Where does morality come from?

[Kylie]

again I proved God existence empiracally in another thread, I am sure you have heard the arguments, so is it truly an honest disbelief?

Wait - you EMPIRICALLY proved the existence of God? You mean you actually managed to do what the world's greatest philosophers have been trying and failing to do for thousands of years? WOW! Please provide a link to this amazing proof!

Secondly, is being selfish and accepting a salvation selfishly, in order to become a truly loving and caring person, really selfish?

Let's get something straight - the person who believes in God because of Pascal's Wager is believing because he wants to avoid God's punishment for unbelievers. If you want to be a loving and caring person, you don't need God to do it.

Thirdly is your striving to be Good going to be accepted by God? Watch this video:

Well, a few things here.

First, he's basing that on the Ten Commandments - and many Christians say that Jesus' sacrifice rendered the laws of the old testament finished.

Secondly, he's treating it as an either/or thing. Being good or bad is not a binary thing. Sure, I've told lies, but then again, so has the person who has lied in order to rip people off millions of dollars. But I think only a fool would say that this person is just as bad as me/ Most people would say that the rip-off-guy is much worse than me.

Also, that whole argument depends on believing in God. Telling me I will be punished by what is to me an imaginary deity is not going to convince me. For that threat to have any effect, I'd need to believe in the deity first - but that would mean I would not need to be convinced to believe in that deity in the first place!

And I will remind you of Romans 2:6.

 

[Kylie]

sir, I have never seen pascals wager refuted, so if you have a way to refute it by all means tell us.

Pascal's wager says that it is better to believe, because if you believe and there is no God you've lost nothing, but if you believe and there is a God, you avoid punishment. On the other hand, if you don't believe and there is no God, you've lost nothing, but if you don't believe and there is a God, you get eternal punishment.

Let's use the same logic with Santa Claus.

Pascal's wager says that it is better to believe, because if you believe and there is no Santa you've lost nothing, but if you believe and there is a Santa, you get presents. On the other hand, if you don't believe and there is no Santa, you've lost nothing, but if you don't believe and there is a God, you get coal. It's obviously better to get presents than coal, so it is more rational to believe in Santa.

Now tell me, do you believe in Santa? Or do you think that line of reasoning is flawed?

Let me guess - it's a perfectly valid line of reasoning when it comes to supporting what you already believe in, but when it comes to stuff you don't believe in, it's a terrible argument.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I'm not in the business of wasting my time. I've read enough of your posts on this site to know that you've got nothing new to offer.

if you don't want to put your money where your mouth is, I suggest staying out of it.

 

[createdtoworship]

I realize that sticking one's head in the sand is something that Christians often do to avoid hard questions. I even heard a radio preacher imply that Christians were to run from knowledge outside of the Bible.

But not replying to my post isn't going to make your site look good. It's just going to make you look unable to answer questions. Which will lead people away from your religion.

I've presented the only "wager" that means anything. You don't have to read it. Others will.

I am willing to debate you on your wager, you simply have to repost it. But you probably won't accept the challenge.

 

[createdtoworship]

Pascal's wager says that it is better to believe, because if you believe and there is no God you've lost nothing, but if you believe and there is a God, you avoid punishment. On the other hand, if you don't believe and there is no God, you've lost nothing, but if you don't believe and there is a God, you get eternal punishment.

Let's use the same logic with Santa Claus.

Pascal's wager says that it is better to believe, because if you believe and there is no Santa you've lost nothing, but if you believe and there is a Santa, you get presents. On the other hand, if you don't believe and there is no Santa, you've lost nothing, but if you don't believe and there is a God, you get coal. It's obviously better to get presents than coal, so it is more rational to believe in Santa.

Now tell me, do you believe in Santa? Or do you think that line of reasoning is flawed?

Let me guess - it's a perfectly valid line of reasoning when it comes to supporting what you already believe in, but when it comes to stuff you don't believe in, it's a terrible argument.

your analogy works. But not when the two analogies are compared. You are using coal in one illustration and eternal hell, where you are tormented for ever. I think I would accept the coal, because that is not a punishment really. Coal is good. You can use coal to barbeque. And use it to draw on paper. It has many uses. Coal is a valuable asset. But I have a problem with your argument because no one, once they enter the flames of hell will desire to be there at that point. If you burn your hand with the curling iron, do you shout for joy, and grab the hot curling iron tighter and tighter in ecstatic joy? No, you release the curling iron quickly, and probably dropping it in the process because you let go so quickly. If you reject burning your palm, why would you accept burning your whole body? So I am sorry if I don't see your equivocation of coal and eternal hell as a valid example. So this is probably an analogy you found online, but I don't see it as a refutation, I view it as a non sequitur fallacy. The analogy of santa claus, does not fit the analogy of God and eternal torment simply because torment does not fit with coal.

 

[Kylie]

your analogy works. But not when the two analogies are compared. You are using coal in one illustration and eternal hell, where you are tormented for ever. I think I would accept the coal, because that is not a punishment really. Coal is good. You can use coal to barbeque. And use it to draw on paper. It has many uses. Coal is a valuable asset. But I have a problem with your argument because no one, once they enter the flames of hell will desire to be there at that point. If you burn your hand with the curling iron, do you shout for joy, and grab the hot curling iron tighter and tighter in ecstatic joy? No, you release the curling iron quickly, and probably dropping it in the process because you let go so quickly. If you reject burning your palm, why would you accept burning your whole body? So I am sorry if I don't see your equivocation of coal and eternal hell as a valid example. So this is probably an analogy you found online, but I don't see it as a refutation, I view it as a non sequitur fallacy. The analogy of santa claus, does not fit the analogy of God and eternal torment simply because torment does not fit with coal.

Way to miss the point.

If you believe and there is X, you get a reward.
If you believe and there is no X, then you lose nothing.
If you don't believe and there is no X, you lose nothing.
If you don't believe and there is X, you get a punishment.

Since we wish to avoid punishment, it is better to believe in X.

Tell me, yes or no, is that logic valid? Yes or no.

 

[createdtoworship]

Way to miss the point.

If you believe and there is X, you get a reward.
If you believe and there is no X, then you lose nothing.
If you don't believe and there is no X, you lose nothing.
If you don't believe and there is X, you get a punishment.

Since we wish to avoid punishment, it is better to believe in X.

Tell me, yes or no, is that logic valid? Yes or no.

yes that is valid

 

[Skreeper]

your analogy works. But not when the two analogies are compared. You are using coal in one illustration and eternal hell, where you are tormented for ever. I think I would accept the coal, because that is not a punishment really. Coal is good. You can use coal to barbeque. And use it to draw on paper. It has many uses. Coal is a valuable asset. But I have a problem with your argument because no one, once they enter the flames of hell will desire to be there at that point. If you burn your hand with the curling iron, do you shout for joy, and grab the hot curling iron tighter and tighter in ecstatic joy? No, you release the curling iron quickly, and probably dropping it in the process because you let go so quickly. If you reject burning your palm, why would you accept burning your whole body? So I am sorry if I don't see your equivocation of coal and eternal hell as a valid example. So this is probably an analogy you found online, but I don't see it as a refutation, I view it as a non sequitur fallacy. The analogy of santa claus, does not fit the analogy of God and eternal torment simply because torment does not fit with coal.

I wonder what God does to masochists? Can't send them to hell really because they get pleasure from pain so send them to heaven?

 

[createdtoworship]

I wonder what God does to masochists? Can't send them to hell really because they get pleasure from pain so send them to heaven?

again, no [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] will desire to be dropped in a fire pit for more than a minute. IF you can prove this, your point may have some weight. But you won't be able to, so it is tossed as irrelevant.

 

[Speedwell]

Obedience to the dictates of an omnipotent being who promises an eternity of such torture for failure is not morality, it is merely expedience.

 

[Skreeper]

again, no [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] will desire to be dropped in a fire pit for more than a minute. IF you can prove this, your point may have some weight. But you won't be able to, so it is tossed as irrelevant.

Even a fire pit gets dull after a while. Pain doesn't really work anyway without nociceptors.

 

[createdtoworship]

Obedience to the dictates of an omnipotent being who promises an eternity of such torture for failure is not morality, it is merely expedience.

care to expound on that, with evidence? I didn't think so. I haven't seen you post here before, so I presume this was a drive by post.

 

[createdtoworship]

Even a fire pit gets dull after a while. Pain doesn't really work anyway without nociceptors.

the only problem is that according to the Bible (which has the worst case scenario for the end result of the wicked in the afterlife and is given priority according to pascals wager as such)....

they have glorified bodies when they are sent to hell. See according to the Bible there is a second resurrection. So for wicked dead that got creamated for example, they will be given a brand new body just to be judged in Hell. My suggestion is that they are glorified in order to do such a miracle but I don't personally know. But that would be the worst case scenario, and we must use the worst case scenario in pascals wager for it to be logically sound. Also the beast and the false prophet were in hell for a thousand years in revelation. There is no logical way a skeletal frame could last a thousand years in a fire. So that is why I believe they are glorified before entering Hell to have an immortal frame. The righteous are also glorified before entering heaven. So it's a matter of destination only.

 

[Skreeper]

the only problem is that according to the Bible (which has the worst case scenario for the end result of the wicked in the afterlife and is given priority according to pascals wager as such)....

they have glorified bodies when they are sent to hell. See according to the Bible there is a second resurrection. So for wicked dead that got creamated for example, they will be given a brand new body just to be judged in Hell. My suggestion is that they are glorified in order to do such a miracle but I don't personally know. But that would be the worst case scenario, and we must use the worst case scenario in pascals wager for it to be logically sound. Also the beast and the false prophet were in hell for a thousand years in revelation. There is no logical way a skeletal frame could last a thousand years in a fire. So that is why I believe they are glorified before entering Hell to have an immortal frame.

'Worst case' is entirely subjective. What you consider the worst might not be shared by other people.

I know some people who are more afraid of there being nothing after death and would prefer hell if it meant they could stay conscious.

 

[Speedwell]

care to expound on that, with evidence? I didn't think so. I haven't seen you post here before, so I presume this was a drive by post.

No, I follow these kinds of discussions. In any case, I see it as a self-evident proposition, as conforming behavior under those circumstances does not constitute moral agency.

What kind of evidence would you like?

 

[createdtoworship]

'Worst case' is entirely subjective. What you consider the worst might not be shared by other people.

I know some people who are more afraid of there being nothing after death and would prefer hell if it meant they could stay conscious.

can you provide an example that is worse than eternity of burning in Hell. I tried to find another religion that believed in something worse and was unable to. Islam, has a hell but it's tied to your performance. Christianity you get eternal hell simply because of one sin. That is hard to beat. Ancient sumeria had a hell that was like a dark side of our earthly life. So that one does not qualify. Again, feel free to dig in. I have studied religions for years, probably about ten of the most common, and nothing compares to eternal hell. But like I said, go ahead and prove me wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I follow these kinds of discussions. In any case, I see it as a self-evident proposition, as conforming behavior under those circumstances does not constitute moral agency.

What kind of evidence would you like?

you made this positive statement that needs citation:

Obedience to the dictates of an omnipotent being who promises an eternity of such torture for failure is not morality

anyway, if you come up with some evidence for why that is true, go ahead and post it to this thread (where it is on topic)

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

 

[Skreeper]

can you provide an example that is worse than eternity of burning in Hell. I tried to find another religion that believed in something worse and was unable to. Islam, has a hell but it's tied to your performance. Christianity you get eternal hell simply because of one sin. That is hard to beat. Ancient sumeria had a hell that was like a dark side of our earthly life. So that one does not qualify. Again, feel free to dig in. I have studied religions for years, probably about ten of the most common, and nothing compares to eternal hell. But like I said, go ahead and prove me wrong.

Yes we already know YOU consider hell the worst possible after life. Other people may be more afraid of annihilation, I know some of them.

Maybe there are even people who would rather burn for eternity than having to listen to Friday by Rebacca Black for eternity, who knows.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes we already know YOU consider hell the worst possible after life. Other people may be more afraid of annihilation, I know some of them.

Maybe there are even people who would rather burn for eternity than having to listen to Friday by Rebacca Black for eternity, who knows.

so then because you cannot prove a worser case scenario, my point stands. And pascals wager has yet to be defeated.

 

[Skreeper]

so then because you cannot prove a worser case scenario, my point stands. And pascals wager has yet to be defeated.

Stop being silly. How on earth can you 'Prove a worser case scenario'???

Here we go: Having to read apologetics from you for eternity would be worse than hell. Why? Because I say so.

You just got absolutely demolished in this debate.