Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Occams Razor.
- The universe looks designed.
- The universe's design is greatly flawed.
- Therefore the universe's designer was flawed.
- God is not flawed.
- God is not the universes designer.
Is that not the simplest, most logical, conclusion?
Why introduce unsupported complexity to reach a particularly conclusion.
Unless all this is because you are trying to reach a particularly conclusion
- My car looks designed.
- My car's design is greatly flawed.
- Therefore my car's designer was flawed.
- Peugeot is not flawed.
- Peugeot is not my car's designer.
Is that not the simplest, most logical, conclusion?
Why introduce unsupported complexity to reach a particular conclusion?
Because this 'logic' is itself flawed. It fails to incorporate the simple fact that the misalignment of the wheels is not a design flaw, but due to me kerbing the car at some speed.
Adam kerbed the universe when he sinned.0 -
-
-
Wicknight said:
God being the Absolute and Creator of all, morality is an expression of His character, not His judgement or opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I do hear what various atheists say about morality. Some differ, but most of you seem to be saying some actions are morally wrong for everyone. I'm pointing out that materialism rules out anything being right or wrong - things just are.
Groan ... you clearly are not listening.
Morality is a judgement. That doesn't matter if it is you or me or God, it is an assessment made by someone. Christianity rules out anything "being right or wrong" as much as materialism does. Things just are BUT people (or God) can make judgements about them. These judgements only exist in the context of the judgement, but then you are the only one who seems to have a problem with that.
You are not reading carefully enough. I've repeatedly said there is a subjective morality in society - but not one the materialist should consider himself bound to.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They might have consequences undesirable to some/most/all people, but that does not mean they are wrong.
Yes it does. That is all "wrong" is, it is a judgement some makes. If someone thinks something is wrong then it is wrong according to them. That applies whether we are talking about atheists or Christians. There is no difference. Your continual insistence that "materialism" is some how different is incorrect and tiresome
And of course that means murder and rape are moral for those who think they are.
Indeed it would not, but it would stop me insisting the other guy was mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You and I can judge a movie as good or bad - but that judgement is indeed subjective because there is no universal standard to measure it against.
Does that stop you from making that judgement?
That's where the confusion lies. It seems to me one time you guys are saying it really is immoral to murder or rape, and at the other it is only your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Likewise you and I can judge something as moral or immoral without recourse to a universal standard. What we are not then entitled to do is suggest the movie or action is really, in itself, good or bad. It only is.
But no one is doing that except for you.
OK, then murder and rape are only bad in your opinion. In other's opinion they may be good.I don't need to say that the movie is bad in of itself. I'm perfectly happy saying it is bad in my opinion because I was never working under the delusion that there was anything else.
Excellent - now we are getting somewhere.Likewise with morality. If I say something is immoral that is in my opinion, but that doesn't matter because I never imagined there was anything else. There is only opinion.
The only people who seem to have a problem with that are people who had deluded themselves into the idea that there was a universal standard that they could appeal to to say that something is "bad" in of itself.
God being the Creator of all, His morality is the absolute standard. Your opinion is not equal to His.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So if you want to say murder or rape is subjectively bad to you, that's fine. What you cannot say is that it is in itself bad. Others may find it good. If materialism is true and there is no God, no Standard-Setter, then there is no good and bad. There is only is.
That is true if there is a God. God can set a standard but then so can I. I can say that rape is immoral. That is my standard, it is my opinion. God can do the same thing. It no more makes "bad" a property of rape than if I do it.
You may think so, but the definition and attributes of God mean that without Him there would be no morality. True morality is an expression of His character, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if there is a God, the Standard-Setter, then everything contrary to His standards is bad.
No it isn't. That is illogical nonsense. Things are no more inherently bad if God says they are than if I say they are.
If you think about it it would be theologically illogical otherwise. If raping was inherently bad it would be inheriently bad whether God existed or not, and God would be forced to conclude it was bad because it would be a fact of nature.
That is clearly not the case. It is only God's opinion on something. God's opinion means nothing more to universal nature than mine does.
Excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But it means your opinion is inconsistent with your primary belief - materialism. That's the only point I am making.
Materialism doesn't make moral decisions, so that is impossible That is my point. So the materialist cannot logically believe he is bound to any morality.
True morality is not a fact of nature. It is an expression of the character of GOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Being the Creator and sustainer of all things, His 'opinion' is the true Standard, the true, actual, real morality.
No it isn't. That is illogical nonsense. If you think about that for 5 minutes you will see that it is a paradoxical position, like God making a stone he can't move.
His opinion is just his opinion. It cannot be a fact of nature because God exists in nature and if it was a fact of nature God would be constrained to comply with that fact and therefore it wouldn't be his opinion.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I would use the word global, not universal. If one group wants to do something to another and that group doesn't want it done to them, that thing is wrongBut there are many societies. So when one society agrees that enslaving everyone other than themselves is a good thing, it is a good thing? Maybe you wish to claim universal society to overule them? In that case you are saying there is a universal morality - which you and the others denied in other posts.
You've answered your own question by saying thatBut you don't say why he is bound.
I fully accept that you believe morality is a function of the brain - of feelings being chemically generated there. What I'm asking you is why, as a rational being - one who is able to see beyond his chemically induced feelings, you say you are bound by society's morality. You keep saying you are so bound, but offer no rational explanation. Or is it that you think we are not rational beings, but absolutely subject to our feelings?
We both acknowledge the existence of conscience which is the thing that encourages people to do good, we just disagree on the source of itConscience puts a big break on man's wickedness0 -
Wicknight said:
God being the Absolute and Creator of all, morality is an expression of His character, not His judgement or opinion.
That is just a fancy way of saying it is his opinion. My morality is an expression of my character, which means it is my opinion. Change my character, change my opinion. Which is the point. If God had a different character then his morality would be different. So how can his morality be a universal fact of nature if it depends on what God is. God exists in nature, and his morality will be an expression of his properties. It does not exist as a property of the act or thing. It is no more universal or objective than my morality is.
Which is the same as with God. The point you are ignoring is that I don't care if the rapist thinkings what they are doing is moral. I imagine God doesn't care either way.You are not reading carefully enough. I've repeatedly said there is a subjective morality in society - but not one the materialist should consider himself bound to.
And of course that means murder and rape are moral for those who think they are.
Why? They are mistaken according to you.Indeed it would not, but it would stop me insisting the other guy was mistaken.
What you never think someone is wrong? Someone says the last Eddie Murphy was a brilliant film and you don't think "No, it was stupid"
I find that very difficult to believe Wolfsbane. I have no problem disagreeing with people, nor do I need to have a universal standard to say that I think someone or something is morally wrong. It is morally wrong according to me but I've never had a problem with that.
It is the same thing. It is "really" immoral to murder and rape people, that is my opinion.That's where the confusion lies. It seems to me one time you guys are saying it really is immoral to murder or rape, and at the other it is only your opinion.
Your problem is that you seem to be unable to think about morality in any terms other than a universal morality, so even when we are talking about subjective morality you still cannot think of it as anything other than universal morality.
Which is why I keep using film references. We could use what food you like. Or what sports team you follow. All are opinion, but that doesn't stop us thinking we are right and the other person is wrong. I don't need a universal morality standard to do that.
Yeah, but I don't care about the other person's opinion. Who says I have to respect the other person's opinion. God doesn't respect the other persons opinion.OK, then murder and rape are only bad in your opinion. In other's opinion they may be good.
If I think someone is wrong I'll tell them. I don't care if they disagree with me. I'm sure that there are people out there who think tying people to walls while they burn them with acid is "morally ok", I don't care. I don't, and I will stop them if I have the opportunity.God being the Creator of all, His morality is the absolute standard. Your opinion is not equal to His.
Again that is a call to authority, and it is not the same as saying his morality is universal or objective. It is still just his opinion, but you may say that you put more weight in his opinion than any human because of what he is.
But a call to authority is not the same thing as objective morality. It is still just his opinion. An opinion formed with omniscients, but not a fact of nature. In fact to be his opinion it cant be a fact of nature because then it wouldn't be his opinion, he would just be repeating a fact, like God telling you that 2+2=4
Well your defintions of God are some what irrelevant. Just because something is a definition doesn't mean it makes logical sense. I could say my God is the creator of all things yet didn't create anything. Most people would say that is nonsense, because it is.You may think so, but the definition and attributes of God mean that without Him there would be no morality.
What you mean is that there is no ultimate authority that you can refer to for morality. But again that means His morality cannot be objective, it cannot be a fact of nature. If God didn't exist his standard wouldn't exist and therefore it is dependent on God. That is the whole point.
Only if you conclude that you can only be bound to universal morality. Which you appear to be the only one who believes that.Excellent. That is my point. So the materialist cannot logically believe he is bound to any morality.
I've no problem being bound to my own personal morality, that has never been an issue for me. I don't need someone else telling me what I should believe is moral or immoral under threat of punishment.
I am perfectly aware that people may not agree with me (as they may not agree with God), but that is why I carry a big stick.
Fair enough, if putting it like that makes you happy. But that again means it is as subjective as my morality. It is not objective nor is it universal. "expression of the character of God" simply means it is his subjective opinion.True morality is not a fact of nature. It is an expression of the character of GOD.
That is exactly the problem.We start with the revelation of the truth.
Since you are starting with the conclusion that the revelation is true going back and then presenting "evidence" that it is is pointless.
Not in the slightest. You have nothing to support your position that the revelation is true except your own person feelings on it, which frankly could be wrong. You can't demonstrate otherwise.If we are correct about that, then Occam's Razor has been misused by you.
Most religious people, including yourself, recognise this which is why they then try and justify their belief using what they consider evidence for it, such as saying that the universe looks designed.
The flaw in that is that they are not being honest with the conclusions they can draw from the evidence, and when the evidence supports a theory less complex than the revelation they choose to ignore this conclusion in favour of the conclusion they are trying to reach.
It simply shows the bias and hypocritical nature of the argument from design. You guys only care about the argument from design if it leads to a conclusion that it was your god that did the designing. If that is a convoluted conclusion and a simpiler one exists you ignore it, because you are only interested in the argument from design to show God was the designer.
Which is why so very few people take Creationists seriously when they try and produce argument for the design of the universe. If you guys don't take the argument that the universe looks designed seriously why would you expect the rest of us too?
There is no evidence for that because a fallen universe looks the same as a universe that was badly designed.And the evidence does support a designed but fallen universe, not a poorly designed one.
You have no access to evidence from the universe before the Fall and as such you have nothing but your personal revelation to support the idea that the universe was initially created in a perfect unflawed state.
Which is where Occams Razor comes in. The universe looks flawed. Because you cannot concluded that it was designed by a flawed designer (which is the obvious and simple conclusion from the evidence) you have to introduce an unnecessary complexity (the Fall) to explain how the universe could be made by a perfect designer yet end up in the flawed state it is at the moment.
Again you only do that because you have a conclusion you are trying to reach. You are not interested in following the evidence where it leads, you are only interested in ending up at the conclusion that God is the designer.
As such your argument for intelligence are hollow and pointless. You don't care about the evidence for intelligent design any more than I do, your true motives are displayed by your insistence at introducing an event that logically you cannot have any evidence for.
No, all created nature is subject to God. But at some point, before God did anything, he existed in something. He just was. That "something" is the sum total of nature, and God exists in it.All nature is subject to God, not God to nature.
Reality is above God, in the same way the universe is above us and God is above the universe.
God does not have to be subject to this higher nature but he didn't create it since he didn't create himself (that would be a logical impossibility). He exists in it, and as such there are universial truths that apply to God as much as anything below him.You seem incapable of conceiving that an Absolute Creator is subject only to Himself, to His own nature.
If there was a univeral morality, an objective morality, it would be a property of this higher nature, and as such it would bind God as much as logic binds God (God cannot produce a rock that he cannot move)
Since that isn't the case, since God's morality is not bound by a truth of this higher nature, you cannot say that his morality is objective truth.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Not at all - for the materialist there is no 'ought'.
Of course there is, its just that that "ought" is for different reasons than the theists "ought". Materialists need to reason out why they "ought" to do something, what is the benefit of doing something, whle theists just need to be told that its coming from authority and then will no longer question it.You are free to accept or reject any morality.
As is the theist, who is free to accept or reject gods morality.What you are not free to do is claim that any action is good or bad in itself.
Because no action is good or bad in itself, it depends on the context. Slavery was good in the time of the new testament, it is bad now.To be consistent with their materialist world-view, must they observe any morality? Or can they be consistent materialists if they reject all morality?
Assuming you are going by the Merriam Webster definition for materialist, that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter, then sure, someone can reject morailty and still be consistent materialists in the same way someone can reject morality and still consistently believe in gravity, they are completely seperate issues altogether.
Morality is not a fundamental process of this reality, it is created by humans. Volcanoes, earthquakes and hurricanes are not considered moral or immoral, morality doesn't come into biology, its not considered when discussing bacteria or viruses, the beating of a heart or the digestion of food in the stomach isn't described as moral or immoral. The pull of gravity isn't looked down on for its immoral means, while the heat radiation from stars is praised for its unnerving morality.
As Death himself said (ask Sam Vimes ): "take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged." 0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »As Death himself said (ask Sam Vimes ):
I can confirm this
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?0 -
Thank you for confirming my central point.I can confirm this
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They're not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?
Materialism has no morality and the materialist cannot consistently claim any action is immoral. It is only immoral in someone's opinion.
Most revealing, the materialist knows mankind cannot survive without at least pretending some things are good and some thing evil.
If my foundation premise could not work unless it was ignored, I would suspect it was false. But you guys have everything staked on it, so the pretence is more comfortable than facing the facts.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement