Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

I see we can add inability to answer direct questions to you growing list of evasion tactics.

Any time you care to engage my response rather than issue meaningless challenges, I’ll be here. Don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath.

And just so you don’t forget what I’m asking you to acknowledge: the strength of a threat comes from its credibility, not its intensity.

The inherent irony is delicious.

yes, and that person refuted Pascal’s wager very well. Conclusion, it is more logical to not make a bet.

again I don't respond to belittling, and if anything that is one way to get blocked. I do respond to facts, and at very minimal logical premises, and evidence. I have not seen that for a few pages, so if I missed some honest to goodness debate challenges, please post the post number and highlight the facts of the matter.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow, you seem intent on not getting the point.

Very well.

Lord Raznar the Great and Terrible wants you to believe in him. If you believe, he will send you to Happyville when you die, which is by definition twice as good as Heaven. If you don't believe in him, he will send you to Ouchyland, which is just as bad as Hell, but it also has a monkey trying to play a drum kit following you at all times to make it even more horrible.

So, Lord Raznar has a reward better than Heaven, and a punishment worse than Hell. Pascal's wager would encourage you to believe in Lord Raznar. Do you believe in Lord Raznar?

I see your point now. However it sort of fails because Hell will be filled with screaming, and technically I would dislike screaming (even my own screaming), far more than banging drums. I think you are starting to see how Hell truly is the worst case scenario, seeing you can't even make up a place that is worse. I hope you see the errors now. Take care. (I did find your illustration funny however, and I enjoy the polite debate, so thanks)

 

[Kylie]

I see your point now. However it sort of fails because Hell will be filled with screaming, and technically I would dislike screaming (even my own screaming), far more than banging drums. I think you are starting to see how Hell truly is the worst case scenario, seeing you can't even make up a place that is worse. I hope you see the errors now. Take care. (I did find your illustration funny however, and I enjoy the polite debate, so thanks)

No, you misunderstand. Ouchyland is the same as Hell, but with the addition of the monkey banging drums. Ouchyland still has the screaming just the same as Hell does, but Ouchyland has the monkey with the drums to make it worse.

So Lord Raznar's Ouchyland is a worse punishment than Hell.

 

[Skreeper]

No, you misunderstand. Ouchyland is the same as Hell, but with the addition of the monkey banging drums. Ouchyland still has the screaming just the same as Hell does, but Ouchyland has the monkey with the drums to make it worse.

So Lord Raznar's Ouchyland is a worse punishment than Hell.

Man, Ouchyland sounds horrible. One could even say that it is the WORST fate imagineable.

#praiseLordRaznar

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you misunderstand. Ouchyland is the same as Hell, but with the addition of the monkey banging drums. Ouchyland still has the screaming just the same as Hell does, but Ouchyland has the monkey with the drums to make it worse.

So Lord Raznar's Ouchyland is a worse punishment than Hell.

Man, Ouchyland sounds horrible. One could even say that it is the WORST fate imagineable.

#praiseLordRaznar

if you are burning alive, do you really care what music is playing? One could even add needles and razors in there. But being burned hurts more than being cut. Your own screams like I said make any other noise irrelevant. You can add being drawn and quartered, but like I said fire hurts more than being drawn and quartered. If all your cells are already burned, your pain receptors that is, do you really feel the pain of being drawn and quartered? I don't think so. You really cannot even hypothesize a worse punishment. This to me is evidence of its reality.

 

[gaara4158]

again I don't respond to belittling, and if anything that is one way to get blocked. I do respond to facts, and at very minimal logical premises, and evidence. I have not seen that for a few pages, so if I missed some honest to goodness debate challenges, please post the post number and highlight the facts of the matter.

Yup, there’s the pattern I was describing earlier. When you’re unable to engage the points, you resort to accusations of disrespect. Yawn.

Pascal’s wager fails because neither the risk nor the reward it appeals to are in any way credible, so there’s nothing there to animate any action from a rational actor. Done.

 

[quatona]

However it sort of fails because Hell will be filled with screaming, and technically I would dislike screaming (even my own screaming), far more than banging drums.

Oh, the argument rests on your personal preferences.

 

[quatona]

if you are burning alive, do you really care what music is playing? One could even add needles and razors in there. But being burned hurts more than being cut. Your own screams like I said make any other noise irrelevant. You can add being drawn and quartered, but like I said fire hurts more than being drawn and quartered. If all your cells are already burned, your pain receptors that is, do you really feel the pain of being drawn and quartered?

Raznor doesn´t do it simultaneously. The torture builds up, then you get a bit of release, then it builds up again etc. etc.. It´s a dynamic process, which makes it much worse than a constant pain of being burnt.

I don't think so. You really cannot even hypothesize a worse punishment. This to me is evidence of its reality.

Doesn´t follow - at all.
Anyway, it´s interesting that in the attempt to make your argument work you have to paint your God in the worst light possible. Well done, apologist.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

again I don't respond to belittling, and if anything that is one way to get blocked. I do respond to facts, and at very minimal logical premises, and evidence. I have not seen that for a few pages, so if I missed some honest to goodness debate challenges, please post the post number and highlight the facts of the matter.

Here is the quote from ToddnotTodd that I would like you to respond to. This logically refutes Pascals Wager.

Let’s talk instead about Todd’s Wager, which is actually representational of reality.

You have a roulette wheel that represents all describable after-death situations.

One slot on the wheel represents no afterlife at all. No matter what you do, when you die, you cease to exist. The other slots represent different afterlives. We presume that in at least some of these afterlives, there is some god that makes a decision about what happens to you.

So how many slots are on the wheel?

There’s no way to know.

We can put on the wheel any god that anyone has ever posited that isn’t impossible to exist.

But beyond that, a slot exists for any god that could exist. A god that could send you to eternal torture for believing in any religion perhaps. The number of slots would be so large as to be uncountable.

So, statistically speaking, presented with a wheel with an unknown, perhaps incalculably large, number of slots, the only logical bet is no bet at all, unless you have good evidence that a certain slot is the only actual slot on the wheel.

For an atheist such as myself, there’s no evidence that any slot is more likely to exist.

And for someone that does have a belief, there’s no way to verify this belief with 100% certainty.

You can appeal to faith, but that’s tantamount to making a blind bet. You still don’t know how many slots there are on the wheel, or what each slot represents.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is the quote from ToddnotTodd that I would like you to respond to. This logically refutes Pascals Wager.

@ToddNotTodd

... Oh, I have to see this one!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is the quote from ToddnotTodd that I would like you to respond to. This logically refutes Pascals Wager.

No, this doesn't logically refute Pascal's Wager; rather, it simply posits another view that itself is stymied by human cognitive and epistemic complications.

However, I won't elaborate since this an Ethics & Morality thread rather than an Epistemology thread.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, this doesn't logically refute Pascal's Wager; rather, it simply posits another view that itself is stymied by human cognitive and epistemic complications.

However, I won't elaborate since this an Ethics & Morality thread rather than an Epistemology thread.

Pascals wager is based on the premise that there can only be one god and that god is the god of the bible. It only makes sense in that context. Non believers are introduced to many different gods that are contradictory and have dire consequences if not followed. Without sufficient evidence for any of them the logical thing to do is not to believe until there is sufficient evidence.

 

[Yennora]

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response.
I don't hear the soft "voice" of Jesus any more.
It would take too long to go in to this whole story. This "life." This journey as you say.

I am giving up.
There is no more hope for me.
I was doing very well and then had to move across country for my daughter.
I have been nothing but spiritually attacked here.
I am trapped.
The happiness I has thought I had finally secured in Jesus was just a joke. A joke of God even. He gambles with the devil. He gambled with Job over his life.
I am not rightous like Job in any way but I am beaten down for the last time.
I am
Throwing in the towel.
Thanks again for your response.

Please don't break. I prayed for you and I will pray for you even more. If you feel like you want to talk you can message me anytime, I will listen without interruption. I promise. I also won't talk about God or Christianity except if you ask me to do so. Other than that, I will listen to you thoroughly. Your wellbeing matters the most! I hope the coming days will take you in the path that is best for your wellbeing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pascals wager is based on the premise that there can only be one god and that god is the god of the bible. It only makes sense in that context. Non believers are introduced to many different gods that are contradictory and have dire consequences if not followed. Without sufficient evidence for any of them the logical thing to do is not to believe until there is sufficient evidence.

Yes, I agree with you that without some level of substantive evidence, it is very difficult for non-believers to believe in the Biblical concept of God and Christ. But, that's just the thing, you've already admitted here that Pascal's Wager doesn't apply them to; and you might be surprised to know that Pascal would agree.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

The neurosurgeons can tell us what part of the brain makes choices and has abstract thinking. So this is a highly evolved part of our physical brain.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

@ToddNotTodd

... Oh, I have to see this one!

I figured this was going to happen...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, this doesn't logically refute Pascal's Wager; rather, it simply posits another view that itself is stymied by human cognitive and epistemic complications.

However, I won't elaborate since this an Ethics & Morality thread rather than an Epistemology thread.

Oh... do go on...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I figured this was going to happen...

And you figured correctly, as I've noticed has been the case, from time to time, and in a thread here and there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh... do go on...

I might go on; but you also might want to finally report in for a hearing over what you found in that reading of Pascal which you mentioned you'd be doing here a while back. Frankly, I'm still waiting for the atheist among you who has actually read the Pensees in full and who then would like to down Pascal's Wager.

As for "Todd's Wager" itself, well.................that's a difference argument, and I'm not really seeing how it directly collides with Pascal. This is not to say that Pascal was necessarily right about everything he said, particularly as it emerged out of the limited thought processes of his own times. But it would be nice to hear folks actually deal with Pascal's Wager in its full context rather ripping it out like the intestines from a gutted pig.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, I agree with you that without some level of substantive evidence, it is very difficult for non-believers to believe in the Biblical concept of God and Christ.

It should be the same for believers.