’t explained this. All you’ve given us is the part where you imagine things inside your head.

 

[razeontherock]

Is that all you can do, simply gainsay my argument with a single monosyllable? Explain how your mental image of your God that you cannot physically sense is not just all in your mind.

That is what we would call a loaded statement, and / or question. Not going there

If you think your belief that your God is real is based on sound evidence or sound reasoning then please provide it.

And here you tempt me with pride, when the facts are perfectly plain that the Father reserves certain things for Himself only. That is the only way you can get what you're asking me for.

 

[3sigma]

That is what we would call a loaded statement, and / or question. Not going there.
…
And here you tempt me with pride, when the facts are perfectly plain that the Father reserves certain things for Himself only. That is the only way you can get what you're asking me for.

So you can’t explain how your mental image of your God that you cannot physically sense is not simply due to your imagination and you can’t provide a shred of sound evidence or a single sound reason to support your belief that your God is real. Then you try to conceal your inability to justify your belief by speciously refusing to answer my requests. I can’t say that was unexpected.

Intellectually honest people who have a sound reason to believe something will simply provide it when asked. Intellectually honest people with no sound reason to believe something will admit they have none. Intellectually dishonest people with no sound reason to believe something will evade requests to provide it in various ways. For example, they will evade it by quibbling, somehow misunderstanding the request, casting red herrings, claiming the other person isn’t equipped to understand the reason or claiming they have a sound reason, but speciously refusing to provide it.

With all indications pointing to your God being imaginary and a complete lack of sound evidence or sound reasons to believe it is real, someone asking whether it is required for morality to exist is pretty pointless.

 

[Mud Hole]

Quite a soap box.

 

[razeontherock]

your mental image of your God

Sir, quit being obstinate and recognize the FACT that this is a loaded statement you wish to trap me with! I am NOT going down your road of false supposition here - these 6 words are patently blasphemous.

Do refrain. If you choose to understand another's POV, that requires listening, not projecting your false assumptions onto them.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sir, quit being obstinate and recognize the FACT that this is a loaded statement you wish to trap me with! I am NOT going down your road of false supposition here - these 6 words are patently blasphemous.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[3sigma]

Sir, quit being obstinate and recognize the FACT that this is a loaded statement you wish to trap me with! I am NOT going down your road of false supposition here - these 6 words are patently blasphemous.

What on Earth are you talking about? How can saying you have a mental image of your God be insulting it? Simply having a mental image of something isn’t an insult. Do you think if you have a mental image of your mother you are insulting her? Accusing me of blasphemy looks like yet another evasion tactic to me.

You made claims that I’m asking you to justify. Let’s review the conversation so far. I gave the common usage, dictionary meaning of imagination as the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality. I noted that, in the case of your God, both of those conditions happen to be true (your God isn’t present to your senses and you haven’t wholly perceived it in reality).

When you read my comment, you [post=57409282]claimed it was false[/post] and implied that religious believers are special or privileged in some way that allows only them to sense their God. I [post=57410388]said[/post] that all normal humans possess the same physical senses and you [post=57417181]responded[/post] by implying that this special God sense isn’t physical, but part of the “spiritual mind”. I then [post=57417339]pointed out[/post] that you were admitting that it is all in your mind and that you had no sound evidence or sound reasoning to support your belief. You [post=57417375]disagreed[/post] so I [post=57417507]asked you[/post] to explain how your mental image of your God that you cannot physically sense is not all in your mind and asked you to provide the sound evidence and sound reasoning on which you claim you base your belief that your God is real.

Since then, you’ve been trying various tactics in an effort to evade those requests.

Do refrain. If you choose to understand another's POV, that requires listening, not projecting your false assumptions onto them.

I am listening, but you aren’t saying anything worthwhile. I’m still waiting for you to explain how your mental image of your God that you cannot physically sense is not all in your mind and waiting for you to provide the sound evidence and sound reasoning on which you claim you base your belief that your God is real.