Does morality exist without God?

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

some politicians have double standards


to please the public

but their own beliefs have been compromised

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

how can u explain life without design nor purpose


explain


humanism?

agnostic?

atheism?


free thinkers ... hm hm irony

 

[rjc34]

how can u explain life without design nor purpose


explain


humanism?

agnostic?

atheism?


free thinkers ... hm hm irony

I'd reply with a good explanation but someone put your post in a blender before it went up... Can I get a question in a coherent sentence?

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

is the body of christ ..
compromising when ..
　
world music is infused n incorporated with holy lyrics?
　
　
where people can relax and ask questions without feeling
the pressures of church.<

 

[sandwiches]

is the body of christ ..
compromising when ..
&#12288;
world music is infused n incorporated with holy lyrics?
&#12288;
&#12288;
where people can relax and ask questions without feeling
the pressures of church.<

I like to listen to Enya, too.

 

[BrandonLParks]

I think morality can exist without a good in the context of a group of people coming together and agreeing on what they want the rules of their society to be. I don't think this explains our conscience however, and the only accountability is from fellow human beings, which essentially means that what you can do without being caught is not bad. An act is only wrong if it breaks a predecided rule and you get caught. If you can get away with it, it isn't wrong. The problem is, multiple societies have decided that similar things are right or wrong, which seems awfully coincidental if there is not some larger overseer like a god. Another thing is that much that we consider right or wrong does not fit in with the laws, and yet still seems good or bad. It seems good to gain wisdom, yet no one got together and agreed that this was good. It is good to be courageous, yet this certainly is not impelled by law. But all agree that courage is a virtue, and people feel bad when they act cowardly even though there is no law against cowardness. So I think the outward laws that come out of morality could, without a law be agreed upon and developed; but I think there are many virtues that could not have come about without some being greater than humankind instilling such things in us.
Blessings,
-Brandon

 

[Zebra1552]

Of course you leave out the all important bit about defining your god out of existence. You have him properties than cannot co-exist, like a married bachelor. Your god, as you define him, does not exist.

You have a lot to prove before you can make that argument.

If knowledge is not predestination then he holds no such knowledge. Simple logic.

Non sequitor.

And if there was an all powerful being up there I'd definitely want him interfering and solving all the evil! Let's go back to the metaphorical garden of eden!

He's given you the offer already to help you. What will you do with it?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

You have a lot to prove before you can make that argument.


Non sequitor.


He's given you the offer already to help you. What will you do with it?

Erm actually it's a pretty easy argument to make. One of which Christian theology has been dealing with for a long time...

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

is the body of christ ..
compromising when ..
&#12288;
world music is infused n incorporated with holy lyrics?
&#12288;
&#12288;
where people can relax and ask questions without feeling
the pressures of church.<

 

[rjc34]

You have a lot to prove before you can make that argument.

Such as...? You're the one with the positive claim. I have to prove nothing. I'm just showing you how the way you define your god, you've made it logically impossible for him to exist.

Non sequitor.

I addressed your assertion that knowledge does not equal predestination.

Knowledge is not predestination. I've been over this.

It's most definitely not non sequitur and calling it so is just a red herring. Now, ether respond to my answer, or concede the point.

He's given you the offer already to help you. What will you do with it?

No, what he's done is cut me only to turn around and sell me a band-aid. Or so the doctrine goes.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

the church is nor brick... cement.. wood...metals ... glass.... pews and neither windows ...instead the church is the body of christ - people




i give my body as sacrifice to glory HIM... WHOA ... less of self exalts GOD


to change ur quality of life change ur quality of choice! (&#8226;&#771;-&#814;&#8226;&#771

 

[Zebra1552]

Such as...? You're the one with the positive claim. I have to prove nothing. I'm just showing you how the way you define your god, you've made it logically impossible for him to exist.

'That's impossible' is not a basis for a discussion. 'That's impossible because XYZ' is the basis for a discussion. If you're interested in a discussion, then you can give reasons. Otherwise I have more important things to do.

I addressed your assertion that knowledge does not equal predestination.It's most definitely not non sequitur and calling it so is just a red herring. Now, ether respond to my answer, or concede the point.

Your answer once again gives no basis for discussion. Why should I counter a claim you make when it has no reference point?

 

[rjc34]

I think morality can exist without a good in the context of a group of people coming together and agreeing on what they want the rules of their society to be. I don't think this explains our conscience however, and the only accountability is from fellow human beings, which essentially means that what you can do without being caught is not bad. An act is only wrong if it breaks a predecided rule and you get caught. If you can get away with it, it isn't wrong. The problem is, multiple societies have decided that similar things are right or wrong, which seems awfully coincidental if there is not some larger overseer like a god. Another thing is that much that we consider right or wrong does not fit in with the laws, and yet still seems good or bad. It seems good to gain wisdom, yet no one got together and agreed that this was good. It is good to be courageous, yet this certainly is not impelled by law. But all agree that courage is a virtue, and people feel bad when they act cowardly even though there is no law against cowardness. So I think the outward laws that come out of morality could, without a law be agreed upon and developed; but I think there are many virtues that could not have come about without some being greater than humankind instilling such things in us.
Blessings,
-Brandon

This is basically the transcendental argument for god, using morality as the transcendental trait. The argument has been refuted many times due to various fallacies in the reasoning.

 

[rjc34]

'That's impossible' is not a basis for a discussion. 'That's impossible because XYZ' is the basis for a discussion. If you're interested in a discussion, then you can give reasons. Otherwise I have more important things to do.

Now you're just creating a straw man in an attempt to place the blame of the failure of this discussion on me. I told you that your specific construct of a god could not exist. That was my statement. What you're going on about 'that's impossible' etc has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I showed you your god, the way you define it, can not exist. Now, would you like to redefine him in a way that it might be logically possible for him to exist?

Your answer once again gives no basis for discussion. Why should I counter a claim you make when it has no reference point?

Again, you're not addressing the point and you're trying to shift the blame. You made a claim, then I showed you why your claim was fallacious. Now, do you agree to stop using that claim?

 

[Zebra1552]

Now you're just creating a straw man in an attempt to place the blame of the failure of this discussion on me. I told you that your specific construct of a god could not exist. That was my statement. What you're going on about 'that's impossible' etc has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I showed you your god, the way you define it, can not exist. Now, would you like to redefine him in a way that it might be logically possible for him to exist?

Straw man? Hardly. You said 'that is impossible'.

I'm just showing you how the way you define your god, you've made it logically impossible for him to exist.

You claimed there is a contradiction, leading to this 'logical impossibility'. Obviously I say there is not such a contradiction. Now, are you going to attempt to show that there is a contradiction, or are you going to continue baseless accusations of fallacies? It's not a straw man if it's your argument.

Again, you're not addressing the point and you're trying to shift the blame. You made a claim, then I showed you why your claim was fallacious. Now, do you agree to stop using that claim?

No, you did not, and no I do not. You have given me nothing but an empty if-then statement that has no support to it. I have no reason to concede anything.

 

[rjc34]

Straw man? Hardly. You said 'that is impossible'.

You claimed there is a contradiction, leading to this 'logical impossibility'. Obviously I say there is not such a contradiction. Now, are you going to attempt to show that there is a contradiction, or are you going to continue baseless accusations of fallacies? It's not a straw man if it's your argument.

A being cannot logically be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If one knows the future, then the future must be unchanging, else you do not know the future. If the future is unchanging then all is predestined. Do you recognize this logical reasoning?

No, you did not, and no I do not. You have given me nothing but an empty if-then statement that has no support to it. I have no reason to concede anything.

Address my reasoning above and tell me if you agree or not. If not, show me why.

 

[Eudaimonist]

how can u explain life without design nor purpose

What sort of explanation are you asking for?

Cosmological?

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_history

Biological?

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Let me know.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Zebra1552]

A being cannot logically be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If one knows the future, then the future must be unchanging, else you do not know the future. If the future is unchanging then all is predestined. Do you recognize this logical reasoning?

No, because you are missing something huge. Omnipotence doesn't mean God WILL do anything and everything, only that He CAN. The future can be unchanging without affecting God's ability to do things because while God CAN act to bring about a change, it is obvious that He is not bound to do so by any force greater than Himself or anything He created.

 

[DrivingThru]

I think people can make the best possible choices without God in their lives. But I think the best wishes of people will always fail because they've turned away from the center of existence. It's like a child at Sunday School trying to work with other children without any help or guidance from a teacher. Sure, he'll try to get along as much as possible. But without a guiding hand, it all fails.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

how can u explain life without design nor purpose

Easy: evolution by natural selection.