Does morality exist without God?

[david_x]

See? I knew this would happen. We FINALLY get to the good stuff, then a big, whopping let down.

Thanks a lot man.

Also, I think I can speak for everyone here that we will take this as an admission that you do not converse with anything supernatural.

That would be foolish since the argument was already accepted by the person I was originally arguing with. You should probably only speak for yourself, for now.

 

[razeontherock]

critical thinkers and those who use a modicum of reason will see right through your statement.

A critical thinker employing a modicum of reason would at least query as to the definition of G-d that might make my statement so. Thank you for identifying yourself!

 

[CaliforniaSun]

A critical thinker employing a modicum of reason would at least query as to the definition of G-d that might make my statement so. Thank you for identifying yourself!

Define away... please provide a definition for a god/s as you understand it.

 

[selfinflikted]

That would be foolish since the argument was already accepted by the person I was originally arguing with. You should probably only speak for yourself, for now.

Ok, but I can't help but take your refusal to answer a simple question as admission that you aren't telling the truth.

On another note, how is it that a Christian (whose duty it is to try to convert people) refuses to show how he communicates with the supernatural (god)? It's a little Joseph Smith'ish to me, dude.

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, but I can't help but take your refusal to answer a simple question as admission that you aren't telling the truth.

On another note, how is it that a Christian (whose duty it is to try to convert people) refuses to show how he communicates with the supernatural (god)? It's a little Joseph Smith'ish to me, dude.

How is one supposed to fulfill this duty as you suggest? Esp in this medium?

Anyway, communication from us to Him is MUCH less important than from Him to us. That more important way is why we read the Bible, which is Living. (No, not the book ) And in the Bible itself we can see pictures of more specific things G-d has in mind.

 

[razeontherock]

Define away... please provide a definition for a god/s as you understand it.

Well with a lower case "g," your snappy rebuttal statement is indeed true so let's stick w/ the one with a capital. Next, note I pretty consistently don't even spell it out but use G-d instead, implying we cannot know entirely.

Next, notice the ground under your feet took power to get there. Regardless of what process(es) may have been employed, that Power itself, is G-d - of all that is, seen and unseen.

 

[sandwiches]

That would be foolish since the argument was already accepted by the person I was originally arguing with. You should probably only speak for yourself, for now.

That's a lie. He didn't accept the argument. He asked you to explain or elaborate, as have many other people, but you refuse to to explain. If your argument is that you, like the Pirahã, can see the supernatural, then your explanation of HOW you do this is very relevant to the conversation.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Well with a lower case "g," your snappy rebuttal statement is indeed true so let's stick w/ the one with a capital. Next, note I pretty consistently don't even spell it out but use G-d instead, implying we cannot know entirely.

Next, notice the ground under your feet took power to get there. Regardless of what process(es) may have been employed, that Power itself, is G-d - of all that is, seen and unseen.

So, for your definition of god so far, we have "we cannot know entirely," and "that Power itself, is G-d - of all that is, seen and unseen."

It seems a bit presumptuous for you to assert any specific claims then. By what basis in fact are you able to make these claims? Your definition of god is, by all accounts, a useless god, is it not? Essentially claiming all we do no know or understand is god.

 

[razeontherock]

your explanation of HOW you do this is very relevant to the conversation.

YouTube - Brownsville Revival-I See The Lord

 

[razeontherock]

Your definition of god is, by all accounts, a useless god, is it not? Essentially claiming all we do no know or understand is god.

No, it is not useless, nor is it the god of the gaps according to your pretense.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

No, it is not useless, nor is it the god of the gaps according to your pretense.

I do not find your definition of god to be compelling in the least. Nor have you positively demonstrated it's existence.

 

[selfinflikted]

How is one supposed to fulfill this duty as you suggest? Esp in this medium?

Anyway, communication from us to Him is MUCH less important than from Him to us. That more important way is why we read the Bible, which is Living. (No, not the book ) And in the Bible itself we can see pictures of more specific things G-d has in mind.

Well, if he communicates with the supernatural, as he put it, then he could start by answering the very first question I asked. It's a straightforward question.

 

[razeontherock]

I do not find your definition of god to be compelling in the least. Nor have you positively demonstrated it's existence.

Definitions aren't compelling, they're - - definitions. And as for your demonstration, now you sound like the Roman Catholic church dealing with Galileo. You know what I'm saying exists, you just don't accept that the Power that put the earth under your feet also created everything that is, seen and unseen. At any rate, you know what I refer to when I type G-d, which is what you asked. Is there anything else you'd like to sneer at?

 

[Woden84]

Next, notice the ground under your feet took power to get there. Regardless of what process(es) may have been employed, that Power itself, is G-d - of all that is, seen and unseen.

How did I know you were going to basically define God as what caused everything to evidence your assertion that nothing exists without him. You're wrong though. You see, nothing exists without the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is so, because "notice the ground under your feet took power to get there. Regardless of what process(es) may have been employed, that Power itself, is the Flying Spaghetti Monster - of all that is, seen and unseen.?

 

[razeontherock]

How did I know you were going to basically define God as what caused everything to evidence your assertion that nothing exists without him.

Because it's a logical argument. Your cutesy little FSM play on words has no bearing, if the concept is the same.

 

[Woden84]

Because it's a logical argument. Your cutesy little FSM play on words has no bearing, if the concept is the same.

Regardless you basically just said "That which causes everything is that which causes everything" Tautologies are not very good as definitions.

 

[razeontherock]

No, because you failed to consider scope you misconstrued this as a tautology. (Your statement would have 2 different meanings for your 2 "everythings.") Which is merely your way of avoiding the point.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Definitions aren't compelling, they're - - definitions. And as for your demonstration, now you sound like the Roman Catholic church dealing with Galileo. You know what I'm saying exists, you just don't accept that the Power that put the earth under your feet also created everything that is, seen and unseen. At any rate, you know what I refer to when I type G-d, which is what you asked. Is there anything else you'd like to sneer at?

No, I don't know that a god or gods exist. I do not claim or believe any such thing exists, or is in anywise responsible for anything. I asked you for a definition for what it is you believe god to be. You provided "we cannot know entirely... the power itself, is G-d- of all that is seen and unseen." This is a statement of belief, not fact. This is nothing more than a baseless assertion, as I've pointed out earlier.

As your working definiton of god is essentially useless for the purposes of this thread, and as you've failed to demonstrate some way of quantifying it's existence in the least, one, to be intellectually honest at this point, would have to concede that morality exists without god.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

No, because you failed to consider scope you misconstrued this as a tautology. (Your statement would have 2 different meanings for your 2 "everythings.") Which is merely your way of avoiding the point.

I have to agree with this poster, your definition was a tautology. Replace your definition of god with any other name (e.g. FSM, Thor, Wotan, etc.), and you're still stuck with the task of providing some positve proof for your claim.

 

[razeontherock]

No, I don't know that a god or gods exist.

Changing the concept and then pretending to be responsive is ... yeah, i saw what you did there.

one would have to concede that morality exists without god.

As I have stated, repeatedly. Again, you have ID'd yourself as one who is not responsive, but likes to make assertions as though they were based upon things you never read. This is your definition of critical thinking, and/or modicum of reason? That will make communication difficult ...