Where does morality come from?

[Pommer]

If converting someone to a different point of view is your only measure for success, I doubt you will ever find success in a debate forum

See if “Pommer’s Law” shows up in a google search.

 

[Strathos]

If converting someone to a different point of view is your only measure for success, I doubt you will ever find success in a debate forum

Not necessarily conversion, just understanding. Is there any here?

 

[Ken-1122]

See if “Pommer’s Law” shows up in a google search.

Why?

 

[Ken-1122]

Not necessarily conversion, just understanding. Is there any here?

I can understand the opposing point of view even though I disagree with it.

 

[Kylie]

so you don't believe in the theory of relativity? Time varies with mass. See three things need to exist in the universe, space, time, and mass. If you have mass but no space, where will you put the mass? And if you have mass but no time, when will you put the mass? So like I said eternal hell is eternal because it's a spiritual domain, spirit meaning non mass. Normal mass placed in a fire for ever would burn up, so it's a glorified mass, if it can be called mass at all at that point. It would not be the same mass we know. if you see a video called "flatlander by Dr quantum" you can see how beings in higher dimensions can penetrate the physical universe in various places that would defy all laws of physics we know. Simply from being in a higher dimension. If they can have mass, yet not act according to our known laws, but possibly quantum laws, then why can't the soul once it dies? Nothing I have said it not possible due to logical error. So when you say it's illogical, you really have to say why it's illogical.

I accept the theory of relativity. I do not think you actually understand it though. Your arguments strike me as the same sort of tactic of using actual scientific techniques in a nonsensical way that lots of pseudoscience uses, like claiming that a bracelet uses quantum energy to achieve some magical result.

You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support anything you have said.

 

[createdtoworship]

Pascal’s wager, as you presented it, states that because the promise of Heaven is so great and the threat of Hell so terrible, there is greater risk in not believing in God and being wrong than there is in believing in God and being wrong. You conclude that it is therefore only logical and rational to believe in God, in order to avoid the greatest risk.

The problem is there is no weight to the risk offered in Pascal’s wager because the threat of Hell isn’t credible. There’s no reason to believe there’s a Hell, a Heaven, or a god that sends us to either based on our beliefs. So willing yourself to believe based on the threat of Hell is just a blind gamble taken emotionally. Therefore, your argument fails. It is not rational to believe based on Pascal’s wager.

I illustrated this by threatening to nuke your house if you ever responded. Predictably, you responded, because you didn’t believe I’d really do it. So clearly, the severity of a threat isn’t as important as its credibility.

so you believe the soul annihilates after death? How is that any more credible? If you don't know what happens, how is that any more credible than someone who trusts prophecy, historical accounts of Jesus, archaology etc all that testify of the historical places, people groups, kings etc in the Bible. This is not the place to do apologetics and I won't go there for now, but I am saying I have a viewpoint on the afterlife, how is this less credible than someone who never even contemplated it?

 

[createdtoworship]

I accept the theory of relativity. I do not think you actually understand it though. Your arguments strike me as the same sort of tactic of using actual scientific techniques in a nonsensical way that lots of pseudoscience uses, like claiming that a bracelet uses quantum energy to achieve some magical result.

You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support anything you have said.

well I recommend trying to understand relativity for one. As it relates to time, if you can falsify that time requires mass, which is my main premise, go ahead and try. But mocking my viewpoint as "myth or magic" doesn't go far with me, it just goes to show you have no more argument, and you are too busy or too lazy to research the evidence given. But that is your choice.

 

[createdtoworship]

One side actually becoming more receptive to the other side's points.

you should see my other threads, one is approaching seventy pages. But most christians just give up because of reasoning like yours. But is that truly loving them? I think loving them is being patient, listening to all arguments, if they defeat you, going back and learning how to defeat the argument, but it takes time, and most people just don't love as much as Christ commanded us too. I admit I have lost patience many times, but I realize that I lost patience, and I find the problem person that made me angry and I refuse to debate that particular individual, I have kept my sanity through that process. I highly recommend it. but just saying "its too hard." is not what Christ would do. and neither is just getting angry and mocking it, which is the tactics of most athiests I debate. Because I use logic on their own belief systems, they realize they use faith every bit or more than a christian does, and it makes them mad basically. I understand that. But it should break their heart that they have been lied to.

 

[Kylie]

well I recommend trying to understand relativity for one. As it relates to time, if you can falsify that time requires mass, which is my main premise, go ahead and try. But mocking my viewpoint as "myth or magic" doesn't go far with me, it just goes to show you have no more argument, and you are too busy or too lazy to research the evidence given. But that is your choice.

Wow, you are intent on ignoring the important part of my posts, aren't you?

You must show to me that Hell actually exists before you can expect me to believe you can explain how it works.

 

[gaara4158]

so you believe the soul annihilates after death? How is that any more credible? If you don't know what happens, how is that any more credible than someone who trusts prophecy, historical accounts of Jesus, archaology etc all that testify of the historical places, people groups, kings etc in the Bible. This is not the place to do apologetics and I won't go there for now, but I am saying I have a viewpoint on the afterlife, how is this less credible than someone who never even contemplated it?

There’s no reason to believe your particular conception of the afterlife — let alone how it is determined who goes where — is true. Your attempt to persuade people to believe yours is true based on the consequences of them being wrong for not believing falls flat because they have no reason to suspect that there’s any chance at all that it’s true.

 

[createdtoworship]

Although I could be at fault for coming across at times in the same caustic way that gradyll does, I think gradyll gets a large heaping of attention because his disposition and framework reminds so many former Christians (especially those in the U.S.) of what it is that made them feel like they just wanted to pack up their bags and leave the Christian life behind. In some ways, I don't blame them. However, as I briefly mentioned, I'm not here on CF with the main purpose of corralling my fellow Christians. I figure the atheists and skeptics already have that job well in hand.

The fact that you did not tell this to me in private, but to another poster, without notifying me. Is gossip, in the Bible it's called "talebearing" and it is a sin. I do take your apology seriously, and expect that this was a mistake, and I will of course forgive all wrong. I do hope that this is a learning experience. If you don't like my debate tactic, the best thing to do is tell me. Not complain to others about me.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow, you are intent on ignoring the important part of my posts, aren't you?

You must show to me that Hell actually exists before you can expect me to believe you can explain how it works.

that is changing the bars, you originally said it was illogical for someone to burn in hell forever, if I am quoting you correctly, so I was using relativity to suggest that hell may be in a dimension outside of time. So if it is, then it would not be illogical for someone to burn forever, which was your premise. Now you want evidence of hell, and I could give it to you but that would be considered apologetics. But as I said to another person here who said hell is not a credible threat. What is more logical, to believe nothing? To believe the soul is gone, turns off? When dead? Or to believe it goes somewhere? These are all questions I don't see atheist's bold enough to debate. Because by and large the atheist is a skeptic, which by definition questions everything. But in doing so, is it really logical? I mean to have no beliefs at all? I don't think so. At this point we come to a cross roads. The atheist has faiths and beliefs in the after life, but is not willing to verbalize them, or debate them. And thus comes the word from my mouth, "cowardly," The other option is they have never thought about it. And this is a valid choice. But again just because they have never contemplated something does make everyone else who does have a view, wrong by default. Do you know what I mean? There must be some illogicality that they are referencing to, that makes hell illogical, and they again, are awkwardly silent at that point. But an important point to make is that the soul, the software that runs the brain, is massless. Somehow it turns on at birth, and at that event is placed into a timelessness. See the soul has no mass, which means it can't be affected by time. So it's eternal according to relivity. So a hell that is eternal makes perfect sense. But just saying it turns off, well is sort of naive. I am not saying you believe that. But just saying what I have heard before. So I am sorry if I didn't answer your question the way you wanted, I still said some stuff that needed to be said.

 

[quatona]

well I recommend trying to understand relativity for one. As it relates to time, if you can falsify that time requires mass, which is my main premise, go ahead and try.

I have observed that you are pretty big at demanding proof for others´ premises but when it´s about your own premises you expect them to be accepted until proven false. That strikes me as a little odd.
Anyway, I don´t have a problem with your premises. Not until in the next step you completely redefine "mass" and still want your premise to be valid in regards to this completely redefined mass.

But mocking my viewpoint as "myth or magic" doesn't go far with me,

Well, when you start with physics and then suddenly introduce a concept such as "glorified mass", I guess you shouldn´t be surprised that people notice that you have left the very ground you had established for your argument.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have observed that you are pretty big at demanding proof for others´ premises but when it´s about your own premises you expect them to be accepted until proven false. That strikes me as a little odd.
Anyway, I don´t have a problem with your premises. Not until in the next step you completely redefine "mass" and still want your premise to be valid in regards to this completely redefined mass.

Well, when you start with physics and then suddenly introduce a concept such as "glorified mass", I guess you shouldn´t be surprised that people notice that you have left the very ground you had established for your argument.

asking to falsify general relativity, because she questioned it was wrong? Why do you run away from finding evidence for viewpoints?

 

[quatona]

asking to falsify general relativity, because she questioned it was wrong?

What?

 

[createdtoworship]

What?

she questioned that time was not related to the presence of mass, which is a principle of general relativity. So since she disagreed with general relativity, I asked her to falsify it. Is this wrong?

 

[quatona]

she questioned that time was not related to the presence of mass

She did?

Anyway, you ignored the actual content of my post.

 

[createdtoworship]

She did?

Anyway, you ignored the actual content of my post.

I believe you want evidence of a glorified mass. And I would not have that. Sort of like how many don't have evidence of a universe without cause, or evidence of macro evolution. So we all have faith, it's I am the only one that admits it. But I think there is circumstantial evidence that metaphysical beings can enter our dimension, materialize and dematerialize. So that is not far from a glorified mass. Just look no farther than ghost stories. we see the supernatural every day. There are literally thousands of eye witness encounters of ghosts, apparitions, and other more sinister demonic possessions. In fact it hits home so much in fact with the general population that almost every new horror film has demonic possessions in them. If it was so far fetched as to be unbelievable to the general public, the horror aspect would lose it's effect. To scare someone, (other than startling them), you must give them a story that is believable or at least have some truth to it, that it could happen. If there was a horror film about flying purple elephants for example swooping in on their pray, killing thousands. Well that would be ridiculous and would lose money, because it does not hit home, nor is it believable or rooted in truth. Elephants are not purple and nor do they fly. But demonic possessions happen all the time. The fact that demons are typically scary to people, reveal that it is not only possible but probable they exist. Freddy Krugar, had supernatural abilities, but it could be that what made him scary was that He could suggest into peoples thoughts, and appear to them in dreams, like demons can. Demons can't read your thoughts, but they can suggest into your mind certain thoughts. And their network is sufficient enough that they can know details about you that no one else can know. There were these gypsies that came to a family I know they told them things about their life, including that one person was dying of sickness and that another had lost a finger. Things they could not have known. Then they said if you give us your valuables we will pray and this will be an offering to God. They said that after the ceremony they would give the valuables back. They fled with the money and valuables. The family thought they would help heal their relative. Now there was no way of them knowing that information. All of the above is not proof, I don't have proof. I only have circumstantial evidence, including scripture that back up my viewpoints, but most of the time circumstantial evidence doesn't go far in debate. But most of what we believe in life is based on circumstantial evidence, rarely any of it is based on fact. For example evolution, something that has no evidence is taught and supported by nearly every government and approved for public school use. Take a universe that has not beginning, an eternal universe. That has no evidence, yet many believe it. Take evolution from a pond, either by electrifying base elements to create simple proteins or amino acids and form the first life. Or at worse, evolution from a rock. All the above has no evidence only circumstantial evidence, if that. So anyway, I stole this from another thread, but I thought it was a good topic to get into.

source: peer review on paranormal experiences:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-37947-001

I don't believe psychiatry/psychology is a hard science, nor provable, but that article is just to show many people do have the above experiences, which the article says is just "dissassociative, caused by trauma" which I would say that is unprovable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The fact that you did not tell this to me in private, but to another poster, without notifying me. Is gossip, in the Bible it's called "talebearing" and it is a sin. I do take your apology seriously, and expect that this was a mistake, and I will of course forgive all wrong. I do hope that this is a learning experience. If you don't like my debate tactic, the best thing to do is tell me. Not complain to others about me.

If all it takes to "qualify" as a gossiper is to very, very briefly mention already known (and true) public behaviors of another person to yet a third party, behaviors which might be troublesome in some way, well then, call me a "gossiper," just as was Paul the Apostle.

 

[quatona]

I believe you want evidence of a glorified mass.

As so often, your belief is mistaken.