If you insist on changing the subject, start a new string with it. Don’t use this redirection tactic here. Doing so makes it appear that you are engaging in avoidance.
2 Likes
No, quite the contrary: because the question is “Why do you believe any deity or deities exist?” and I’m seeking to show that there can’t be an objective Moral Standard if there is no God.
Why not address the objections to your previous postings first instead of gish-gallopping?
2 Likes
It’s because all of my statements were viewed as inadequate or inferior; so, thought I’d shift gears and approach the subject from a different angle while still trying to answer the original question.
The nature and basis of morality is a whole separate topic, and demonstrating that there isn’t an objective moral standard without your deity is not demonstrating that this deity exists; it’s only stating one of several reasons why you need it to exist. You can’t work backwards from a need to a justified, substantiated belief.
Why not come up with better statements and answers then?
1 Like
You can discuss your views on morality and moral authority in another thread. Then you can reference that thread here if you wan to tie it back later.
Well, it seems to you all that having an objective Moral Standard has to relation to the existence of a deity or deities. Hmm. . .
Changing the subject again. Sigh. Why not address the objections to your other statements first?
1 Like
An objective moral standard isn’t evidence for a god, much less yours. It can be imposed by any backing authority that cares to do so. This thread is about your best evidence for the existence of any deity or deities? Why do you believe that? If you simply assert that there’s an absolute morality how would that be evidential in any way? Indeed, the existence of this Standard as you conceive it (not sure what’s up with the capital letters, but I’ll play along) would depend on the existence of your god. Evidence your god, then we can examine his moral absolutes or other pronouncements.
Thank you for your reply, JustCurious.
Now, I’m not you and I can’t walk a mile in your shoes because I lack the faith that you seem to be well equipped with. But, if I WERE you, then I’d be looking to put my own house in order first before going off at a tangent and discussing something new. If you don’t know what I’m talking about yet, let me quote your own words back to you.
Walter, I appreciate your candor and willingness to explain your beliefs while seeking to show how my beliefs and statements are lacking in validity.
Do you see it now, JC?
If someone pointed out to me that my beliefs and statements were lacking in validity I’d do something about that lack of validity FIRST, before doing anything else. I’d look to my own beliefs and my own arguments before continuing to try and persuade others to change their minds.
Since we are all well versed in almost any argument you can present and we can shoot you down in flames every time, doesn’t that tell you something? Surely this means that your arguments and your statements don’t do what you think they do? You believed that they argued for Jesus being god, but they didn’t. You believed that the evidence and science-based arguments you presented made the case for an intelligently designing creator called Jesus, but they didn’t. Surely now you’re going to do something about that?
So, before you start up another thread, please tell me what you intend to do about the lack of validity of your own arguments. I’m very interested to find out what your next move will be, JC.
Please answer this honestly.
Thank you,
Walter.
1 Like
Well, I suppose not answering at all could indeed be considered inadequate.
2 Likes
If anyone’s interested I would be happy to start up a thread explaining about the initial singularity that results from extrapolating general relativity back to Time Zero, the beginning of the universe.
Because this singularity appears to be the beginning of all space and time, coming into existence out of nothing, Christian apologists like William Lane Craig have mistakenly seized upon it as scientific ‘proof’ that the universe did come from nothing, as is described in Genesis 1 : 1.
I will show how they are wrong, how the theorem that predicted the existence of this singularity has been falsified and how the authors of theorem, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have done the right and proper thing and discarded their own theory as refuted by new evidence.
The content of this thread will necessarily deal with difficult concepts, but I will explain things as simply as I can and would be happy to address any questions to the best of my ability.
Thank you,
Walter.
1 Like
This poster has, in fact, made several utterly inaccurate claims. From past experience I would hazard that he is either a traditional Catholic or a KJV based evangelical. E.G his dating of the gospels is directly from the erroneous Catholic tradition, even though MOST modern scholars (i.e the majority including Catholic theologians) put the date of the anonymous “mark” not earlier than 65-70CE and have good reason for doing so.
Both Matthew (written for jewish audiences) and “Luke” ( Written for Graeco Roman audiences) contain enormous % of direct copy from Mark, dating them later than 70CE.
John as we know dates from the late 1st century to 125CE, and is most unlikely to be an eyewitness account after 70 years.
As to his absurd claim to authorship…we KNOW that many verses were redacted over the last thousand years , we KNOW that the original version of Matthew did NOT contain a birth narrative (see (Ebionites) .We KNOW that Mark ended earlier than the current version.
We also know that have NO IDEA as to the exact content of any of the original texts as not one has been discovered as yet.
- P52 (John Rylands Papyrus): Found in Egypt, this fragment contains parts of John 18:31-33 and 18:37-38. It is widely considered the oldest extant New Testament manuscript.
- P64 (Magdalen Papyrus): Contains portions of Matthew 26 and is dated by some to the late 1st or early 2nd century.
- P66 & P75: These are more substantial 2nd/3rd-century papyri (circa 200 AD) that include significant portions of the Gospel of John and Luke.
- P45 (Chester Beatty Papyrus I): A 3rd-century manuscript containing parts of all four Gospels and Acts.
Bible Archaeology Report +4
This quashes his claims of inerrancy and archeological evidence supporting his arguments.
We KNOW that the earliest followers of the Yeshua story were Adoptionists not believers of " the much later, magical third party impregnation" Son of God stories.
Now all these statements I have made can be easily sourced as to veracity: All have peer reviewed papers and genuine academic research including evidence from the early second century where applicable.
Now “JustCurious” wants to slip out from under real scrutiny backed by genuine research, not dogma, and start a new and pointless conversation about morality…
Contradict and discuss the above claims please before running away…
1 Like
By reversing your burden of proof with an open ended question.
You’ve left a lot of questions unanswered, maybe try answering those first.
FYI there are several threads dealing with morality on here, and the failed theistic argument from morality.
If you think there is an objective moral standard present it with evidence, but I’d bet my house it will ultimately rest on a subjective claim that a deity exists….
Now here’s a question for you, is it ever moral to commit genocide, or to torture a newborn baby to death, or endorse slavery? Only the biblical deity does all those things and more, so even if anyone could produce something beyond bare claims based on hearsay from an epoch of extreme ignorance credulity and superstition, for such a deity, it would not represent an objective moral standard, only the subjective opinion of that deity, and a barbarically cruel deity it depicts at that.
1 Like
well that is an impossible task. You should try to do something that is possible imo.
1 Like
Do we have a definitive evidenced answer from any apologist as to why they believe any deity or deities exist?
All I have seen is quoted scripture, subjective claims, fallacious arguments, and wishful thinking thus far, maybe I missed something important?
2 Likes
Well, I must say, my time here in the forum has definitely been an “interesting” experience to say the least. It’s clear you all are well-versed in various fields and equally informed (and united) in your attempt to refute anything that goes against your beliefs: particularly when it comes to “matters of Faith.”
You asked for evidence to substantiate my belief in God, irrefutable evidence for my belief in the irreducible complexity in Design which attests to both Intentionality and Intelligence, etc. And, I cited some of those things (e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy, the self-evident laws of logic, the Principle of Empirical Verification, the Law of Noncontradiction, the Law of the Excluded Middle—which tells us that something either “is” or “isn’t,” etc.).
Yet, you immediately sought to discount such assertions: seeking to show their inadequacy or inferiority to your own (in your opinion). But, that’s okay—for I expected such in a forum such as this where you all seem to think you have the corner market on Truth.
But, as I mentioned in one of my posts, it takes “faith” (non-religious of course) to accept as “true” the assertions that are made.
That’s why our real quest must address existential questions like:
1. What is truth?
2. Can truth be known?
3. Can truths about God be known?
4. So what? Who cares about truth?
And, if we’re really honest in our search, we’ll arrive at these conclusions:
*Truth is discovered, not invented
*Truth is transcultural
*Truth is unchanging (even though our beliefs about it may change)
*Truth is unaffected by the one professing or denying it
*All truths are absolute truths
Yes, contrary beliefs are possible; but, contrary truths aren’t possible.
Thus, a materialistic belief in natural selection can’t explain:
1. Genetic limits
2. Cyclical change
3. Irreducible complexity (e.g., DNA’s genetic alphabet)
4. Nonviability of transitional forms
5. Molecular isolation (e.g., no trace of evolutionary transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal)
Likewise, “none of the above” can explain where the “stuff” came from in the Big Bang; neither can rational beliefs be proven by science (e.g., mathematics and logic, metaphysical truths, ethical judgments, aesthetic judgements and even science itself).
That’s why believing “by Faith” in an intelligent, all-powerful, all-knowing and personal Creator gives purpose and meaning to life. Otherwise, life is ultimately meaningless and our existence here is both futile and fatalistic: where we’re no better off than a dead dog or skunk on the side of the road.
Thanks for letting me be a part of your group for a short time.
But I think my time will be better spent talking with “seekers of Truth,” instead of those who spend all their time in trying to deny its existence (and the One Who you say doesn’t exist).
I normally sign off my posts by saying “God bless you;” but, in this case I’ll refrain: especially since you spend so much time trying to prove that Someone you don’t believe in doesn’t exist. So, hope you’ll read Romans 1:18-32 when you have a few minutes; maybe then you’ll see why I believe the way I do.
It’s as if you haven’t bothered reading what we’ve written, JC.
Taking just one example, yesterday I demonstrated with cited evidence that modern cosmology and the Big Bang theory does NOT say that “STUFF” came out of nothing and nowhere.
Yet, here you are today repeating the same inaccurate claim that it does.
So, I’m going to repeat what I said to you yesterday and once again ask you the question which you’ve ignored.
Given that we’ve shown your arguments are false, spurious and mistaken isn’t your next move to put your own house in order and find arguments that do work?
Please answer this question honestly.
Thank you,
Walter.
And you’ve repeated the same mistake about science proving things.
Even after I explained at length and gave cited evidence that it doesn’t.
So, who has the closed mind here?
Our minds are open to objective evidence, but it seems that yours is not.
Which is why you persist in making the same errors, even after being shown the evidence.
Is your mind closed like this, JC?