How did the universe come into existence?

[Eudaimonist]

Nothing above refutes that His moral law is not an opinion because it is based on the fact of His objectively existing moral character. Just as the laws of physics objectively exist because even though they are non-physical they exist outside of human minds irrespective of what you believe about the laws of physics.

What is it about those facts that makes God good? Why should God evaluate them that way?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
You have chosen the only potential case of that but it is not quite what you think it is. First you have to understand that in the ancient Mideast a woman having a husband was absolutely essential unlike today because a single woman was very vulnerable. There was no police force in the ancient middle east to protect them so they needed a husband. So this is actually more a like a betrothal combined with having a maid. She works for a man that is a potential husband, but if the husband doesn't like her he can sell her back to her family. No sexual relationship is allowed during this time, as that would be fornication which was forbidden by the ancient Hebrews. Or if his son likes her, she can marry him but otherwise she goes free. Always look at the historical context of a text.

de:I've heard these apologetics before, and they're nonsense.

A woman in that era could have had the freedom to choose who she wants to eventually marry. Whether it goes that way, or being sold by her father, the end result is a marriage.

Stop and think about that for a second, you're trying to defend the practice of selling your daughter to another man. That should bother you, especially in a discussion regarding moral standards.

Most of the women DID have the freedom to reject the man that their parents picked for them. The scenario we are discussing was for poor people. The father needed the money to continue to survive so the process helped both the daughter and her parents and siblings to survive.

↑

ed: Well they probably would have begun with the jews, but yes they could have gotten people to convert by force in different ways. Ever hear of the mafia? The mafia uses different types of force and threats to get people to support and work for them against their will. But He didn't, allowing them freedom of conscience and religion.

de: Indeed, Christianity is no stranger to making new converts by force.

Any Christians that do this are violating Christian teaching as I have demonstrated. And that is evidence they are probably not Christians.

↑

ed: No, God cannot stop you against your will if you choose to reject Him. It is more a loving warning. A better analogy is that you are hiking in the mountains and you are heading straight toward a cliff but because of a heavy fog you don't believe the warnings of someone that lives on the mountain because you don't think you see any signs that it is a cliff. So God just lets you go off the cliff of your own free will you rejected His warnings. God cannot remove the cliff and he cannot go against your will, He cannot go against the universal law of justice because He cannot go against His own character which is being a perfectly just being.

de: Would a good father let his child walk off a cliff, just because the child doesn't have a full understanding of what's going on? Or would a good father grab the child's hand and explain what's what?

Assuming you pick option #2, then why wouldn't god act as any good father would?

Most people that hear the gospel do have a full understanding of what is going on.

↑

ed: True but the DOI is the philosophical foundation of the Constitution and it DOES mention indirectly the moral laws of the Bible as I demonstrated in my earlier post.

de: The declaration of independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, a man who called Christianity the most perverted system ever shone on man. He was a deist, and the god mentioned in the DOI was a deistic interpretation of god.

Actually he was a Unitarian not a deist, there is a difference. His daughter said he prayed almost every night. Deists do not believe in prayer. But he believed that the moral teachings of Christianity and the Bible were very good. And that is the law he refers to in the second part of his phrase, "the laws of nature and [laws of] Nature's God".

de: That being said, it's important to remember that just because some of the ideas in the DOI may line up with come christian moral teachings, doesn't mean the Christians invented the concepts, or the concepts originated from Christianity. Basically, correlation doesn't equal causation.

In the case of the founders it does. Most of the founders were Christians and a study of their letters during the founding period referenced the Bible and Christian political theorists like Locke and Montesquieu among others.

↑

ed: Only a very tiny minority. There are many atheists and secular humanists in the Establishment thereby having great power over the educational systems and major news outlets.

de: lol, nonsense.

You obviously don't know many state university professors and have not watched the mainstream media regularly.

↑

ed: Morality is more complex then you describe. Members of government have different roles. Judges and police officers can kill people without it being immoral as long as they are meteing out justice on evildoers. You and me as ordinary citizens do not have that authority. God is the judge of the universe so He has the authority to mete out justice including capital punishment. There is nothing immoral about that, in fact it is highly moral.

de: Capital Punishment is immoral. Doesn't matter if a judge is doing it, or god.

How do you know this?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
God's moral law is based on the fact of his moral character.

eud: Why should God evaluate his moral character as "good"? Is it "good" simply because that just happens to be what his moral character is, and he simply defines it as "good"? Or is it good because there are facts and a standard that lead to the conclusion that it is "good"?

His character are the facts and standard for what good is in reality.

eud: God's moral character exists in reality independent of a mind or the opinions and views of the being in question.

So does my moral character. So does anyone's. There has to be something more to it than that.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Your moral character does not exist outside of humanity, it is part of humanity therefore not making it objective relative to humans. Relative to other humans it is just your subjective opinion. God's moral character exists outside of humanity therefore it exists objectively relative to humans and is based on the objective facts of reality.

 

[quatona]

His character are the facts and standard for what good is in reality.

The interesting thing is that "good" mightn´t be a positive value judgement anymore, then.

Your moral character does not exist outside of humanity, it is part of humanity therefore not making it objective relative to humans.

1. Well, I could simply declare myself good, in the same way you simply declare God good.
2. I agree in that I am not objective relative to humans - but your reverse conclusion (that something outside humanity is therefore objective relative to humans) is quite a bit shaky.
3. I don´t see a reason to adopt a certain view (and declare it a priori authoritative/"good") about how to go about human affairs just because it is non-human. The opposite seems to be the case, as far as I am concerned: I consider a non-human view about how to go about human affairs quite irrelevant.

Relative to other humans it is just your subjective opinion.

So is your opinion that a God exists and that this God is objective/authoritative/"good".

God's moral character exists outside of humanity therefore it exists objectively relative to humans

That simply doesn´t follow. See above: outside X doesn´t mean objective relative to X.

and is based on the objective facts of reality.

...and this doesn´t follow at all. "Outside X, therefore based on the objective facts of X" makes no sense at all.
You are fully entitled to your preconception that God´s opinion is relevant/authoritative/relevant to human affairs, but you don´t get to picture it as a conclusion in the way you try to do here.

 

[Eudaimonist]

God's moral character exists outside of humanity therefore it exists objectively relative to humans

That doesn't actually follow.

and is based on the objective facts of reality.

Which objective facts are those? That is what I had asked.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Peter1000]

eudaimonia says:

At the moment, not only do I not believe in the existence of a God, I have no reason to think that if there were a God, that this God would conform to an essentially Christian view.

First of all the mainline Christian God is not an understandable Being. It is far removed from what God really is. You have to come to know the true God of the universe.

Second it is only through the access of this God that you can experience your reality with Him.
If you continue to be an unbeliever, you will never have access and you will never move off of your present position.

So your position is: I do not believe in the existence of God and I have a happy life.

Here is another possible position for you: I have read and studied and prayed enough to know that there is an existence of a God. Through my access to God, my life now is happier and more full than I could have imagined.

Pascal's Wager seems to appeal to fear more than love, but okay. I do think that many Christians love what they believe to be God.

Pascal's wager reaches only the lowest gutteral level of your reality with God. It forces you to do things you do not truly want to do except for the fear that there is a God. Fear of God, however, is a beginning, there has to be a certain fear in the Almighty God, but it is certainly not the end product. Love for God and His love for you is the end goal.

What sort of experiences are you referring to?

Experiences like:
being healed through prayer and a priesthood blessing.

praying for a particular answer and having the answer given to you in a spiritual way.

These types of experiences cannot be perceived as a coincident. The experiences that I am talking about have no other solution than a manifestation from God.

Everyone has family and friends and chance and coincident to help them in their lives. But people who believe and live their lives in a way that grants them access to a God, their level of confidence is higher, their safety net is larger, their solution matrix is broader and deeper, their future here on earth is bright, and their eternal life is much more hopeful and glorious, hence they are happier and their lives are fuller, even to the point of joy.

I only intend to know and love reality. So far, I have no good reason to think that reality involves a God.

One thing that God says is: Look at this earth that I have created, it alone is a witness that I AM.
I agree, if you study the earth enough, you will know that there is no way by a chance happening that this earth, with hundreds of cooperating parts came together at just the right time, at just the right nuclear force, at just the right elemental precision, with just the perfect amount of water and atmosphere, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc......
Let the glorious earth yell to your senses that a Superior Being made it happen, and we must get to know this Superior Being, and we can become like this Superior Being too.

You are the very type of smart, articulate, bold, aggressive person that God needs in His Kingdom. But you must develop other traits that will give you the well rounded person that can obey what God asks of you, and then learn what God knows in order to make a difference in the eternities.

There is absolutely an eternal alternative, which you will not be happy with. If it is fear that compels you the other way, then use fear until love can be your motivator.

That is only your belief. You don't know me, and have no direct means to make such an evaluation. I'm not sure why I should take this statement seriously. It sounds too much like "the party line".

I don't give out a 'party line'. I don't know you, but I do know that anyone that is on this forum is different than 99% of the people that live on this earth. It means that again, you are the kind of person that God is looking for to make you His and teach you why He is God, and give you an opportunity to be like Him. Don't pass up that opportunity. You will love yourself for all eternity for making a good choice today.

 

[Eudaimonist]

First of all the mainline Christian God is not an understandable Being. It is far removed from what God really is. You have to come to know the true God of the universe.

You are claiming things about this God. You can't just say that any God is necessarily your God.

Second it is only through the access of this God that you can experience your reality with Him.
If you continue to be an unbeliever, you will never have access and you will never move off of your present position.

I don't believe that you have "access" either, so we're even.

So your position is: I do not believe in the existence of God and I have a happy life.

Actually, my position is that you don't have the exclusive key to happiness. But, yes, it involves that observation.

Here is another possible position for you: I have read and studied and prayed enough to know that there is an existence of a God. Through my access to God, my life now is happier and more full than I could have imagined.

That is another possible position. It's not a very convincing one to me, but you are welcome to support that position.

Experiences like:
being healed through prayer and a priesthood blessing.

Healed of what? How do you know that this wasn't a placebo effect? How do you know that it wasn't natural healing? What is your degree of medical expertise?

praying for a particular answer and having the answer given to you in a spiritual way.

Praying for what? You don't have to be specific if it is personal to you, but I have intuitions frequently in which I contemplate some issue and an answer (sometime even a correct one) occurs to me. I see nothing particularly supernatural about that. The human mind is complex.

These types of experiences cannot be perceived as a coincident.

Wanna bet!

The experiences that I am talking about have no other solution than a manifestation from God.

To your mind, perhaps. However, people can easily be fooled by this sort of thing.

Everyone has family and friends and chance and coincident to help them in their lives. But people who believe and live their lives in a way that grants them access to a God, their level of confidence is higher, their safety net is larger, their solution matrix is broader and deeper, their future here on earth is bright, and their eternal life is much more hopeful and glorious, hence they are happier and their lives are fuller, even to the point of joy.

I understand that you believe that. I'm not saying that there aren't joyful Christians (although I have met some depressed ones), but you seem to think that there aren't joyful people who aren't Christians. That is the flaw in your position that I see.

You are the very type of smart, articulate, bold, aggressive person that God needs in His Kingdom.

LOL! I'm sure that God, if such an entity exists according to Christian understanding, needs nothing at all. An "omni" being can't have needs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

What is it about those facts that makes God good? Why should God evaluate them that way?


eudaimonia,

Mark

God tells us He is good, and then when you have a relationship with Him you come to realize that He IS good.

 

[Eudaimonist]

God tells us He is good, and then when you have a relationship with Him you come to realize that He IS good.

Okay, you have no answer to my question.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

First, Only God and humans exist that care about morality. There is no evidence for aliens. Second, God's morality is not an opinion. An opinion is not based on reality or facts as seen in the definition:
o·pin·ion
NOUN
opinions (plural noun)

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

The fact we currently don't know aliens exist is irrelevant to the point. The point was if aliens exist, their moral opinions are also subjective. Subjectivity is not tied to being human, it's anything that can form beliefs and opinions.

God's moral law is based on the fact of his moral character.

Did god create his own moral character?

God's moral character exists in reality independent of a mind or the opinions and views of the being in question.

You're claiming god's moral character is not tied to the mind of god?

Yes, but what objective reason is there for not harming millions of people? It is just based on your sentimentality for your own species. But that is speciesism because no species deserves any more protection than any other species if atheistic evolution is true.

There's a number of objective reasons why. Killing millions objectively harms the species, it objectively harms your country, and it even puts your own life at higher risk. By that I mean if you run a government or country where people routinely "disappear", there's a decent chance that eventually you'll disappear as well.

So, part of it is practicality in not decimating your own work force and harming your own economy, the other part comes down to producing a civilization where people don't have to constantly fear for their lives, which is an objective improvement over a civilization where people do.

This is true, because we are all created in the image of the same moral Creator. This would be unlikely if we are just an accident of nature.

Or we all have similar goals (healthy life, safe place to live, etc), and the best way to do that is to work together which requires us to act morally towards each other. That's true regardless of whether your god exists or not, which makes him redundant.

But the cases I am referring to were fought for by orthodox Christians. Those who support the things you mention are not orthodox historic Christians and do not have a rational or biblical basis for supporting those things. They are only supporting those because of their feelings.

Same thing would have been said decades ago. The people who fought for civil rights were not "orthodox" Christians in their day either. 50 years from now, the people fighting for gay rights will be considered the orthodox.

I doubt it, all the liberal denominations that accept those things are losing members, orthodox churches are generally growing around the world.

In the first world, all denominations are losing members. I will grant you the liberal churches are losing faster than the fundamentalist ones, however that's probably because the people that attend those churches are more likely to give up their religion entirely whereas fundamentalists put a greater emphasis on insulating their views and dismissing rival viewpoints without consideration.

This preacher shows his ignorance and confusion. Homosexual behavior is a behavior, racial discrimination is based on skin color. Skin color and behavior are entirely different things. Just as modern laws restrict and discourage smoking for health reasons, so it should be for homosexuality as science has shown that it is not good for you physically or mentally.

Science has shown no such thing. If anything science has shown people have no choice whether they are gay or not, and people are better off finding stable romantic companionship whether they be gay, straight or other.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am not saying that there should be bedroom police, I am just saying that like the government does with smoking, it should discourage such behavior because science has shown that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for you mentally or physically. And of course, the government and society should not recognize gay "marriage" because there is no such thing and it does not fulfill society's main purpose of marriage which is to produce and raise children.

See previous post in this thread, I addressed this point there.

The anorexic theory DOES come from scientific texts written by award winning psychiatrists Dr. Paul R. McHugh and Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer. Read their report in Fall 2016 issue of The New Atlantis.

And their views are not accepted by the overwhelming majority of people in their field.

Well I am glad you agree on this issue.

Agreed

We are all going to die, so if you save them even if they temporarily may feel they want to die, that is also a good thing. What is your definition of human wellbeing? That is a subjective term if there is no God. Stalin thought what he was doing was for ultimate human well being how can you prove he was wrong?

Harm and benefit are not subjective, there are objective standards we can use to gauge those things. If you have terminal brain cancer, you are objectively less healthy than someone who doesn't have terminal brain cancer.

There may be some issues which come down to personal preference. However any example I can think of would be weighing two good things or two bad things against each other. For example, choosing a higher income but less leisure time or less income and more leisure time. Income and leisure time are both good things, however nobody could reasonably argue that no leisure time at all is preferable to having some leisure time. People need rest at times in order to stay healthy. Just as having an income or means to support yourself is objectively better than not being able to support yourself.

We can see the effects those things have on a person and on the people around them. They are measurable.

Allowing mothers to kill their children in the womb devalues human life greatly. Since Roe vs Wade, child abuse has increased exponentially because parents realize that they could have gotten rid of them earlier. Secular humanist judges and officials are forcing Christians to endorse messages that go against their religious beliefs thereby violating the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

Nonsense, child abuse has dropped dramatically over the last century. 100 years ago it was completely acceptable in most circles to beat the crap out of your kid (or even your wife) for disobeying. Doing that now will land you in jail. The difference is it's more visible now because it's no longer considered acceptable and people actually report it to the police.

As for gay marriage, first off the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly made up of Christians, and nobody is forcing Christians to endorse anyone's marriage. Your endorsement is not required for two people (gay or straight) to get married. Your opinion on their marriage (as well as my opinion) is completely irrelevant.

Your religious beliefs matter to your life, nobody else is required to care at all about them. So stop pushing them on other people when they're trying to get married.

It can be seen in how even natural laws "punish" you when you violate His moral laws. Such as when you are promiscuous you will probably get an STD. They come from His moral character.

That has to do with biology, when you sleep with a lot of people your risks of acquiring a disease is higher. That has nothing at all to do with morality.

In other news, when you take public transit, or working in a school, you're also at a higher risk of catching a cold. That's also biology. Contact with more people means more contact with germs.

No, He didn't invent the standard, it is part of who He is, ie His moral character.

So therefore god is not the author of morality. He didn't create it.

Nothing above refutes that His moral law is not an opinion because it is based on the fact of His objectively existing moral character. Just as the laws of physics objectively exist because even though they are non-physical they exist outside of human minds irrespective of what you believe about the laws of physics.

How do you have an objectively existing moral character independent of himself? Is his moral character some different entity, or is that a part of him?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Most of the women DID have the freedom to reject the man that their parents picked for them. The scenario we are discussing was for poor people. The father needed the money to continue to survive so the process helped both the daughter and her parents and siblings to survive.

So you're defending the practice of selling your daughter to a man for money. Gotcha.

Would you support passing a law legalizing that practice today for low income earners?

Any Christians that do this are violating Christian teaching as I have demonstrated. And that is evidence they are probably not Christians.

They probably aren't Scotsmen either.

Most people that hear the gospel do have a full understanding of what is going on.

You didn't answer the question.

Actually he was a Unitarian not a deist, there is a difference. His daughter said he prayed almost every night. Deists do not believe in prayer. But he believed that the moral teachings of Christianity and the Bible were very good. And that is the law he refers to in the second part of his phrase, "the laws of nature and [laws of] Nature's God".

Jefferson believed there was a god that started the universe, however he rejected the trinity idea and he also rejected the divinity of Christ. He viewed Jesus as a human philosopher of sorts. He was a Christian in the sense that he thought Jesus had a lot of good ideas (as someone may consider themselves Socratic if they believe in the ideas Socrates had). However he was not a christian in any way regarding the traditional sense of the doctrine.

In the case of the founders it does. Most of the founders were Christians and a study of their letters during the founding period referenced the Bible and Christian political theorists like Locke and Montesquieu among others.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

You obviously don't know many state university professors and have not watched the mainstream media regularly.

Fox News claims don't count as evidence.

How do you know this?

Can you think of a way it could possibly be moral?

 

[Dave Ellis]

God tells us He is good, and then when you have a relationship with Him you come to realize that He IS good.

How do you verify that he's good? What independent standard do you use?

 

[Aman777]

How do you verify that he's good? What independent standard do you use?

It means that God is perfect, the ONLY perfect, the ONLY good.

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It means that God is perfect, the ONLY perfect, the ONLY good.

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

That didn't answer my question. My question is how can you verify god is actually good? What standard do you use?

 

[Aman777]

That didn't answer my question. My question is how can you verify god is actually good? What standard do you use?

It's the secret to Eternal Life. Only the good/perfect live forever. It's proof that God is good, to give His Gift of Eternal Life to mere, mortal, mankind, none of which deserves such Grace. God Bless you

 

[Dave Ellis]

It's the secret to Eternal Life. Only the good/perfect live forever. It's proof that God is good, to give His Gift of Eternal Life to mere, mortal, mankind, none of which deserves such Grace. God Bless you

Can you show anyone who has lived forever? I'm not talking about vague claims about people you think may be in heaven, i'm talking about demonstrable cases.

 

[Chriliman]

Where's the desire for the truth about God? Sometimes we spend so much time opposing one another that we forget to search for the truth.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Where's the desire for the truth about God? Sometimes we spend so much time opposing one another that we forget to search for the truth.

How does asking questions indicate we're not interested in figuring out what is actually true?

 

[Ed1wolf]

That doesn't actually follow.

Why not? Do you believe the laws of physics exist objectively?

eud: Which objective facts are those? That is what I had asked.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That reality was created by a moral being and that reality reflects those moral standards based on His moral character.