Does morality exist without God?

[Woden84]

NOTHING exists w/o G-d. Anyone subscribing to the notion that it does, shows a failure to understand the meaning of the word!

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.

Substituting your definition for God(slightly reworded to make grammatical sense) into the first quoted sentence. Nothing exists without the power that brought it into existence.

 

[Upisoft]

Substituting your definition for God(slightly reworded to make grammatical sense) into the first quoted sentence. Nothing exists without the power that brought it into existence.

This is quite untrue. Say the egyptian pyramids are still around, but the power that built them is not. Otherwise we would not ask ourselves how they built them, but ask them instead.

 

[Woden84]

This is quite untrue. Say the egyptian pyramids are still around, but the power that built them is not. Otherwise we would not ask ourselves how they built them, but ask them instead.

There's nothing in that that requires the power to still be around though. Just that at one point it was. Besides, I have it on good authority that it was Goa'uld that designed the pyramids and that they're still around, we just rebelled and kicked them off Earth.

 

[Upisoft]

There's nothing in that that requires the power to still be around though. Just that at one point it was. Besides, I have it on good authority that it was Goa'uld that designed the pyramids and that they're still around, we just rebelled and kicked them off Earth.

Well, quantum tunneling effect shows you don't need the power to jump over a hill. So, even the power is not a requirement.

 

[david_x]

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

If you explain the relevance than I would answer it, otherwise I would be breaking forum rules or at least etiquette rules.

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.

You misunderstand our duty I think. We are witnesses, only God can convert people.

 

[david_x]

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.

Sorry, I was doing two arguments and completely missed that this was actually one of them.

To address your questions, I never said anything about seeing the supernatural, nor hearing. The communication is typically either visions or knowledge.

 

[razeontherock]

To address your questions, I never said anything about seeing the supernatural, nor hearing. The communication is typically either visions or knowledge.

+1

 

[3sigma]

To address your questions, I never said anything about seeing the supernatural, nor hearing. The communication is typically either visions or knowledge.

So now you claim you never said anything about hearing “the supernatural”. Here is what you said:

One of the great things about being Christian is that we are not homogeneous. And if i was not in daily conversation with the supernatural I would be more inclined to believe you.

A conversation is an oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas. To exchange is to give and receive reciprocally. So when you said you were in “daily conversation with the supernatural”, that means that you and “the supernatural” are both giving and receiving sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas orally. In other words, you speak and “the supernatural” hears you then “the supernatural” speaks and you hear it.

Numerous people here have now asked you to explain the mechanism of this conversation. For example, people have asked you what “the supernatural” says, what does its voice sound like, how do you conduct your daily conversations and are you only talking or can you see “the supernatural” as well. I asked you whether it is actually true that you have daily conversations with the supernatural or do you just imagine it. You evaded every one of those questions.

If your statement that you have daily conversations with the supernatural were actually true then it means you would have to hear “the supernatural” yet, in your latest post, you deny that. So what are we to make of this? Were you lying when you said you have daily conversations with the supernatural or are you lying now? Are you, in fact, equivocating when you call them “conversations”? Is it that you don’t have an actual conversation with the supernatural, but simply imagine it instead? Claiming now that it is “visions” or “knowledge” that, presumably, just appear inside your mind certainly suggests you are simply imagining it. If you disagree then please explain how you distinguish your “conversations” from imagination.

 

[chris4243]

A conversation is an oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas. To exchange is to give and receive reciprocally. So when you said you were in “daily conversation with the supernatural”, that means that you and “the supernatural” are both giving and receiving sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas orally. In other words, you speak and “the supernatural” hears you then “the supernatural” speaks and you hear it.

I think it might be relevant to this conversation to point out that conversations can be done via any form of communication, even if it is technically only supposed to be oral. Besides, praying to God does seem like oral conversation, and of course God hears prayer.

The response as visions and "knowledge" however is more questionable. One has to make sure such things are in fact from God; it is by no means a given that they are.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So now you claim you never said anything about hearing “the supernatural”. Here is what you said:

A conversation is an oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas. To exchange is to give and receive reciprocally. So when you said you were in “daily conversation with the supernatural”, that means that you and “the supernatural” are both giving and receiving sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas orally. In other words, you speak and “the supernatural” hears you then “the supernatural” speaks and you hear it.

I disagree: I've had many a conversation with people over the internet, and I think it does a great disservice to deaf and mute people to assert that they cannot converse

 

[3sigma]

I think it might be relevant to this conversation to point out that conversations can be done via any form of communication, even if it is technically only supposed to be oral.

I disagree: I've had many a conversation with people over the internet, and I think it does a great disservice to deaf and mute people to assert that they cannot converse.

You both make a good point. I stand corrected. A conversation doesn’t have to oral, though it does require two-way communication. In a sense, both parties need to “hear” what the other party is saying for a conversation to take place so I would still like to know the mechanism of david_x’s “daily conversation with the supernatural” and how he distinguishes it from his imagination. For example, what method of communication does “the supernatural” use? Does anyone else simultaneously “hear” the particular conversation that david_x is having with the supernatural or does that conversation exist only within his own mind?

The response as visions and "knowledge" however is more questionable. One has to make sure such things are in fact from God; it is by no means a given that they are.

The first thing one would need to ensure is that one isn’t simply imagining it. You are correct, though, that things as one-sided as personal "visions" or "knowledge" appearing magically within one's mind can hardly be considered "conversations" and appear to be indistinguishable from imagination.

 

[selfinflikted]

If you explain the relevance than I would answer it, otherwise I would be breaking forum rules or at least etiquette rules.

To address your questions, I never said anything about seeing the supernatural, nor hearing. The communication is typically either visions or knowledge.

All that rigmarole and you could've just said that in the first place! Though, I have to admit, there's a certain satisfaction I just got that you had to kinda backstep on what you originally said. You don't any more "converse" with the supernatural than a monkey's behind. If you had just said that from the start, you'dve saved a lot of trouble. Sheesh.

 

[razeontherock]

when you said you were in “daily conversation with the supernatural”, that means that you and “the supernatural” are both giving and receiving sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas orally.

Quit being myopic, or you'll never have a meaningful conversation via any means at all w/ anyone who has any perspective to offer you.

 

[razeontherock]

I stand corrected. A conversation doesn’t have to oral, though it does require two-way communication. In a sense, both parties need to “hear” what the other party is saying ... how he distinguishes it from his imagination.

Now you're being reasonable, thank you! Recognize that with an Eternal being, 2 way communication may take place in a 40 year back and forth and it's still 2 way. And G-d's awareness of our input is simply a non-issue; you seem to have no way of processing that vital bit of info?

So the only variable here is if we her from G-d, or if it's just bad pizza. Anyone who doesn't see the validity of this point is instantly suspect

How one is to discern btw the 2 is something I would expect you to know. There's this thing called the Bible, ever hear of it? The Spirit and the Word will not contradict.

 

[sandwiches]

Quit being myopic, or you'll never have a meaningful conversation via any means at all w/ anyone who has any perspective to offer you.

I am pretty myopic but hopefully, with your perspective then, I can understand how one can have a conversation with the supernatural.

 

[razeontherock]

You don't any more "converse" with the supernatural than a monkey's behind.

Visions and knowledge are not something to discount, unless you value ignorance.

 

[selfinflikted]

I am pretty myopic but hopefully, with your perspective then, I can understand how one can have a conversation with the supernatural.

Well, the truth about that is out already. Now, we just have to figure out how he distinguishes between "conversing" with god, and his imagination. This should be very interesting. /popcorn

 

[razeontherock]

I am pretty myopic but hopefully, with your perspective then, I can understand how one can have a conversation with the supernatural.

We should all be able to gain insight from appreciating other's POV, but that doesn't mean I'll be able to do everything you can do, nor vice-versa. You'll also need to accept the limitations of human language when dealing w/ Spiritual matters.

 

[selfinflikted]

Visions and knowledge are not something to discount, unless you value ignorance.

I am highly suspect of "visions" (as provided by any supernatural entity). I've never discounted knowledge, at least, not knowingly. Ignorance is enemy #1.

 

[razeontherock]

Now, we just have to figure out how he distinguishes between "conversing" with god, and his imagination.

It'll never happen. (Not completely anyway, and probably not to an extent you will find satisfactory) You have your own life to live, and answer for.