Thought Experiment

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
No, His character exists outside the human mind, therefore a morality based on it is objective.
Objectivity requires independence of all minds, not just human ones.

If vanilla were objectively better than chocolate, it wouldn't matter that an alien thought that chocolate was better than vanilla.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
No, His character exists outside the human mind, therefore a morality based on it is objective.
But God's mind is a mind nonetheless, and that morality based on minds is subjective is your stated criteria..

You have to say more than you have to show morality based on God is objective.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
See above how a self based morality is subjective and ultimately meaningless since there is no basis to judge who is right or wrong.
You are conflating subjective with arbitrary. If you were right, you would see people saying in all sincerity, no, honestly, you've got it all wrong, rape is perfectly moral after all.
There were some Indian tribes, at least the men, that DID believe that rape was perfectly moral. But of course, the majority of people in the world think it is wrong because we are all created in the image of the Christian God.
We don't see this.
See above.
One basis to judge whether something is wrong is the harm it produces.
What is your definition of harm? Also, why is it wrong to harm people?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
There were some Indian tribes, at least the men, that DID believe that rape was perfectly moral.
I would like a little more than this to be convinced. Can you give any information that they in all sincerity thought rape was moral? Can you give any arguments they might have made in support of rape being moral?
But of course, the majority of people in the world think it is wrong because we are all created in the image of the Christian God.
Hmm, that doesn't seem to come up in any law against rape.
What is your definition of harm? Also, why is it wrong to harm people?
Do I really have to define harm? One way of defining it is that which causes injury both mentally and/or physically.

It's wrong to harm people because of what harm is.

If I come round your house and break your nose are we going to sit around over a cup of tea and discuss whether I've done you any harm or not, or will you call the police?

 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
beauty can be described objectively with a mathematical formula therefore beauty objectively exists.
Who came up with the formula?

Is that the "correct" formula?
If somebody came up with a different one/s, how would we tell which was correct?
 
Last edited:

El Cid

Well-known member
How many people do you think you have convinced to your point of view here?
No idea. Most people that openly post on here are already totally committed to their viewpoint. But there could be a few lurkers that may have learned some things about the rationality of Christianity that they didnt know before.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
No, He had to allow people to have free will even to commit evil. Otherwise we could not truly love Him so that evil could be destroyed forever which is His one of His main goals and purposes for the universe.
This isn't necessarily true. Mothers love their children without wanting to go around killing people.
Neither does God.
El Cid said:
We dont know yet.
God being omnipotent could bring about any good he wanted without the holocaust. This is really scraping the barrel.
The only way you could know this is if you were omniscient. As I said below about a square circle there are some things even God cant do.
El Cid said:
He didnt set it up. It is just the way things are. Such as the fact that even God cannot create a square circle.
H e created everything, He set it up, and unlike an impossible square circle there is no logical necessity about it.
Even God cant change some things like the extreme seriousness of sin. As a just God, he must mete out justice. Sin requires death it is fact of reality. He cannot go against His character.
El Cid said:
Science has shown that engaging in homosexual behavior leads to both physical and mental illnesses. So is that evidence it is immoral?
Science has shown that engaging in heterosexual behaviour can lead to physical and mental illness. What's your point?
The rates are much higher for homosexuals.
El Cid said:
I didnt justify rape, atheist scientists did, as I explained about that study I referenced.
Yes you are justifying rape, you said that without God our pain and suffering are meaningless.
No, you are misunderstanding. I mean in an ultimate sense. The universe doesnt care about our pain and suffering. To the universe leaking and squeaking little bags of water living on a tiny rock in a huge universe have no importance or meaning.

If God didn't exist would you go around raping women? I don't think He exists and I don't do such things. Would you?
You were raised in a Christian society so you were influenced by Christian moral principles. That is why atheists in nations founded by Christians generally live according to Christian morality. The atheistic Soviet Union saw no problems with raping women during WW2 and slaughtering millions of their own people. And many Muslim nations see no problem in raping women because of their view of women as being almost subhuman.
El Cid said:
If there was no God, then I wouldnt be a Christian. But if there is a God then suffering has meaning and can sometimes create great good. Like how Christ's suffering and death produced eternal life for billions and how the Civil War ended slavery and many other examples. Other times suffering has other meanings. But if there is no God then suffering and death is meaningless. I care greatly if people suffer and why they suffer. Such as helping homosexuals overcome their sin so they dont suffer the problems I mention above.
Tell that to the slaves who were endured suffering.
Exactly, and Christians ended slavery in the US and other countries around the world and are still trying to end it in nations where it still exists.
El Cid said:
No, if something exists outside human minds then it exists objectively and since God exists outside our minds then His valuing of us exists outside our minds and therefore objectively exists.
How does he do that valuing?
We are His beloved creation made in His image.
How does He evaluate rape is wrong?
Rape hurts beings made in His image, therefore it is actually an attack on Him.
El Cid said:
Animal suffering is not as important as human suffering. As long as it is not in vain and caused by humans then it is just part of being an animal.
Go and watch a video of a gazelle being caught by lions.
I have many times. And you will see that most of the time animals go quickly into shock much more quickly than humans and therefore they suffer little if at all in most cases.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
Since most people want to live according to reality, the next Hitler may be stopped if we can convince him that there truly is an objective right and wrong and he will be held accountable for ignoring that truth both in this world and the next.
And how would one possibly go about that?

In fact, pretend I am him, and try me.
I did earlier in this thread. When I presented the argument for the existence of the Christian God. Which so far has never been refuted.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
The theory of relativity does not go against logic. In fact it is based on mathematical logic.
I agree, but you miss the point. Unless you understand the math, which most ordinary people won't, the effects of relativity seem go against our common sense intuitions and prima facie ideas of logic. My whole point here is, this is an example of something seeming to go against logic when you don't have all the information. I think this is what is happening when you say the universe has a beginning and then conclude God. You do this when lacking all the information, information that could explain why there is something rather that nothing without God, even though such an explanation might presently go against your common sense ideas of logic.
No, you are confusing common sense and logic. Without logic you cannot even do science. You can do science without common sense.
El Cid said:
Arno Penzias, Hugh Ross, early Steven Hawking, Albert Einstein, John Polkinghorne and many others.
This seems confused. I asked for examples of scientists who think they know why there is something rather than nothing. The operative word here is know. I will restate, no one knows why there is something rather than nothing. We have an understanding of things back to a micro second after inflation started, but before that we just don't know. We might have ideas, but so far not knowledge.
Depends on your definition of know. Nobody is claiming they know with certainty. You can only know with certainty that you yourself exist.
Besides, you think God created the universe which is why there is something rather than nothing, but there is no science from any of the scientists you mention that conclusively shows this. This means that by your lights they don't know why there is something rather than nothing.
Depends on what you mean by conclusively.
El Cid said:
Nothing can be proven with certainty except your own existence and that only to yourself.
The Earth orbits the Sun and is a globe.
You could just be having a realistic dream that the earth orbits the sun and is a globe.
El Cid said:
No, but others did. And You didnt empirically observe that Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, yet you think it happened.
You don't know others did, we only have stories that others did that cannot be verified.
Thats true of large swaths of history.
This is baffling, I think Einstein came up with relativity even though I didn't observe it, therefore I should accept the resurrection happened? The amount of evidence for Einstein and relativity is huge, where for the resurrection it isn't.
Compared to other historical events from 2000 years ago, the evidence is pretty strong.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Yes there is. Matthew and John in the gospels and then Paul.
1. When do the authors of Matthew or John say "I saw..."?
2. We have no record of Paul ever having met Jesus while Jesus was alive, so why should anything Paul says about seeing Jesus after the latter was alive, be taken seriously?
Most of history is hearsay, but yet most historians believe that we can know history.
Most of history is not people coming back from the dead.

If somebody testified to that in court today, it would be ruled inadmissible.
And yet, via two-millenia-old, multiply-translated text, it is, for some reason, believed by billions. Can't understand it.
 
Top