The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you feel it was genocide when the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Did God command the bombings of those cities? You're not answering the specific question I asked.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Does it change the wiring or just add to it?

It changes it.

 

[Davian]

How does that comport to the naturalistic view that we only think and act as we are hard wired to do? We can't have free will if naturalism is true.

Why not?

At least that is what the majority of scientists claim.

Am I expected to take this comment as fact? Have you considered substantiating your opinion?

 

[Davian]

And the Nazis?

What about the Nazis?

If we can't do anything but that which is hard wired into our brain, nothing...nothing at all.

I do not know what you mean. If a tree falls in your direction, can you not jump out of the way?

Really?

Really.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did God command the bombings of those cities? You're not answering the specific question I asked.

I asked you a question, would you be so kind as to answer it?

 

[Davian]

Yes me too.

Lately, I would say for the past several weeks, God has really been working in me to just seek Him and He has put a hunger and a thirst in me to walk in His presence before Him moment by moment and I can see how it has affected how I relate to others.

I see now that the Holy Spirit does not want me to rely on the gifts and talents He has given me to relate to others, but to rely totally on Him so that He can direct me and guide me.

Has that happened yet? Can we expect to see any change in your posting style?

This is important for everyone called into apologetics because the temptation for us is to try and do this while leaning on our own understanding. But God knows better than we, what it is that people really need.

Was it your god that came up with the 'moral' argument, or people?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I asked you a question, would you be so kind as to answer it?

You first.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It changes it.

Do you have something that provides evidence of this?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I see now that the Holy Spirit does not want me to rely on the gifts and talents He has given me to relate to others, but to rely totally on Him so that He can direct me and guide me.

If you relied on your gifts and talents more, perhaps you'd plagiarise less?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you have something that provides evidence of this?

Yes, it's called neuroscience.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you point out his point? I don't see it.

If morality is determined by a community then the Nazi's were moral.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it's called neuroscience.

That is not evidence that is the area of science that studies such things.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is not evidence that is the area of science that studies such things.

Yes, I'm directing you to it. What evidence would you like?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is important for everyone called into apologetics because the temptation for us is to try and do this while leaning on our own understanding.

We don't have to worry about that in your case though, do we? You lean on the understanding (and writing) of others.

 

[Davian]

The question was relevant because his response will show me whether or not he believes objective moral values exist. That is why I asked it.

I am still waiting for an example of an "objective moral value", and the methodology by which you make that determination.

If he answers yes, then he will deny premise 1.

Premise 1: If objective moral values exist, then the "God" character in the
bible, that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with using a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing, exists, and virtually all of modern scientific knowledge is wrong.

Do I refuse to admit the truth of that premise? A bit of a loaded question, is it not?

 

[Davian]

If morality is determined by a community then the Nazi's were moral.

Yes. If morality - as defined on page two of this thread by the OP - is a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society, then the Nazis had a particular system of values and principles of conduct.

I still do not see the point of his question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You first.

No, you first.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. If morality - as defined on page two of this thread by the OP - is a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society, then the Nazis had a particular system of values and principles of conduct.

I still do not see the point of his question.

Was there a question?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I'm directing you to it. What evidence would you like?

Evidence that our brain changes its hard wiring when we read something.

 

[anonymous person]

If I say that the Nazis would have been doing something bad in implementing their final solution even if every human thought it was good, then I am affirming the objective badness of the final solution.

The word objective in the first premise is defined the way it is in any standard English dictionary. It is not defined as "God derived". Thus the charge of tautology is groundless. To think otherwise is to make the mistake of thinking the premise is about moral semantics, which it is not. It is about ontology.