What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

[Silmarien]

If we take Gandhi's remarks about Christians seriously... the anti-Christs are most often Christians.

If we take the Gospel seriously, the anti-Christs are also most often Christians, so...

 

[FireDragon76]

If we take the Gospel seriously, the anti-Christs are also most often Christians, so...

A good tree bears good fruit. Christianity is not necessarily a good tree.

I agree actually with @2PhiloVoid that "the days are evil". I just don't see rallying behind Christian orthodoxy as the solution . I think the very notion of orthodoxy itself is irrelevant to Jesus' teachings- certainly its been overblown by people who have wanted to use religion to advance secular agendas.

 

[Silmarien]

A good tree bears good fruit. Christianity is not necessarily a good tree.

I don't know, if I see people worshipping mammon and hating their neighbor, I don't immediately assume it's because of Christianity.

I agree actually with @2PhiloVoid that "the days are evil". I just don't see rallying behind Christian orthodoxy as the solution . I think the very notion of orthodoxy itself is irrelevant to Jesus' teachings- certainly its been overblown by people who have wanted to use religion to advance secular agendas.

I don't see orthodoxy as being directly related to moral practice at all. That seems like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know, if I see people worshipping mammon and hating their neighbor, I don't immediately assume it's because of Christianity.

It's not necessarily helping, either. And given that Christianity in the US is often presented as the last, best hope for humanity against chaos and nihilism... I think it's pertinent as far as objections go.

I don't see orthodoxy as being directly related to moral practice at all. That seems like comparing apples and oranges.

It is if it's used to justify the authority of an institution, such as the Church.

I just don't believe in letting the blind leading the blind lead me.

 

[Silmarien]

It's not necessarily helping, either. And given that Christianity in the US is often presented as the last, best hope for humanity against chaos and nihilism... I think it's pertinent as far as objections go.

An objection to what, though?

It is if it's used to justify the authority of an institution, such as the Church.

I just don't believe in letting the blind leading the blind lead me.

Okay. It sounds like your problem is more with institutions than with orthodoxy, then. I just don't see how something like Trinitarianism vs. Arianism has anything to do with moral questions in and of itself.

 

[FireDragon76]

An objection to what, though?



Okay. It sounds like your problem is more with institutions than with orthodoxy, then. I just don't see how something like Trinitarianism vs. Arianism has anything to do with moral questions in and of itself.

Because it's all about metaphysics. It's the McGuffin device that the Church uses to produce religious enchantment and, consequently, obedience to its vision of the world.

 

[Silmarien]

Because it's all about metaphysics. It's the McGuffin device that the Church uses to produce religious enchantment and therefore, obedience to its vision of the world.

I don't know. I'm all about metaphysics, and not particularly sold on the Church. If they get things right, they get things right. If they get things wrong, they get things wrong. Pretty simple.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know. I'm all about metaphysics, and not particularly sold on the Church. If they get things right, they get things right. If they get things wrong, they get things wrong. Pretty simple.

You're still a bit of a seeker and not a "true believer". But people that have accepted this stuff as default tend to give a special reverence to things Mother Church says. Even among Protestants. It's why there's so much deference given to pastors, for instance.

 

[Silmarien]

You're still a bit of a seeker and not a "true believer". But people that have accepted this stuff as default tend to give a special reverence to things Mother Church says. Even among Protestants. It's why there's so much deference given to pastors, for instance.

You might as well rage against science because people tend to give special reverence to scientists in our society. Actually, that would probably make more sense, since I don't think most Christian laypeople are particularly interested in metaphysics one way or the other.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I just did, and you don't "get it," apparently. See what I mean?

The essential point here that I'd make to you is that whichever epistemological praxis is expected for engineering a successful mission to Mars, it WILL NOT BE, and can't be, the same epistemic praxis that is, or will ever be, inherent to any one person's mental processes as they existentially attempt to have faith in Jesus Christ.

Once again, Philo, you just prove my point.
I say that you are trying to dodge a direct question by raising a fog of unnecessary verbiage, and you respond by telling me about your epistemological praxis.

I do get what you're doing. I get it fine. I knew that Euthyphro's Dilemma posed an insurmountable problem for Christians, but I am always interested to see another demonstration of the fact.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I can accept that life has mysteries and things can't always be succintly explained, but you seem to be using obscure language as a dodge to mask fundamentalist-style fideism. And that's OK, just don't expect it to be persuasive to the rest of us.

FireDragon76, you have said exactly the right thing in exactly the right way.
Notice, by the way, how Philo immediately jumped on what you said to quibble about the meaning of the word "fundamentalist" rather than address the subject at hand.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Once again, Philo, you just prove my point.
I say that you are trying to dodge a direct question by raising a fog of unnecessary verbiage, and you respond by telling me about your epistemological praxis.

I do get what you're doing. I get it fine. I knew that Euthyphro's Dilemma posed an insurmountable problem for Christians, but I am always interested to see another demonstration of the fact.

I've already trounced it, and if you can't see that, that's on you.

And by the way, stop playing the "dis-information card." When you do that, it makes me think you have an agenda, and surely you wouldn't stoop so low as to come to an online Christian Forum with an agenda, political or otherwise, and just bold-face lie by saying something to the effect that you're really here because you just care and love the concept of 'truth' so very much, right?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I've already trounced it, and if you can't see that, that's on you.

Have you? Gosh, well done! One of the great philosophical conundrums of atheism and Christianity, and you've solved it!
I'm afraid I missed where that happened. Could you repeat it, or summarise it, or just tell me the post number where you did it? Because as far as I can tell, I asked:
"Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?"
And didn't get anything in the way of an answer.

And by the way, stop playing the "dis-information card."

What's that?

When you do that, it makes me think you have an agenda, and surely you wouldn't stoop so low as to come to an online Christian Forum with an agenda, political or otherwise, and just bold-face lie by saying something to the effect that you're really here because you just care and love the concept of 'truth' so very much, right?

Absolutely right. Sorry, are you accusing me of lying about my motivations here? Because yes, I don't think God exists (because that's part of the "atheist" bundle) and yes, I do want to persuade people to my point of view (which is why I'm on a debating forum) and yes, I would like to know if God was real, even if I think there's no chance of that happening.

So...what exactly do you mean?

 

[the iconoclast]

Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

Hey hey new friend

This is what the Lord says:
Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

Does God command something because it is good?

The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

God has decreed what is good and what is disobedient.

Or is it good because God commands it?

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

What you think and if I'm missing the point, what point are you trying to make?

Because yes, I don't think God exists (because that's part of the "atheist" bundle) and yes,

You do not believe God exists. I do and I know

What proof or evidence do you need to be convinced?

What proof or evidence can you supply to make me doubt?

I do want to persuade people to my point of view

What have you got - that persuaded you, that should persuade us?

(which is why I'm on a debating forum) and yes, I would like to know if God was real, even if I think there's no chance of that happening.

ill give you my testimony.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

Now i know that you will say personal experience are not verifiable proof but indulge me, what do you think about this?

Cheers

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Hey hey new friend

New friend? Maybe a little too soon, Iconoclast. But I trust we shall always treat each other with respect.

This is what the Lord says:
Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

Does God command something because it is good?

The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

God has decreed what is good and what is disobedient.

Or is it good because God commands it?

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

This seems to mean very little more than "God is good, and does good things."

What you think and if I'm missing the point, what point are you trying to make?

The point is this:
Is it possible to truly know what is right or wrong?
Christians say that it is impossible, if you do not believe in God; that without assuming the existence of God, you cannot justify any system of morality.
The challenge to this is to say:
Does God command something because it is good?
Or is something good because God commands it?
The first means that God knows what is good and so, because He is good, He knows how to do good things. But if this is the case, then there is an external system of morality, and we don't require God to make sense of what is good and evil; we can just find and consult this system.
The second option means that God creates goodness Himself. Whatever He does becomes a good action because it was done by Him. But if that is the case, then logically good has no meaning except "that which God does". And if anything God did was good, then good has no meaning. Is rape evil? It wouldn't be if God did it. Is genocide evil? Not if God did it, or commanded it.
Is torture for the sake of enjoying an other person's pain evil? If God said that it was, you would have to agree with Him. You can't say "God would never do an evil thing," because option 2 says that there is no evil if God does it.

So:
Does God command something because it is good?
Or is something good because God commands it?
What do you think?

You do not believe God exists. I do and I know
What proof or evidence do you need to be convinced?
What proof or evidence can you supply to make me doubt?

The proof or evidence I need to be convinced is the same proof or evidence I would need to be convinced of anything else.
Something convincing.
Imagine that you believed in aliens. You would come to me and say "I know that little green men are abducting humans."
And I would say, "Really? Can you prove that?"
You wouldn't say, "Of course! What kind of proof or evidence would you need?"
No, you'd say: "Of course! I can prove it because..." and then you'd give your reasons. And if they were convincing reasons, I would join in your belief, because I am a reasonable human being who is persuaded by reason.

What have you got - that persuaded you, that should persuade us?

What I have got is the fact that you do not have any reasonable evidence. So, technically, all I have to do is point out to you the many flaws in your arguments. Then you, as a reasonable human being will say, "You know what, you're right! In fact, I don't really have any reason to believe in God. I'll stop doing so."
The process is rarely that smooth, but in a world in which people did think and act rationally, that is how it would go.

Now i know that you will say personal experience are not verifiable proof but indulge me, what do you think about this?

I think that personal experiences are not verifiable proof.

 

[the iconoclast]

New friend? Maybe a little too soon, Iconoclast.

Hey hey you

How about pal or chum.

But I trust we shall always treat each other with respect.

Respect like trust is earned. I will treat you as i would like to be treated.

This seems to mean very little more than "God is good, and does good things."

So you have an answer. God is good and does good things.

We need to expand, What's the problem here with this statement?

What more is needed?

The point is this:

Is it possible to truly know what is right or wrong?

Good - morally good, justified, or acceptable.

Wrong - unjust, dishonest, or immoral.

Of course it is possible to know and no need to blir the lines. Its possible to know either by an appeal to authority or what is justifiable or unjustified. Lets reason together, i got the ball running.

Why do you want to know what is truly right or wrong and when you find out, what then?

What do you think about my answer?

Christians say that it is impossible, if you do not believe in God; that without assuming the existence of God, you cannot justify any system of morality.

Why can i not justify any system of morality? I need you to explain more so we can get to the core of your position and why it is valid?

The challenge to this is to say:

Does God command something because it is good?

Or is something good because God commands it?

The first means that God knows what is good and so, because He is good, He knows how to do good things.

Sounds good to me. Why is it no good to you?

But if this is the case, then there is an external system of morality, and we don't require God to make sense of what is good and evil; we can just find and consult this system.

What system do you refer to and why is it justified?

The second option means that God creates goodness Himself. Whatever He does becomes a good action because it was done by Him.

Sounds good to me, why should i doubt such a thing?

But if that is the case, then logically good has no meaning except "that which God does".

In relation to God that could be the case.

You seem limited in your speculation, have you considered that you have reasoned yourself into a confused position of misrepresentation?

In relation to you and i, it would mean obedience or disobedience. Good in relation to you and i would mean morally good, justified, or acceptable.

Add the 2 together. God deems what is justifiable in order to to inherit His kingdom, we must choice to do what He considerd acceptable.

And if anything God did was good, then good has no meaning.

Could you explain to me why it has no meaning then?

Meaning - what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action

Is rape evil?

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.

Evil means profoundly immoral and wicked.

Heads up. I do not rape. I do not endorse rape and believe a rapist should be punished.

Rape is morally wrong and the Bible has a judgement regarding it. Rape could be considered sexually immoral.

Heres what the Word of God says.

1 Cor 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Do unto others would justify it being immoral. I would prefer not to be raped myself and understand why such an event could be harmful.

Now back to you. Is rape immoral or morally wrong, if yes or no, why or how did you justify yoir response?

It wouldn't be if God did it.

Is genocide evil? Not if God did it, or commanded it.

So what point are you trying to make here?

It wouldn't be if God did it.
Is torture for the sake of enjoying an other person's pain evil? If God said that it was, you would have to agree with Him.

But heres the point. He hasnt. So speculation and assumption here can only be a distraction to you and i, and is pointless to our discussion.

You can't say "God would never do an evil thing," because option 2 says that there is no evil if God does it.

How so? I need you to carefully explain this point with some more detail.

Are these options universal or personal?

Can there be a different option that you may not be aware of?

So:

Does God command something because it is good?

God has decreed what is good and what is disobedient. If this is the wrong answer tell me what is the right answer how about this.

Does God command something because it is good? How would you answer yourself?

Or is something good because God commands it?

What do you think?

Please excuse me, i thought i gave you an answer. Here it is again.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

I will appeal to this authority.

Would God disobey God? Would i disobey myself? Would you disobey your own principles?

What motivation do you believe God needs to contradict Himself?

Im curious.

Is something good because God commands it? How would you answer this?

The proof or evidence I need to be convinced is the same proof or evidence I would need to be convinced of anything else.

Such as. You know what you wont accept, do you know what you would accept?

One example should be fine - if im to consider you have a systematic method and not bias.

Something convincing.

Well you know what example are unconvincing, what is an example of something which would convince ie fireworks, a cup moving off the table, etc...

Imagine that you believed in aliens. You would come to me and say "I know that little green men are abducting humans."

This is a prime example of framing. You paint a picture, say this is most assuredly accurate and throw away the picture you painted.

So in your example i accept that aliens exist, especially without proof - meaning of believe.

So i believe or have an opinion that aliens exist.

And I would say, "Really? Can you prove that?"

You wouldn't say, "Of course! What kind of proof or evidence would you need?"

This is assumption, why wouldnt i?

No, you'd say: "Of course! I can prove it because..." and then you'd give your reasons.

Like someone giving you a testimony.

I can prove it. Are you willing to perform the steps to get the result?

For example are you willing to perform an experiment with a 9 volt battery to prove to yourself that water is h2o or are you willing to accept an appeal to authority?

And if they were convincing reasons, I would join in your belief, because I am a reasonable human being who is persuaded by reason.

Why is my testimony not convincing?

What I have got is the fact that you do not have any reasonable evidence.

Well lets not rush. I gave you my testimony and i do not believe we have discussed it to its full potential, also i do not believe you have asked evidence from me yet - correct me if im wrong.

I have not made this up. There is no benefit in lying to you and the experience effected me in such a way that i am a new person.

Explain to me why my testimony is not reasonable and why is it not possible?

So, technically, all I have to do is point out to you the many flaws in your arguments.

Well dont be shy I want you to

You will need to give this more thought and put in more depth. Lets reason together my friend - you are to me, if im not to you

Then you, as a reasonable human being will say, "You know what, you're right! In fact, I don't really have any reason to believe in God. I'll stop doing so."

Cool, then this should not be a problem for you to do so. I wait patiently for you to do what you say you can do.

The process is rarely that smooth, but in a world in which people did think and act rationally, that is how it would go.

Would you say this is 100% certain to happen or an assumption that it will?

I think that personal experiences are not verifiable proof.

Why are personal experiences not verifiable proof?

Could receiving The Spirit through faith be an independently verifiable evidence? If no, why?

Cool. This is going great so far, i expect someone as reasonable as tou to have no problem and give in depth explanations.



Lets reason together

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Hey hey you

How about pal or chum.



Respect like trust is earned. I will treat you as i would like to be treated.



So you have an answer. God is good and does good things.

We need to expand, What's the problem here with this statement?

What more is needed?



Good - morally good, justified, or acceptable.

Wrong - unjust, dishonest, or immoral.

Of course it is possible to know and no need to blir the lines. Its possible to know either by an appeal to authority or what is justifiable or unjustified. Lets reason together, i got the ball running.

Why do you want to know what is truly right or wrong and when you find out, what then?

What do you think about my answer?



Why can i not justify any system of morality? I need you to explain more so we can get to the core of your position and why it is valid?



Sounds good to me. Why is it no good to you?



What system do you refer to and why is it justified?



Sounds good to me, why should i doubt such a thing?



In relation to God that could be the case.

You seem limited in your speculation, have you considered that you have reasoned yourself into a confused position of misrepresentation?

In relation to you and i, it would mean obedience or disobedience. Good in relation to you and i would mean morally good, justified, or acceptable.

Add the 2 together. God deems what is justifiable in order to to inherit His kingdom, we must choice to do what He considerd acceptable.



Could you explain to me why it has no meaning then?

Meaning - what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action



Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.

Evil means profoundly immoral and wicked.

Heads up. I do not rape. I do not endorse rape and believe a rapist should be punished.

Rape is morally wrong and the Bible has a judgement regarding it. Rape could be considered sexually immoral.

Heres what the Word of God says.

1 Cor 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Do unto others would justify it being immoral. I would prefer not to be raped myself and understand why such an event could be harmful.

Now back to you. Is rape immoral or morally wrong, if yes or no, why or how did you justify yoir response?



So what point are you trying to make here?



But heres the point. He hasnt. So speculation and assumption here can only be a distraction to you and i, and is pointless to our discussion.




How so? I need you to carefully explain this point with some more detail.

Are these options universal or personal?

Can there be a different option that you may not be aware of?



God has decreed what is good and what is disobedient. If this is the wrong answer tell me what is the right answer how about this.

Does God command something because it is good? How would you answer yourself?



Please excuse me, i thought i gave you an answer. Here it is again.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

I will appeal to this authority.

Would God disobey God? Would i disobey myself? Would you disobey your own principles?

What motivation do you believe God needs to contradict Himself?

Im curious.

Is something good because God commands it? How would you answer this?



Such as. You know what you wont accept, do you know what you would accept?

One example should be fine - if im to consider you have a systematic method and not bias.



Well you know what example are unconvincing, what is an example of something which would convince ie fireworks, a cup moving off the table, etc...



This is a prime example of framing. You paint a picture, say this is most assuredly accurate and throw away the picture you painted.

So in your example i accept that aliens exist, especially without proof - meaning of believe.

So i believe or have an opinion that aliens exist.



This is assumption, why wouldnt i?



Like someone giving you a testimony.

I can prove it. Are you willing to perform the steps to get the result?

For example are you willing to perform an experiment with a 9 volt battery to prove to yourself that water is h2o or are you willing to accept an appeal to authority?



Why is my testimony not convincing?



Well lets not rush. I gave you my testimony and i do not believe we have discussed it to its full potential, also i do not believe you have asked evidence from me yet - correct me if im wrong.

I have not made this up. There is no benefit in lying to you and the experience effected me in such a way that i am a new person.

Explain to me why my testimony is not reasonable and why is it not possible?



Well dont be shy I want you to

You will need to give this more thought and put in more depth. Lets reason together my friend - you are to me, if im not to you



Cool, then this should not be a problem for you to do so. I wait patiently for you to do what you say you can do.




Would you say this is 100% certain to happen or an assumption that it will?



Why are personal experiences not verifiable proof?

Could receiving The Spirit through faith be an independently verifiable evidence? If no, why?

Cool. This is going great so far, i expect someone as reasonable as tou to have no problem and give in depth explanations.



Lets reason together

Before we go any further, Iconoclast, I get the feeling you're not familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma, or the challenge it makes to Christianity. Can I recommend this short article to you? While I disagree with its conclusion, I do think it does an excellent job of setting out and explaining the Dilemma (see the sections entitled "The Challenge" and "The problem").
Euthyphro's Dilemma | Stand to Reason

I don't usually like saying "you have to read such-and-such before we engage in debate" but in this case I feel it's necessary. If you aren't familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma, you and me talking is not the best way for you to learn about it. Once you've read it, we will then be able to engage in discussion.

As to the other questions, perhaps we could leave them for the moment - this is a large discussion. One thing at a time, eh?

 

[the iconoclast]

As to the other questions, perhaps we could leave them for the moment - this is a large discussion. One thing at a time, eh?

Hey hey you

Im aware. Where do we go from here?

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @InterestedAtheist just reminding you that im aware of Euthyphro's Dilemma. Where do we go from here?

 

[holo]

Sorry for getting back to this so late. Things have been hectic.

I’m not saying that all or none of your faculties must be trustworthy. Not at all. Rather I am saying that when one faculty doubts the other, doubt is then created for the faculty which doubts, and consequently the very claim of doubt as well. If I just regarded the intellectual faculty I would have just as much reason to believe it trustworthy as untrustworthy, 50/50. However if that faculty concludes that another faculty, constructed by the same manufacturer, lies, then I now have a reason to believe my intellectual faculties are not trustworthy, and no reason to believe that they are trustworthy.

You compared morality and reason to two different algorithms. In that analogy, the first would be able to make use of logic and mathematics, which as far as I know are real things, that is, their principles are true. The latter is simply assertion. So if they conflict, it makes sense to put more faith in the first one, especially when that may tell us something about the other one but not vice versa.

Thougy of course there's the possibility that mathematics and logic are themselves an illusion, our best shot at understanding the universe.

There is 0 evidence that consciousness is in the brain and loads of evidence that it isn’t.

True, it hasn't been proved that matter gives rise to consciousness, and there's no scientific theory I know of that explains how that would happen. We should probably distinguish between consciousness itself and what we think of as mind. Our minds are undoubtedly connected to our brains though we can't say exactly how, or which way (if any) the causality goes. But we do know that influencing the brain influences the mind (or the experience).

What is the evidence that consciousness is somewhere else, or exists independently of, the brain?

Objectivity is not defined as something that is true whether or not God exists/commands it. You contrived that definition. Objective is true independently of the ways we think about it. It is a certainty that ones moral response will have eternal consequences regardless of how we think about it.

Our moral intuitions tell us that some things just are good or bad, in and of themselves. That's how it appears to us. If I'm moved to show compassion for someone it's because it appears to be right in and of itself, it's not motivated by being rewarded or punished by God or anyone else.

Genghis Khan doesn’t prove anything, but it is substantial evidence of Darwinian success that your attribution cannot compete with. Further, it is immediately expected on the mechanism of evolution; passing on ones genes. Your example isn’t expected, it factually does not compete, and your counter example of tight groups facilitate the very behavior in question. As a counter example of a “rape group” you point to Isis, which is jihadi organization that will blow themselves and their own community up. These examples are terrible Holo and should embarrass your sincerity for truth - from Antarctica, to the stone age, to…ear wiggling, to Isis.

Antarctic penguins are an example of what could seem to be moral behaviour being explained by adaption to the environment. The stone age is relevant because if evolution is true, that's the kind of environments we evolved in and would be acceptably (not perfectly) suited to survive in. Ear wiggling is an example of a trait that fits nicely with evolution but seems completely pointless otherwise. The fact that "rape groups" haven't taken over the world suggests that evolution has favoured other drives at least as strongly as rape.

The theory as it stands today doesn't explain everything, and of course we can find things that don't seem to conform to it. But given the huge amount of evidence that it's true, I don't think that one single human trait is enough to make it unreasonable.

It’s one thing to change your view of God over time, It’s another thing entirely to hold whatever view is presently advantageous to you in a discussion.

Keep in mind that if I think A is extremely unlikely, and B is just as likely as A, that means both are extremely unlikely. But yeah, I may change my idea of what God is probably like, from day to day. Because God can be anything. My immediate response to a claim that there are several gods would be that it's more unlikely than there being one. But had I grown up in India, my intuitions would probably be the other way around. I don't think I really have good reason to assume that there is one God, or that he's good, or so forth. Looking at the world, it can appear reasonable that it must've been created somehow, but that's about as far as logic and reason can take me.

If one makes specific claims about God, such as his nature or character, they have to be evidenced by something.

In regards to God’s caring, no one should assume anything. IF He exists, He sent His son to die for you. That is a reason to believe He cares.

I have to get past the IF first

By definition there can only be one MGB, maximally great being.

Sure, but that being doesn't necessarily have to exist.

You say that the reason you don’t believe the claim God cares is because you see no evidence of it. But that is not a reason when there are countless personal testimonies that He does, as well as the account of His son who suffered torture for you. This is all regardless of belief in God. You are presupposing Him to say He doesn’t care, I am presupposing Him to say He does. Your personal lack of experience regarding a person is not innately a reason to believe something about that person. I have seen a Ghost, I talked to it because I thought it was a person. The only reason I know it was a ghost is because it walked through a locked door. My Dad has seen one too. In fact 60% of Americans claim to have seen ghosts. I think you greatly overestimate yourself by placing yourself as the center of what is true and what isn’t by what you have personally experienced and haven’t experienced. Your lack of experience is not an epistemic paradigm.

There are lots of testimonies of UFO abductions and healing crystals and whatnot too. Surely you don't take all those at face value either?

BTW I've seen a ghost (or whatever the right term would be) too. But I don't have good reason to think such a thing really exists.

I hope you are not talking about finding car keys and parking spaces when you speak of better explanations, because that would be very disingenuous when I just spoke of miraculous healing, deliverance and angelic beings.

I've experienced deliverance myself, which is one reason losing God scared the daylights out of me. As for miracles, I used to think I saw that all the time, and there were certainly a lot of testimonies of them. But upon inspection it was never clearly miraculous after all. Healing, for example, would invariably be of a non-verifiable sort, like headaches that lifted or some variation of "I feel better now". Never once cancer or missing limbs or anything like that. It did happen, but always to someone who knew someone who saw it in Uganda or whatever...

When I thought about it, I realised I was more likely to win the lottery than to see prayers come true. That doesn't mean God isn't real, but it's clear that people will see what they expect to see.

Okay you are just contriving the definition of genocide now. This is worthless.

I could give definitions and qualifications and clarifications all day long and I'm sure you'd find a way to nitpick it. But I'm pretty sure you know what I was getting at all along. If you truly and honestly don't, then yes, this is absolutely worthless because I'm clearly not able to convey what I mean at all.

I take your word for it that you perceive a light in you, but I am asking if there is any light in you. I never said anything about it being a physical object

I think I said "as if it were a physical object.

Both of you are wrong however, because there is no right thing to do.

We won't be rewarded or punished in the afterlife, that's true. Or at least I see no good reason to believe that is the case.

I asked you how you can objectively state that your children have no objective value without confirming your own world view. You claim you have no burden for that claim, but you do. The statement that “my children have no objective value” is a claim you must warrant.

As I said, objective value is an oxymoron. Sure, it's possible that there is a God and that they are subjectively valuable to him. I can't rule that out, but then again I can't rule out that Islam is true either.

You are mistaken, one can have a functional frontal lobe and find his purpose is to set another persons family on fire. They do so because that is what they wanted to do. Many who choose to kill another person do so because they wanted to at that time. Your sense of purpose to love your family is not greater than someone’s purpose to kill another persons family. You are mistaken to think otherwise on your world view.

We only ever do what we want, strictly speaking. But a lot of the times we are mistaken about what we really want. If you haven't experienced, say, compassion and good role models (like is the case for many criminals) you may not know that that's what you really want, rather than hurting people.

Choosing to take authority of yourself is exactly what you did do, and that is exactly what Eve did. She wanted to become like God so that she wouldn’t have to be responsible to Him. You may have arrived at that conclusion differently, but that is the same conclusion. ‘I will be my own god and set my own purpose in life. It’s a really poor contrast to the narrative of not wanting to reject Christ.

Your assessment of my motivations is wrong. The idea of taking authority for myself was immensely scary.

“God=good” doesn’t tell you anything because that is a philosophical statement that everything true of one is true of another. It doesn’t describe what God’s nature is, you find that in scripture. His nature doesn’t conform to our perceptions of Good and Evil, you have reversed the two to yet again bring up the Euthyphro because that is the only thing you know to do in response.

The dilemma is a valid one IMO, and I haven't seen a satisfactory resolution of it.

God did create us with the ability to make use of more revelation, that was lost in the falls.

OK, but doesn't that just push the question back a notch? Why let us fall? Etc etc.

You ask me why you should believe Christianity is true over other religions…once again shirking the burden of your claim that Christianity was constructed. Christianity stands above over religions because the facts surrounding it's central claim have a high degree of historical reliability.

That may be true. It may also be true of some of the countless other religions you and I both dismiss out of hand as being constructed or at the very least misguided. Asserting that a religion is true is no reason to assume that it is. Or do you feel a burden to prove that all other religions are false before rejecting them?

Good, you finally admit that slavery is explained on evolution. However you can’t just attribute a change in morals from slavery to non slavery to evolutionary expectation just because it happened. That is again, planting the goal posts wherever you want. The mechanism of evolution is unchanged; which is passing on ones genes. Not-slavery is still unexpected on that mechanism, while slavery is.

But it's not slavery or its abolition that makes me think evolution is true. It's countless other things that convince me of that, and therefore I will assume that things like slavery too can ultimately be explained by evolution. Not every specific act, but the instincts and biological dispositions. We're not blind machines, we have culture too.

Humanism isn’t our best shot so far, it's our worst. You appeal to evolution, and Hitler was all about human progress toward an uberman. Humanism is about human moral progress, which isn’t even a real thing to strive for.

What do you mean it's not real? Or, what do you mean by moral progress?

Further, peace and coexistence is entirely unexpected on evolution. Evolution requires conflict to bring out the best genes. You consistently appeal to evolution to explain our moral values, and yet your moral values are contrary to evolution on every turn.

On the contrary, I find it reasonable that our biological instinct to take care of our own is mediated by culture and knowledge and changes over time. Sometimes our behaviour and moral instincts seem to fly in the face of the "demands" of evolution, like when we keep old and sick people alive though their continued existence doesn't satisfy anything but our sense of moral obligation. You could call it a moral artifact or something. But again, evolution doesn't select for the perfect behaviour, just the most successful one. So it's no wonder there are vestigial traits of all kinds.

Evolution does offers intellectual faculties, but not in a way that would explain why it would be likely for them to produce true belief.

Agree again. Evolution would have selected for survival, not truth. It's quite possible that reality is utterly different than what we perceive it to be. We already know that to be the case when it comes to vision, which is basically just a presentation of what seems to be "out there".

We believe that a calculator reveals mathematical truths because it was designed to do so. It is factually the case that teleology is presently a reason to trust.

That's assuming that we see reality as it truly is, which we almost certainly don't.

On what paradigm is it reasonable to assume that if something falls a million times that it will fall the next time? I assure you that paradigm is not naturalism, so what paradigm are you drawing from?

I'm talking about our ability to reason and make predictions. It was reasonable to think the apple will fall the millionth time too, even before we discovered anything about natural laws.

If your claims are not derived from your consciousness then they are not derived rationally.

I don't see what you mean by this.

Further, consciousness is where rationality happens, so by stating that consciousness is an illusion you are both confirming that we are not rational beings, and that none of your claims have been rational. I would add this to the list of your self defeating positions from earlier

I can't recall saying consciousness is an illusion?

The example I gave regarding losing a finger doesn’t need to represent your example entirely, it only needs to convey what a categorical error looks like from assuming one thing has the same properties as another thing by the same name.

I don't see the category error in the thought experiment of gradually replacing the brain with artificial but identically functioning parts.

I feel like I have stated several times why your behavior doesn’t match your claims, whether that be evolutionary morality, intellectual faculties, or particularly that you act according to the claims of your moral faculties rather than the claims of your intellectual faculties.

What's the contradiction? I've never claimed that I don't act in accordance with my moral intuitions.