No. I asked mine first. I have precedence over you.
Read through this thread and you’ll see that I asked my question before you raised the subject of Hitler.
Please answer honestly.
1 Like
Thus, when it’s all said-and-done, it comes down to whether or not we have a basis for objective right-and-wrong. It’s not enough to believe such exists; the question is “Can we objectively justify our beliefs so it’s not a matter of personal preference or opinion?”
Please answer my question, JC.
Is it, why? Your theoretical deity arbitrarily making claims about what it considers moral isn’t objective is it? I am starting to wonder if you know what objective means?
No true Scotsman fallacy, they’re coming thick and fast now JC.
False dichotomy fallacy, you’re on a roll. Have you even heard of metaethical moral subjectivism, or moral relativism, or moral emotivism? I don’t believe you have any understanding of morals beyond what your superstition has indoctrinated you to believe unquestioningly.
FYI Hitler was a theist, he not only claimed to believe in a form of the Christian deity, he claimed repeatedly to be doing it’s work, go figure.
Which one, Walter? You asked so many questions and raised so many objections to what I posted that it seems we’re going in circles. And, it seems you’re firmly convinced you’re right and I’m wrong–which is your right–but, ultimately still just your opinion.
Good try, Sheldon. But, it’s easy for anyone to claim to be a theist or Christian and still be deluded: for, the “proof of the pudding’s in the eating”–and it’s clear that Hitler didn’t believe in any god other than himself.
Ypu have avoided every question, which leaves your credibilty at zero so far.
I anticipated this move of yours, JC.
So, here it is, from an hour ago.
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?
I’ve asked two questions of you and I don’t care which one you answer.
But at least answer one of them honestly.
Thank you.
That’s just your opinion, Sheldon–which means mine is just as valid as yours if there’s no objective Truth.
Nice try, Walter offered objective scientific evidence with citations, you offered a tired old religious canard that has been thoroughly debunked, and that you haven’t bothered to examine critically, because you believe it “absolute truth”.
Was Beethoven omniscient, or omnipotent? So another false equivalence there, a deity that possess literally limitless power and knowledge would have limitless choice, so choosing to create a world with ubiquitous suffering would make it barbarically cruel.
The difference between me and the deity you imagine exist, is that if I could stop someone raping a child I would do so unquestioningly, you want believe the free will of the rapist is more important, and so imagine a deity closing the door , letting the child be raped, and saying I am going to punish him later.
If it existed it would be a morally bankrupt scumbag, luckily there is not one shred of objective evidence any of the deities humans have imagined is real.
And, Walter, I must say you have been quite polite in your objections, even though you do see me as closed-minded and a somewhat ignorant purveyor of fables that are disguised as “truths.”
Thus, it would appear (to me) that you all are also close-minded and adamantly opposed to the possibility that your views MIGHT happen to be wrong. In your attempts to disprove the existence of Someone you don’t believe it, your minds have been blinded to the ultimate Reality that exists beyond our ability to understand and explain.
I’m sorry JC, was that your honest reply to the question I put to you?
It doesn’t look like it.
Please try again.
Give me an example of an objective moral claim that doesn’t ultimately rest on a subjective belief please, otherwise the rest of your spiel is coloured bubbles.
Another No true Scotsman fallacy, and the biblical deity committed global genocide long before Hitler existed, if it’s objectively immoral that would mean the deity depicted was immoral, or is it just an arbitrary divine and subjective diktat?
You can’t have it both ways JC.
You also ignored my question again:
False dichotomy fallacy, you’re on a roll. Have you even heard of metaethical moral subjectivism, or moral relativism, or moral emotivism? I don’t believe you have any understanding of morals beyond what your superstition has indoctrinated you to believe unquestioningly.
1 Like
You’d need to give some clue what you’re referring to, and given how dishonestly you have behaved thus far, and your inability to understand the difference between objectively evidenced claim and subjective beliefs and opinions, I am dubious right out of the gate.
You didn’t even link the post for any context.
1 Like
Walter, again, I appreciate your candor, but kindness in your remarks and questions. I think we could enjoy sitting down over a cup of coffee being willing to disagree without being disagreeable. I guess I’m looking at all of this and our differences like this:
Let’s suppose we have a 2,000-piece jigsaw puzzle and are wanting to put it together; however, there’s a problem: if we don’t have the box top (or a picture inside) it’d be VERY difficult to put it together. And, that’s where we differ: because I believe in One Who designed the puzzle and through His Word we understand why it’s a jumbled-up mess and how He’s able to help us put it together. That’s why it takes Faith; otherwise, we’re trying to figure it out on our own.
It would seem apparent that on April 30, 1945, Hitler was convinced of the criminal liability he would be facing when he committed suicide. Oddly enough, 800,000 Germans were still True Believers in Hitler and National Socialism as the Russians were turning Berlin into a gravel pit.
Had he lived and survived capture post surrender, he would have been subject to prosecution under the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, likely for the following charges:
- Count One: The Common Plan or Conspiracy
- Count Two: Crimes Against Peace
- Count Three: War Crimes
- Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity
If his fortunes mirrored von Ribbentrop and Keitel, he would have faced death by hanging.
The legitimacy of these Tribunals and their judgement were justified by societal norms and natural law.
No, let us not suppose that, JC.
The onus is upon you to honestly answer the question I put to you.
Please do so.
But, who set the standard of right-and-wrong for executing Hitler? And, we know the answer: because those aren’t societal norms or natural law; they are transcendent, transcultural truths that are found in the heart of just men and women, regardless of where and when they lived.
Ah, the old “no you are” argument, are you 6 years old by any chance?
Random capital letters, never a good sign. You seem determined to pretend that the many objections you have failed to address are subjective opinion, as if we can’t all read what is being posted. It’s like watching a naughty child hide its face behind its hands, believing it now can’t be seen by an angry parent.
Your rehashed apologetics has been properly rinsed, and you don’t even understand why, bless.
Give us the best reason you think you have for believing a deity exists. I will bet my house again if you bother to answer it will a subjective claim, that likely misunderstands some scientific fact, or uses a fallacious argument.
1 Like
Initially, the Moscow Declaration (1943) and eventually the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, signed on August 8, 1945, by the U.S., UK, France, and the Soviet Union.