Needing justification for morality

[Dave Ellis]

If one has something to say to everyone, what would he do?
Write a book. Right?

Then when is he going to get around to writing that book? Because the bible isn't it.

God has done more than that. God showed up for 33 years on the earth. Is that enough?

When was that? Do you have evidence to back your assertion?

Besides, God does not show Himself to you now with a very very good reason. God wants your faith, not just your visual. God could make you a robot, or, an angel. Then you would certainly know God is real. But in turn, you would miss the most precious thing God can give to you.

Why would a god who designed my brain to think rationally, want me to disregard the brain he gave me and go against my nature?

And how would knowing god is real turn me into a robot? Your claim does not follow.

 

[juvenissun]

Then when is he going to get around to writing that book? Because the bible isn't it.



When was that? Do you have evidence to back your assertion?



Why would a god who designed my brain to think rationally, want me to disregard the brain he gave me and go against my nature?

And how would knowing god is real turn me into a robot? Your claim does not follow.

I don't think you can generalize that. I have a brain too. I have faith because it is my nature.

 

[juvenissun]

Then god is unreasonable. And immoral.

Something for you to think: Why does not demand a human to have faith?

If you don't want to think, you may throw this question away.

 

[juvenissun]

Absolutely, so how do you determine who has the "right" brand of Christianity?

I do not determine that. I only talk about issues.

When you do that, you will find most of the "brands" have >90% of the doctrine in common.

However, if I talk to any one in any "brand" about specific issue in the doctrine, I would probably get 9 different ideas out of 10.

Are you confused again now?

 

[madaz]

Yes. What is wrong with that?

You fail to see what is wrong with that?

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other...

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes, I'm familiar with William Lane Craig's fallacious nonsense.
Here, I'll show how it's nonsense:


1. If the cookiemonster does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

3. Therefore, the cookiemonster exists

Ok, now support your premises.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't think you can generalize that. I have a brain too. I have faith because it is my nature.

And believing on faith is not rational.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I do not determine that. I only talk about issues.

When you do that, you will find most of the "brands" have >90% of the doctrine in common.

However, if I talk to any one in any "brand" about specific issue in the doctrine, I would probably get 9 different ideas out of 10.

Are you confused again now?

I was never confused.

However your first statement is wrong, you do indeed determine that because you have a set of beliefs yourself. If you couldn't determine which beliefs are true and which are not, then you could not have developed your current belief set.

So, what was the methodology used to figure out what you currently believe is true?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok, now support your premises.

You missed the point, his argument is equally as sound as yours is. If his premises are not supported, then neither are yours.

 

[juvenissun]

And believing on faith is not rational.

Faith is beyond rational (logic).
The Book of Hebrews has an excellent definition on what faith is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Faith is beyond rational (logic).
The Book of Hebrews has an excellent definition on what faith is.

What exactly does "beyond rational" mean? Something is either rational, or it is not. If is it "beyond" rational, then it is not rational.

As for the book of Hebrews, it may have an excellent definition to suit your argument, however that's not the common definition of faith.

To conflate the definition of faith that Hebrews is talking about and the commonly used definition of faith I am using in this argument is a logical fallacy.

 

[juvenissun]

I was never confused.

However your first statement is wrong, you do indeed determine that because you have a set of beliefs yourself. If you couldn't determine which beliefs are true and which are not, then you could not have developed your current belief set.

So, what was the methodology used to figure out what you currently believe is true?

Evaluate the belief system to see if it believable.

The system is presented in the whole Bible, not just Genesis or Exodus. It will take time to evaluate. I did not go to seminary, so it took me about 25 years to be convinced.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Evaluate the belief system to see if it believable.

The system is presented in the whole Bible, not just Genesis or Exodus. It will take time to evaluate. I did not go to seminary, so it took me about 25 years to be convinced.

Ok, well what caused you to be convinced in particular? Do you have an example of something you specifically considered profound?

 

[juvenissun]

What exactly does "beyond rational" mean? Something is either rational, or it is not. If is it "beyond" rational, then it is not rational.

As for the book of Hebrews, it may have an excellent definition to suit your argument, however that's not the common definition of faith.

To conflate the definition of faith that Hebrews is talking about and the commonly used definition of faith I am using in this argument is a logical fallacy.

Beyond logic (rational) means a conclusion which a logic/scientific system can not tell if it is valid or not valid. If a thing can be proven, then it does not need faith.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, well what caused you to be convinced in particular? Do you have an example of something you specifically considered profound?

Many Biblical descriptions fit the understanding of modern science. None of them is against the modern science. It is beyond amazing. Based on that, I am totally convinced that the Bible is the words of God.

If you can tell me something said in the Bible is scientifically wrong, I will be upset.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, well what caused you to be convinced in particular? Do you have an example of something you specifically considered profound?

Many.

A simple one: the Bible describes a submarine spring. Which fits the fact that some groundwater exits directly into the ocean. Or, if you like, the water circulation in the mid-oceanic ridge. (are you still with me?)

 

[Dave Ellis]

Beyond logic (rational) means a conclusion which a logic/scientific system can not tell if it is valid or not valid. If a thing can be proven, then it does not need faith.

I would agree if a thing can be proven then you don't need faith. However, if you can't prove it, then why would you believe something?

As for your "beyond logic" statement, to be honest, all I see is a creative redefining of "illogical". You simply have no reason to accept such a thing as true.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Many Biblical descriptions fit the understanding of modern science. None of them is against the modern science. It is beyond amazing. Based on that, I am totally convinced that the Bible is the words of God.

If you can tell me something said in the Bible is scientifically wrong, I will be upset.

Even if some fit the description of modern science, that doesn't mean the book is true.

That being said, the "science" in the bible is often hilariously wrong. For example, science says we live on a roughly spherical planet. The bible teaches the earth is flat and covered by a firmament. Water exists above the firmament, which explains why it rains (and why the sky is blue). Noah's flood happened when God opened up the windows of this supposed firmament. Furthermore the stars are just little holes in this firmament.

So yeah, there's something that's not exactly scientific.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Many.

A simple one: the Bible describes a submarine spring. Which fits the fact that some groundwater exits directly into the ocean. Or, if you like, the water circulation in the mid-oceanic ridge. (are you still with me?)

Citation needed.

 

[juvenissun]

Even if some fit the description of modern science, that doesn't mean the book is true.

That being said, the "science" in the bible is often hilariously wrong. For example, science says we live on a roughly spherical planet. The bible teaches the earth is flat and covered by a firmament. Water exists above the firmament, which explains why it rains (and why the sky is blue). Noah's flood happened when God opened up the windows of this supposed firmament. Furthermore the stars are just little holes in this firmament.

So yeah, there's something that's not exactly scientific.

All you said are VERY scientific. It is only wrong to those who do not understand. Name ONE on you list, tell me why is it wrong, and I will tell you why is it right.