Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

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.

I feel I have refuted your stand point, so by all means provide evidence or we are done here. Thanks for the debate.

I have studied many religions, I have never seen a fate worse than eternal hell. I think God made an eternity of torture, the worse case scenario for a reason. So we don't logically want to go there. But go ahead and believe that there is something out there that is worse, without a clue of evidence. But I feel this discussion is exhausted. And I am still waiting for a refutation on pascals wager. So I am open to that if you want. Or we can be done. Either one.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

And I am still waiting for a refutation on pascals wager.

They did in post 721, care to address it?

 

[Skreeper]

I feel I have refuted your stand point, so by all means provide evidence or we are done here. Thanks for the debate.

I have studied many religions, I have never seen a fate worse than eternal hell. I think God made an eternity of torture, the worse case scenario for a reason. So we don't logically want to go there. But go ahead and believe that there is something out there that is worse, without a clue of evidence. But I feel this discussion is exhausted. And I am still waiting for a refutation on pascals wager. So I am open to that if you want. Or we can be done. Either one.

What metric do you use to compare the 'worseness' of one afterlife to another?

As I already said, it's completely subjective how terrible one thinks hell is. I know people who don't believe the biblical hell is the worst afterlife.

Checkmate.

 

[quatona]

Watch this video:

I am afraid you think that that guy and his "logic" is brilliant or something.

 

[Belk]

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

No, you did not.

 

[Speedwell]

you made this positive statement that needs citation:



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

you made this positive statement that needs citation:



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

It follows directly from the definition of moral agency.

 

[High Fidelity]

Thousands of years of society.

 

[Kylie]

yes that is valid

X = Santa Claus
Punishment = coal
Reward = presents

Since this is simply specifying what we are believing in, what the punishments and rewards are, you should still consider this valid. So tell me, do you believe in Santa Claus?

 

[createdtoworship]

They did in post 721, care to address it?

post 721 was written by toddnottodd.

if you find the right post I can adress it, preferably post a link.

 

[createdtoworship]

X = Santa Claus
Punishment = coal
Reward = presents

Since this is simply specifying what we are believing in, what the punishments and rewards are, you should still consider this valid. So tell me, do you believe in Santa Claus?

like I said your illustration is valid as a separate illustration from the theistic illustration. But the equivocation fallacy exists in the comparison of coal with hell. See coal is a valuable resource and commodity in the world. 80 percent of the world's power comes from coal burning plants. I used coal tonight to barbecue some steak. So I see an equivocation with coal (a commodity) and hell (the worst case scenario of anyones destination).

so again both illustrations are valid, but they do not compare with each other due to an equivocation on the end result of the illustration, one a commodity and one eternal torture.

 

[createdtoworship]

It follows directly from the definition of moral agency.

care to explain your point? I don't see how a definition of moral agency proves the premise that was offered.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you did not.

Sir that thread is dead at the moment, I would love to prove it to you again. Just reply to the op in that thread.

I challenge you to a debate, that I have fully proved God's existence, and you can refute it all you wish, to your hearts content. I welcome all debate. I am that confident that the evidence is fully sound.

Argument for God's existence.

I said that thread is dead because it's posting off topic posts at the moment, I would love to get back the the OP. It's always better to stay on topic, but I realize that threads to age and get old. that one has 87 pages. But the OP is still very much alive and kicking.

 

[Belk]

Sir that thread is dead at the moment, I would love to prove it to you again. Just reply to the op in that thread.

I challenge you to a debate, that I have fully proved God's existence, and you can refute it all you wish, to your hearts content. I welcome all debate. I am that confident that the evidence is fully sound.

Argument for God's existence.

I said that thread is dead because it's posting off topic posts at the moment, I would love to get back the the OP. It's always better to stay on topic, but I realize that threads to age and get old. that one has 87 pages. But the OP is still very much alive and kicking.

Why would I debate you gradyll? You do not seem capable of understanding when your arguments are refuted.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why would I debate you gradyll? You do not seem capable of understanding when your arguments are refuted.

I didn't think you would accept. But don't let fear get in the way of other things in life. It may hinder your joy and happiness.

 

[Strathos]

From an annihilationist perspective, Pascal's Wager is a useless argument.

I will also point out that Pascal formulated it with the purpose of reassuring believers, not converting unbelievers (which I have never seen it do). Most atheist to Christian converts either have a spiritual experience, or are made to feel welcome and loved by a Christian community. Aggressive attempts to convert them serve only to drive them further away.

 

[createdtoworship]

From an annihilationist perspective, Pascal's Wager is a useless argument.

I will also point out that Pascal formulated it with the purpose of reassuring believers, not converting unbelievers (which I have never seen it do). Most atheist to Christian converts either have a spiritual experience, or are made to feel welcome and loved by a Christian community. Aggressive attempts to convert them serve only to drive them further away.

there is a reason annihilation is considered unorthodox by the majority of christianity. Most people reading the Bible without any aids or greek knowledge, would naturally reject annihilation.

anyway, if you wish to debate this topic I have a thread for it.

here:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

 

[quatona]

From an annihilationist perspective, Pascal's Wager is a useless argument.

...but from the Wager´s perspective you better not be an annihilationist because that´s not the "worst case scenario".

I will also point out that Pascal formulated it with the purpose of reassuring believers, not converting unbelievers

Important point.

 

[createdtoworship]

...but from the Wager´s perspective you better not be an annihilationist because that´s not the "worst case scenario".


Important point.

He didn't provide any quotations. Motive is hard to prove if you don't quote the author.

 

[quatona]

He didn't provide any quotations. Motive is hard to prove if you don't quote the author.

Well, the alternative would be: Pascal was incredibly stupid. I´m going with the more charitable assumption.

 

[Kylie]

like I said your illustration is valid as a separate illustration from the theistic illustration. But the equivocation fallacy exists in the comparison of coal with hell. See coal is a valuable resource and commodity in the world. 80 percent of the world's power comes from coal burning plants. I used coal tonight to barbecue some steak. So I see an equivocation with coal (a commodity) and hell (the worst case scenario of anyones destination).

so again both illustrations are valid, but they do not compare with each other due to an equivocation on the end result of the illustration, one a commodity and one eternal torture.

My point does not require that coal be equivalent to Hell. It just requires that there be reward and punishment for belief and non-belief. If it would help you understand the concept, I can substitute another deity, another reward and another punishment. Would you prefer that?