Thought Experiment

[El Cid]

Y

At that time I didnt know you were going to go into this much detail about the resurrection.

You started talking about it at least as far back as early April.

Yes, but I didnt know you were going to be so interested in discussing it in detail.

El Cid said:
No, the basis of the objective nature of Christian morality is His objective existence as the good. I dont remember saying that the resurrection was a crucial part of the evidence for the nature of the Golden Rule.

Sorry, my mistake; I meant to say that the truth of the resurrection was a crucial part of your argument for the truth of the teaching that those who didn't follow Christ deserved eternal damnation.

Yes. Because it reveals who He is, and by what authority He taught that.

El Cid said:
I think the claim of resurrection from the dead is more radical. But it does follow that His resurrection does confirm that He is God...

No, that doesn't follow. Even if the resurrection happened, it could have been because he was specially favored by God, not that he is God.

Well, combined with the facts that He predicted His death and resurrection shows that He is. None of the other few people that rose from the dead did those things.

El Cid said:
and that most things in the Gospels are reliable. Since He predicted His own death and resurrection.

And we know that he predicted his own death and resurrection, because the Gospels are reliable?

Seriously, please present an argument which begins "Jesus was resurrected" and concludes "therefore, what the Gospels say about Jesus' teaching is reliable."

Many persons, things and events in the gospels have been confirmed by archaeology. Thereby, showing their reliability.

El Cid said:
Then it was confirmed by eyewitnesses.

Your definition of "confirmed" is too loose for my taste, to put it mildly.

Nevertheless there is evidence for this having occurred.

 

[Komodo]

Yes, but I didnt know you were going to be so interested in discussing it in detail.

Well, if you make a claim I find questionable, I'm going to question it; and if in doing so I make a claim you find questionable, you're going to question that. Details tend to accumulate when that happens.

Yes. Because it reveals who He is, and by what authority He taught that.

Well, combined with the facts that He predicted His death and resurrection shows that He is. None of the other few people that rose from the dead did those things.

First, you're again starting with the assumption that everything in the Gospels is true. Second, even if it were true that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection, and that nobody else who has been reported to have been resurrected did so, it would not follow that Jesus was God; mortals can also know what will happen in the future, if God decides it fits his purposes to tell them what would happen.

Many persons, things and events in the gospels have been confirmed by archaeology. Thereby, showing their reliability.

"Many things in these books have been confirmed, therefore everything in these books is true" just does not at all follow. Nobody in the world applies that "logic" to any book in the world except for their own sacred scripture.

Nevertheless there is evidence for this having occurred.

There is at least some evidence for pretty much any claim that anybody can make. The question is whether it is compelling evidence.

 

[El Cid]

I still don't know what scenario you have in mind, fear of which would deter Paul from talking about the 500 if it weren't known to be true. Let's try it this way: assume for the sake of argument that Jesus did not appear to 500 people at once. I'm a 60-year-old Jew who has lived in Jerusalem all my life. (Call me Itzhak). It's now about 55 C.E., I have somehow heard about what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians about the 500, and I am certain it never happened.

What do I say? To whom do I say it? And how is it going to damage Paul's reputation among gentile Christians?

You would tell the church leaders and other apostles so that Paul would be excommunicated for lying.

 

[Eightcrackers]

And if is just emerges from us then it is relative and subjective so that you have no rationally objective basis for condemning Hitler.

I don't think we do.

Nor do I think that we need one.

 

[Komodo]

You would tell the church leaders and other apostles so that Paul would be excommunicated for lying.

I tell them what, exactly? "I never saw Jesus appear to 500 people, and I never even heard anybody claim that he did"? And the Christian leaders of 55 C.E. immediately conclude that if I didn't see it or hear about it, it didn't happen? And they immediately accept at face value the mere word of a non-Christian that I'm telling the truth, and therefore Paul was not telling the truth? You can't really believe this, can you?

 

[El Cid]

hey are both part of knowing God personally. But He does not take away your free will.

If you are saying that the only way to know of God's goodness is for him to take supernatural action to provide you with that knowledge, then this is not something I can know, unless God decides he wants me to know it.

If you truly want to know Him, then He will give you that knowledge.

El Cid said:
No, my objective basis is Gods existence as the good. What is your basis for morality?

No, God is the Good and He objectively exists and I have had objective experiences of Him doing good. Feeling that the golden Rule is true is obviously not objective.

No, see above about my objective experiences of His goodness.

I'm deferring comment on these points until you've had a chance to read and respond to what I say about "objective basis/objective knowledge" in posts #1046, 1048 and 1050 here.

Anything that exists outside the human mind exists objectively to humans.

El Cid said:

Komodo said:
Moreover, if this conviction comes about, as you claim, from the actions of a being with the power to irresistibly implant any conviction he wants in anybody he wants to have it, you can't even claim that your conviction is justified, let alone objectively true.

No, the conviction does not come about that way it is only reinforced and confirmed by your experience with the Holy Spirit... I mean even though He reinforces your belief with His spirit, He doesnt take away your free will.

Then you are saying, you only believed in God's goodness tentatively and uncertainly, until he supernaturally reinforced your belief? If so, how does that at all counter my objection? Consider this dialogue:

"I am totally certain of God's goodness."
"How do you know that this certainty is not a lie which God implanted in you?"
"Because God would never take away our free will."
"How do you know that to be the case?"
"Because [X] is true."

In order for "Because [X] is true" to be a good answer, it would have to be impossible for even God Almighty Himself to convince you that X was true, if it were not in fact true. Can you propose any such claim, which would be beyond the power of even an omnipotent being to make you believe it, if it were not true?

See above, if you truly desire to know him He will give you that knowledge.

El Cid said:
In this universe, the truth usually has positive effects.

You are just entirely ignoring what I said. Which of these statements do you dispute?

1) Neither Jefferson nor Kant believed it to be true that "all who do not follow Jesus deserve eternal damnation."

Actually Jefferson may have believed this, because he believed that the moral teachings of Jesus were the epitome of moral teaching.

2) Neither Jefferson nor Kant believed that the teaching "all who do not follow Jesus deserve eternal damnation" did good by making people lead better lives.
3) Therefore it is preposterous to cite Jefferson or Kant for support of your argument that we can see this teaching to be a good one because it does good by making people lead better lives.

See above about Jefferson. Regarding Kant, according to Wikipedia: "Kant sees in Jesus Christ the affirmation of a "pure moral disposition of the heart" that "can make man well-pleasing to God" So his view is very similar to Jeffersons, so it is reasonable to assume that if you rejected Christs moral teachings then you would go to hell.

El Cid said:
Acknowledging the true God is the ultimate good life. People can do "good' for purely selfish reasons. True goodness includes deeds and the motive for doing the good deeds. Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists do good because they have to to be saved. Christians do good out of love for man and God.

You are just entirely ignoring what I said. Nothing you say here has the slightest relevance to my specific argument. Let's try again. Which of these premises do you dispute?

1) Jews say that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists all are rewarded if they led good lives, and punished if they led wicked lives.
2) Christians (speaking here of those who believe what most CARM Christians believe) say that Christians, and only true Christians (followers of Jesus) get rewarded, and everybody else gets punished.
3) If Jews are right about who is rewarded, then Christians are wrong; if Christians are right about who is rewarded, Jews are wrong.

No, Christians believe your reward is less if you dont follow Christs teachings very well, ie do less good deeds. So there is overlap between all the views, though I admit they are different and not exactly the same.

El Cid said:
See above.

You are just entirely ignoring what I said. I offered a specific argument and asked you to say whether you disputed either the premises or the logic of that specific argument, and you have blatantly refused to do any such thing. Could you possibly do so this time?

1) If a low crime rate among religious Christians is evidence of the morality of the Christian teaching that a relationship with Christ is indispensable to avoiding damnation, then the low crime rate among religious Jews is equal evidence of the morality of the Jewish teaching that a relationship with Christ is not at all needed to avoid damnation.
2) "Evidence" which equally supports opposite and incompatible conclusions is worthless.
3) Therefore, the evidence you produce here, for the morality of the Christian teaching about damnation, is worthless.

Again, the simpler version:

If evidence A supports Conclusion C, but evidence A also supports Conclusion ~C, then Evidence A is worthless in determining whether Conclusion C is true or false.

Do you or do you not dispute any of the above? If you do, which premises in particular do you find fault with?

See above about an overlap but a significant difference as well.

El Cid said:
No, a better analogy would be Rick Dempsey lasted twenty years and helped his team win the World Series but never made it to the Hall (non Christian religion).
Brooks Robinson lasted twenty years and helped his team win the World Series AND made it to the Hall because he had a Hall of Fame career. (Christianity).
There are temporal benefits to following Gods moral law but not eternal benefits, except your punishment will be less. But by acknowledging the True God, Jesus Christ, you get both benefits because you did good deeds AND with the right motive.

If you claim "anybody who lasts twenty years goes to the Hall of Fame," but there are some players who lasted twenty years but did not go to the Hall of Fame, then your claim is not true. It is refuted. It is the opposite of true. It is false.

That was the whole, entire point. Even if you are right that Brooks Robinson is more like Christianity than is Rick Dempsey, your claim would still be false. Again: are you disputing this?

My point is that those who follow Christs teachings and a few other religious moral teachings can get the same benefits in this world but only Christ followers get the highest and eternal goal.

 

[Komodo]

If you truly want to know Him, then He will give you that knowledge.

I see no reason to believe this.

See above, if you truly desire to know him He will give you that knowledge.

I asked how knowledge of God's goodness could be justified if it comes about, as you claim, from the actions of a being with the power to irresistibly implant any conviction he wants in anybody he wants to have it. And your answer is, "because God gives you that knowledge, if you desire it." You're just entirely ignoring the point.

Actually Jefferson may have believed this, because he believed that the moral teachings of Jesus were the epitome of moral teaching.

See above about Jefferson. Regarding Kant, according to Wikipedia: "Kant sees in Jesus Christ the affirmation of a "pure moral disposition of the heart" that "can make man well-pleasing to God" So his view is very similar to Jeffersons, so it is reasonable to assume that if you rejected Christs moral teachings then you would go to hell.

No, it is not a reasonable assumption. First, when we've talked about how Christianity teaches that "all who do not follow Jesus deserve damnation," the meaning of "follow Jesus" was not "admire the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount," it was "follow Jesus as the immortal son of God and personal savior." Jefferson and Kant did not believe the latter. Second, it does not at all follow that if you believe "the moral teachings of Jesus are the best in existence" you must believe "those who don't follow those teachings will go to hell."

So for both reasons, it is nonsensical to say "Jefferson and Kant believed 'all who do not follow Jesus deserve damnation' was a true and beneficial moral teaching." There is no reason to think they believed this at all, and of course even if they had believed it that does not show that it really is a true and beneficial moral teaching.

No, Christians believe your reward is less if you dont follow Christs teachings very well, ie do less good deeds. So there is overlap between all the views, though I admit they are different and not exactly the same.

You are not at all disputing my point: that "all non-Christians go to hell" and "many non-Christians go to heaven" are obviously, entirely incompatible positions. That Christians and Jews have some areas of "overlap" on some other issues is completely irrelevant to this point. There is also some overlap between flat-earth and global earth -- for example, they both believe that to get to Los Angeles from Hawaii, you have to cross water! -- but their positions are obviously, entirely incompatible, and so any piece of evidence which "proved" both a flat earth and a global earth is obviously, entirely worthless.

See above about an overlap but a significant difference as well.

I gave you a specific argument in formal terms -- twice -- and asked you to identify which of the premises you disputed. You are simply refusing to do this. Essentially, you are admitting that you cannot dispute the conclusion of that argument, which is that your claim about the significance of the crime rate among church-going Christians is worthless.

My point is that those who follow Christs teachings and a few other religious moral teachings can get the same benefits in this world but only Christ followers get the highest and eternal goal.

This point does not at all address the specific arguments I have repeatedly made; you are still just ignoring those, so I don't see any point in continuing this line of discussion.

 

[Komodo]

Anything that exists outside the human mind exists objectively to humans.

I made four specific objections to your definition of "objective" in message #1045; this doesn't address any of them.

Moreover, the basic meaning of "subjective" is "from one, limited perspective"; so saying "it exists objectively to humans" basically means "it exists objectively, in a subjective way," which is an oxymoron.

 

[Komodo]

Anything that exists outside the human mind exists objectively to humans.

Another way this is problematic: you begin with the claim,

God values humans out of His love for us and that we are created in His image. That value exists outside of human thoughts and desires. Therefore, it exists objectively.

And the more precise version of this, by your last statement, would be

God values humans out of His love for us and that we are created in His image. That value exists outside of human thoughts and desires. Therefore, it exists objectively to humans.

But then it would make just as much sense to say,

John values Mary out of his love for her. That value exists outside of Mary's thoughts and desires. Therefore, it exists objectively to Mary.

... and then repeat, for every human being who is valued by a different human being (which is true, I'd say, of every human being there is). It follows that even if God does not exist, every human being possesses objective value ("value which is objective to him or her").

 

[El Cid]

Being indirectly responsible for something is not the same thing as being directly responsible. Selling a gun to a murderer doesnt mean you murdered the victim.

It does if you're an omniscient, omnipotent God who can see exactly what's going happen if He allows something. Your words, "God allowed it".

No, He doesnt pull the trigger, the murderer does. And God only allows it if it produces a greater good.

El Cid said:
No one is completely innocent of sin.

This is why Christianity should be opposed, it tries to justify God giving disease to those following God's rules by saying they deserve it anyway.

No, sadly the consequences of sin are far reaching and you only can avoid them completely is in the next world and only those that repent.

El Cid said:
No if you go back and look this particular response was in response to the scientists that claimed that rape was natural.

So what? Natural doesn't mean morally acceptable.

Well that is the argument of homosexuals to justify their behavior. So you disagree with them?

El Cid said:
Of course it does. Especially because humans are made in the image of God and have infinite objective value. Otherwise we would just be an animal and animals rape and get raped all the time.

What you are saying is if humans are just an animal, then it's ok to get raped. You are justifying rape. The suffering caused by rape would be the same whether we were made in God's image or by evolution.

No, if we are made in Gods image then our suffering has meaning and produces a greater good, if atheistic evolution is true, then our suffering and pain is meaningless.

El Cid said:
It doesnt matter, anything that exists outside of human thought and opinion exists objectively.

So a Martian's thought's are objective because they are outside human thoughts?

Yes, from our perspective.

El Cid said:
Maybe not, but nevertheless it is just your subjective preference like your favorite flavor of ice cream.

If that preference isn't arbitrary but is based on an empathy for the suffering of others then it has value.

Not objective value if there is no God.

That's a poor analogy. Most people like particular sorts of flavour for ice cream like vanilla or strawberry, there is a reason people don't like Brussel sprout ice cream, as there is a reason most people don't like harmful behaviour such as rape. You are saying that rape is fine except for creatures made in God's image, but the suffering caused by it would be the same in either case.

No, animal suffering and human suffering are qualitatively different.

 

[Whatsisface]

No, He doesnt pull the trigger, the murderer does. And God only allows it if it produces a greater good.

But God allows people to exist with the capacity to murder knowing full well the consequences where he didn't have to.

Where is the greater good from the holocaust? We can see the evil in the holocaust but where is the equivalent good?

No, sadly the consequences of sin are far reaching and you only can avoid them completely is in the next world and only those that repent.

What an evil system God has set up.

Well that is the argument of homosexuals to justify their behavior. So you disagree with them?

Natural doesn't mean immoral either. Whether something is immoral or not depends on the consequences of actions.

No, if we are made in Gods image then our suffering has meaning and produces a greater good, if atheistic evolution is true, then our suffering and pain is meaningless.

The suffering and pain would be the same in either case. You are justifying suffering now as you previously justified rape. That's abhorrent. As a Christian, you don't care if someone suffers if there is no God.

Yes, from our perspective.

So our thoughts are objective from his.

Not objective value if there is no God.

What makes something objective just because God says so?

No, animal suffering and human suffering are qualitatively different.

But it's still suffering as you've said, which is the point.

 

[El Cid]

Nevertheless many cosmologists think we know a great deal about the universe, such as the theory of everything.

No one knows why there is something rather than nothing.

How do you know that? It is just a simple step in logic. There are many scientists that claim they do know.

El Cid said:
If you dont have the courage to take the small leap to see that God probably exists, there is nothing I can do. That is between you and your fears.

I'm really not going to base my worldview on courage, but rather evidence. I hope you understand this.

There is a great deal of evidence that is why all you need is a very small leap of faith in logic.

El Cid said:
No, for scientific theories that go into the unobservable past, you have to show evidence in the present that there is such a process that can be empirically observed. Please provide an example.

If you have such a disdain and ignorance of evidence, then there's nothing I can do.

You dont seem to understand science. How do you think they come up with scientific theories that deal with the deep past? They have to provide evidence that can be observed in the present and extrapolate that into the past. That is how the theory of evolution was supported, microevolution has been observed in the present, so they extrapolated microevolution into macroevolution.

 

[Whatsisface]

How do you know that? It is just a simple step in logic. There are mw any scientists that claim they do know.

Logic is all very well, but might struggle to tell us anything in an area where we lack knowledge to be logical with. Particularly when what we discover prima facie seems to go against what we would consider logical, eg relativity.

I'm sceptical any scientist would claim to know we know why there is something rather than nothing. Examples please.

There is a great deal of evidence that is why all you need is a very small leap of faith in logic.

If evidence proved something, I wouldn't need the leap.

You dont seem to understand science. How do you think they come up with scientific theories that deal with the deep past? They have to provide evidence that can be observed in the present and extrapolate that into the past. That is how the theory of evolution was supported, microevolution has been observed in the present, so they extrapolated microevolution into macroevolution.

You didn't empirically observe the resurrection, yet think it happened.

 

[El Cid]

@El Cid - Try your thoughts on #1067 as well. I'm interested in how you overcome human objective nature providing a basis of morality given the primacy of existence argument as the governing revelation over the Christian philosophy of special revelation.

I did answer 1067 in response to Komodo. If we are just another animal as atheistic evolution tells us, then how does our primacy of existence over rule other animals primacy of existence? If a-evolution is true, then we are nothing special and just animals. And our so-called morality is just how we behave, not how we ought to behave, therefore there is no such thing as morality.

 

[Whatsisface]

If we are just another animal as atheistic evolution tells us, then how does our primacy of existence over rule other animals primacy of existence? If a-evolution is true, then we are nothing special and just animals. And our so-called morality is just how we behave, not how we ought to behave, therefore there is no such thing as morality.

What makes us moral agents is our ability to reflect upon our behaviour and it's consequences. Lions for example don't have that ability and so are not morally accountable. As far as morality is concerned that is the crucial difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Whether we evolved or not, or are animals or not, or are special or not makes no difference to that ability that makes us morally accountable, we have it nevertheless.

 

[5wize]

I did answer 1067 in response to Komodo. If we are just another animal as atheistic evolution tells us, then how does our primacy of existence over rule other animals primacy of existence? If a-evolution is true, then we are nothing special and just animals. And our so-called morality is just how we behave, not how we ought to behave, therefore there is no such thing as morality.

It’s more than how we “ought” to behave. As a result of why we enforce boundaries on one another as a result of the common human reasons those boundaries exist defines how we act towards one another objectively. That landscape is not a choice. Those boundaries and reactions to their violations are natural. The fact that you do have a choice to either violate or respect others natural sense of self protection enshrines moral action - “ought”.

 

[Komodo]

I did answer 1067 in response to Komodo. If we are just another animal as atheistic evolution tells us, then how does our primacy of existence over rule other animals primacy of existence? If a-evolution is true, then we are nothing special and just animals. And our so-called morality is just how we behave, not how we ought to behave, therefore there is no such thing as morality.

My guess is that @5wize is actually referring to his own post #1066. 1067 is a post by me about objective beauty, not about objective morality. At least, that's the post number I find now on my screen. (Maybe his post #1066 was originally post #1067, then got knocked back one slot when an earlier post was deleted?)

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Maybe neither of us is.
Maybe there's no such thing.

Chuckle!!! And maybe the Moon landing was created on a Hollywood sound stage.

 

[El Cid]

Why wouldn't the claim just be that the more a religion accurately describes human nature, the more observant it is? This claim logically leads us to sociology, anthropology, and psychology being better "religions" than Christianity because they profile human nature far better than Christianity.

Not really. Their track record is not too good. In the 1960s, 70s, 80s, those fields claimed that men and women were no different mentally, then studies started showing that men and women are mentally different in the 90s and 00s. Which Gods Word had taught for 3500 years. And now those fields claim that men can become women just by thinking they are one and vice versa. Going against the hard science of biology.

 

[Komodo]

Not really. Their track record is not too good. In the 1960s, 70s, 80s, those fields claimed that men and women were no different mentally, then studies started showing that men and women are mentally different in the 90s and 00s. Which Gods Word had taught for 3500 years. And now those fields claim that men can become women just by thinking they are one and vice versa. Going against the hard science of biology.

Where does the Bible teach that "men and women are mentally different"? Not that men should or should not do some things, and women should or should not do other things, but that there are differences in the way men and women think?