I found this interesting.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Same thing as I stated before, X-tians claim causality for everything accept god, god needs no cause, because he is the cause (ofcourse the causality issue would also need a cause for god, but let's abandon this for the moment). As I've stated before if everything needs a cause, except god and god is all-good, which x-tians claim he is, where did evil/satan come from? As the rest is per definition caused by god, either god created them/it or god is not the prime cause for everything and evil/satan is an therefore an equal to god/goodness, which ofcourse also undermines the theory of absolute morality stemming from god.

Two problems hence two answers: First, you missed the entire point of my argument. God is the uncaused cause. The principle of causality is a scientific principle which applies *in* this universe because God made this universe this way. He could have made it so that causes were not required, but He did. However, if there is no God, causality MUST be obeyed, hence our universe would be a contradiction.

As for "good/evil", first off, by admitting their existance, you admit the need for a higher Being, which I will get into, but also, God created us with free will. The will to accept Him or reject Him. He did not create evil, but those who reject Him commit evil. Evil is better described as the absence of God. He does not create it, we perform evil acts whenever we leave God, so to speak.

Quote:

Untrue, I did have a reasoning behind "honesty" being a good trait, you just choose not to accept it, but it is not up to you to decide whether my reasoning is sound or not.

First off, if it is logically errant, anyone can point that out, which is what I was doing. Secondly, you made no such argument. Your argument for honesty assumed morality. The very thing you were attempting to show cannot also be your premise. It was. Your argument was "honesty is good because we can make decisions based on good information". Anyone can see the tautology there.

Quote:

Morality is not a thing that X-tians invented,

If it was something Christians invented, you would have won the argument. The very fact that you and Lunar keep bringing this up leads me to believe you simply don't understand the important underlying point here.

Quote:

people were moral, long before Christianity was invented and will be long after it is gone.

Well I don't believe Christianity will ever be "gone", but regarding your point, what on Earth do you mean by moral? Again, you use the term, but you haven't even said what it is. To be moral means doing what is right. Doing what is right presupposes that there IS something right. That presupposes someone made it so. That requires a higher Being.

Quote:

Sure, there is no such thing as absolute morality, but objective morality reached out of consensus is all we humans need.

You know, a few times I see people refuting this argument in books and I wonder why they bother, because after all, no one could be silly enough to posit such a thing, right? apparently not. The argument from consensus is so obviously wrong on so many levels, I will barely deign to answer it. But let me ask you this: If 51% of the people in the world decide it is "right" to sadistically torture the other 49%, does that make it right? Don't be absurd.

And if you admit there is "no such thing as absolute morality" then you admit there is no morality. "Subjective" morality isn't morality at all.

Finally, as to what humans "need", why did the godless and secularist and atheistic approach of Russia fail so utterly during the 20th century if we don't need morality?

Quote:

If morality is derived only from god, why aren't religious people much more moral than non-believers.

First off, they often are. Secondly, this is a bad argument anyway. Just because there is a moral law doesn't mean we are perfect and never screw up. Additionally, we can claim someone else screwed up, while you have no foot to stand upon. When Hitler comes around, we can complain. All you can say is "well, id rather him not do i suppose but that is only my subjective opinion and there isn't anything wrong with him"

Quote:

The jails are filled with people who believe in an absolute moral authority, just one proof that this authority is useless.

That isn't a proof at all. The continued lack of logic astounds me. First off, *most* people believe there is some type of absolute morality, so of course there would be people in jail. Second off, what is that supposed to show? This is just sensationalist claptrap with no substance at all.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Two problems hence two answers: First, you missed the entire point of my argument. God is the uncaused cause. The principle of causality is a scientific principle which applies *in* this universe because God made this universe this way. He could have made it so that causes were not required, but He did. However, if there is no God, causality MUST be obeyed, hence our universe would be a contradiction.

Indeed the principle of causality is a scientific principle and an observable one for that matter, but you are applying boundaries to it, by stating *in* this universe. We are not aware of anything outside this universe, so you cannot place something randomly, in this case god, outside of it and declare that therefore needing no cause. Therefore you would have to prove that god or indeed anything lives outside this universe, if that is proven, you have to prove that the principle of causality only applies to this universe, until you prove these 2 things I see no reason not to apply the principle of causality on everything including god.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

As for "good/evil", first off, by admitting their existance, you admit the need for a higher Being, which I will get into, but also, God created us with free will. The will to accept Him or reject Him. He did not create evil, but those who reject Him commit evil. Evil is better described as the absence of God. He does not create it, we perform evil acts whenever we leave God, so to speak.

So this throws the theory of god being omnipresent out the window?
I do not admit the absolutes of good and evil to exist, they are subjectives in my opinion, who can become objectives by consensus, but for every religion they are absolutes, so therefore I asked the question. Back to the issue, if I take the bible literally satan was already evil before any of god's creatures rejected god by eating the apple lured by the same satan, so where did satan come from? And this is not only a problem for literal readers of the bible, because if this did not happen, there would be no original sin and there would have been no need for Jesus to die for our sins.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

First off, if it is logically errant, anyone can point that out, which is what I was doing. Secondly, you made no such argument. Your argument for honesty assumed morality. The very thing you were attempting to show cannot also be your premise. It was. Your argument was "honesty is good because we can make decisions based on good information". Anyone can see the tautology there..

Ok, I might agree with you here, but in case morality is not absolute it makes perfect sense. We as humans have learned throughout time that honesty is preferable (generally) to lies and therefore we call it good or better than lying.
I might agree that absolute morality would require an absolute authority, but than again you would have to prove that there is an absolute morality.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Well I don't believe Christianity will ever be "gone", but regarding your point, what on Earth do you mean by moral? Again, you use the term, but you haven't even said what it is. To be moral means doing what is right. Doing what is right presupposes that there IS something right. That presupposes someone made it so. That requires a higher Being. ..

Again the difference lies in morality being an absolute or an objective consensus. This is why "doing the right thing" does not mean the same to a religious person and a non-believer, abortion is absolutely wrong in the religious mind, yet by consensus we as humans have declared it right (in certain circumstances) and made it legal.

It's just like my non-belief in God, I do not know absolutely that god doesn't exist, because I am not omniscient. Still I declare there is no such thing as god, actually I should add to that, as far as I know, but we as humans imply this in our speach. Otherwise I could never declare that there are no elfs, dragons, santa claus or the easterbunny. The same thing applies to right and wrong as objectives as well as subjectives. I can declare something right for me or right for the society I live in, but this is not an absolute.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

You know, a few times I see people refuting this argument in books and I wonder why they bother, because after all, no one could be silly enough to posit such a thing, right? apparently not. The argument from consensus is so obviously wrong on so many levels, I will barely deign to answer it. But let me ask you this: If 51% of the people in the world decide it is "right" to sadistically torture the other 49%, does that make it right? Don't be absurd. ..

Well yes, it would be right to those 51%, they have decided it right, haven't they. Ofcourse it wouldn't happen, because a) who would decide who would be in the 51% and would you therefore take the risk of being in the 49% and b) the 49% could become a majority and overthrow the 51%, but it's silly to have to argue this.

In the third reich they decided it was right to persecute Jews, it used to be right to own slaves (which wasn't even wrong in your holy book), we can see the change in morality throughout ages, which gives more likelihood to morality being subjective and objective consensus. Silly me

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

And if you admit there is "no such thing as absolute morality" then you admit there is no morality. "Subjective" morality isn't morality at all...

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other word would smell as sweet." Morality just like god are inventions of men, Gandhi is generally considered a moral standard in our history, yet put up against your absolutely morality you would have to consider him evil, because he rejected your god.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Finally, as to what humans "need", why did the godless and secularist and atheistic approach of Russia fail so utterly during the 20th century if we don't need morality?...

Because it became a dictatorial regime and dictators generally don't rule by adhering to an objective morality reached by consensus. If you really think that there is an absolute morality, you should oppose democracy and be in favor of theocracy. We should not make laws by consensus or majority vote, but the only laws applicable should the laws of god.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

First off, they often are. Secondly, this is a bad argument anyway. Just because there is a moral law doesn't mean we are perfect and never screw up. Additionally, we can claim someone else screwed up, while you have no foot to stand upon. When Hitler comes around, we can complain. All you can say is "well, id rather him not do i suppose but that is only my subjective opinion and there isn't anything wrong with him".

There were people, who found Hitler's regime (subjectively) wrong from the beginning, but the world still had to learn the objective wrong of his deeds, this is why he could remain in power so long. Indeed we have never seen somebody who is absolutely evil, Hitler was loved by Eva Braun and he was nice to his dogs, just to mention a thing, if he was a man absent of god as you describe it, why wasn't he evil all of the time?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

That isn't a proof at all. The continued lack of logic astounds me. First off, *most* people believe there is some type of absolute morality, so of course there would be people in jail. Second off, what is that supposed to show? This is just sensationalist claptrap with no substance at all.

Indeed *most* people believe in (a) god(s) and therefore believe in an absolute morality, but for both there is no proof, so believing it, doesn't make it so. But the fact that those who do believe in these 2 things aren't more moral (in the subjective consensus we agree upon) than those who do not indicates that both things do not exist or have no meaning if they do or that these people at the very least are hypocrites.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Indeed the principle of causality is a scientific principle and an observable one for that matter, but you are applying boundaries to it, by stating *in* this universe. We are not aware of anything outside this universe, so you cannot place something randomly, in this case god, outside of it and declare that therefore needing no cause. Therefore you would have to prove that god or indeed anything lives outside this universe, if that is proven, you have to prove that the principle of causality only applies to this universe, until you prove these 2 things I see no reason not to apply the principle of causality on everything including god.

I don't see why you are having trouble undrestanding this. The law of causality is a *scientific principle*. Now, in our universe, it cannot be broken. Well uh-oh, THAT is a problem. It is broken by the fact that we exist and move.

There is no way around that without admitting the existance of an uncaused Cause. The necessary Being, who does not have to be caused, because He does not have to follow the principles of the Universe He created. My position is logicall consistent. Yours is fallacious.

Quote:

So this throws the theory of god being omnipresent out the window?
I do not admit the absolutes of good and evil to exist, they are subjectives in my opinion, who can become objectives by consensus, but for every religion they are absolutes, so therefore I asked the question. Back to the issue, if I take the bible literally satan was already evil before any of god's creatures rejected god by eating the apple lured by the same satan, so where did satan come from? And this is not only a problem for literal readers of the bible, because if this did not happen, there would be no original sin and there would have been no need for Jesus to die for our sins.

First off, you do nothing but throw out prejudicial arguments that are entirely useless. We aren't talking about Christianity yet, or satan, or any of that. But to answer your question, obviously Satan chose to leave God. It is very simple.

Quote:

Ok, I might agree with you here, but in case morality is not absolute it makes perfect sense. We as humans have learned throughout time that honesty is preferable (generally) to lies and therefore we call it good or better than lying.

By whose standards? Why do so many people strive to be honest when it hinders them, does nothing good for them, often harsm them, etc.?

And beyond that, what is "preferable"?

Quote:

I might agree that absolute morality would require an absolute authority, but than again you would have to prove that there is an absolute morality.

At the moment, I'm trying to show that without an absolute authority, there is no morality, period.

Quote:

Again the difference lies in morality being an absolute or an objective consensus. This is why "doing the right thing" does not mean the same to a religious person and a non-believer, abortion is absolutely wrong in the religious mind, yet by consensus we as humans have declared it right (in certain circumstances) and made it legal.

Actually, the majority is agaisnt it, but that is besides the point. The point is, your side has not declared it "right", because your side has no concept of "right" and "wrong", since those concepts require a standard greater than ourselves, and that standard is something you refuse to admit. On the other hand, we *can* declare it wrong because we DO have a standard.

Quote:

It's just like my non-belief in God, I do not know absolutely that god doesn't exist, because I am not omniscient. Still I declare there is no such thing as god, actually I should add to that, as far as I know, but we as humans imply this in our speach. Otherwise I could never declare that there are no elfs, dragons, santa claus or the easterbunny. The same thing applies to right and wrong as objectives as well as subjectives. I can declare something right for me or right for the society I live in, but this is not an absolute.

It is not just "not an absolute". It isn't anything at all. It isn't "right", period. It's NOTHING.

Quote:

Well yes, it would be right to those 51%, they have decided it right, haven't they. Ofcourse it wouldn't happen, because a) who would decide who would be in the 51% and would you therefore take the risk of being in the 49% and b) the 49% could become a majority and overthrow the 51%, but it's silly to have to argue this.

Okay, so you have just admitted that morality does not exist. That's wonderful. Since 95% of the world at least, disagrees with you, they must now declare there is a higher Authority

Quote:

In the third reich they decided it was right to persecute Jews, it used to be right to own slaves (which wasn't even wrong in your holy book), we can see the change in morality throughout ages, which gives more likelihood to morality being subjective and objective consensus. Silly me

There is no change in morality. The only change is in the arguments for the application of the principles we all agree to. Who ever says it is better to be cowardly than to be brave, better to be honest than dishonest, better to be gluttonous than moderate? Sure, a few random individuals throughout history, perhaps, but that is to be expected even if there is a natural law written in us.

Quote:

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other word would smell as sweet." Morality just like god are inventions of men, Gandhi is generally considered a moral standard in our history, yet put up against your absolutely morality you would have to consider him evil, because he rejected your god.

There is certainly a middle ground between good and evil, but you are right, I don't think Ghandi was the greatest dude of all time.

Quote:

Because it became a dictatorial regime and dictators generally don't rule by adhering to an objective morality reached by consensus. If you really think that there is an absolute morality, you should oppose democracy and be in favor of theocracy. We should not make laws by consensus or majority vote, but the only laws applicable should the laws of god.

First off, who says I would not favor a country that went by the laws of God? But secondly, God gave us free will, and because of this, it is also permissible to have a government which follows the same principles. Speaking of which, we do indeed have many laws based on morality.

Quote:

There were people, who found Hitler's regime (subjectively) wrong from the beginning, but the world still had to learn the objective wrong of his deeds, this is why he could remain in power so long.

According to you, there was no objectvie wrong. You are once again contradicting yourself.

Quote:

Indeed we have never seen somebody who is absolutely evil, Hitler was loved by Eva Braun and he was nice to his dogs, just to mention a thing, if he was a man absent of god as you describe it, why wasn't he evil all of the time?

You ask silly questions. Even the most misguided of all humans has never been "all evil, all the time", as silly as that sounds. Once again you beg the question though: who says being nice to his dogs wasn't evil?

Quote:

Indeed *most* people believe in (a) god(s) and therefore believe in an absolute morality, but for both there is no proof, so believing it, doesn't make it so.

I'd say there is a proof for God. There must either be a God or not be a God. Anythign else would be a contradiction. Hence, if you can prove that the non-existance of God is impossible, you can show His existance. Our universe could not be here without a God. Seems like proof to me. Granted, this does not necessariyl prove morality, but most people take morality for granted, not God.

Quote:

But the fact that those who do believe in these 2 things aren't more moral (in the subjective consensus we agree upon) than those who do not indicates that both things do not exist or have no meaning if they do or that these people at the very least are hypocrites.

I find both your premise (that believers aren't more moral than non-believers) and your conclusion to be faulty. Atheists are far more likely to be immoral because they don't believe in morality, so whats it to them? If I was an atheist, I sure as heck wouldn't be living the way I am now. Second, the idea that atheists might be just as moral as believers only hurts your cause. It is evidence for the existance of a moral law engrained in our being, that even those who claim not to believe in any type of morality, would still be moral beings.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I don't see why you are having trouble undrestanding this. The law of causality is a *scientific principle*. Now, in our universe, it cannot be broken. Well uh-oh, THAT is a problem. It is broken by the fact that we exist and move.

There is no way around that without admitting the existance of an uncaused Cause. The necessary Being, who does not have to be caused, because He does not have to follow the principles of the Universe He created. My position is logicall consistent. Yours is fallacious. .

Well you are right to a degree, *in* our universe the principle of causality cannot be broken, but this does not apply to the universe itself as a whole.
The universe itself therefore would not need a cause and be uncaused. There is no need for the original uncaused cause to be a being.

A commonly stated workaround for the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The Big Bang is said to be the start of both space and time, so the question "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. This has been put forward by Stephen Hawking, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole (however, this comment was made in reference to cosmology and not theology).

If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes--multiple gods, say--or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?," you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question--"Why is there something rather than nothing?"--remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

First off, you do nothing but throw out prejudicial arguments that are entirely useless. We aren't talking about Christianity yet, or satan, or any of that. But to answer your question, obviously Satan chose to leave God. It is very simple..

This does not answer the question, where did Satan come from?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

By whose standards? Why do so many people strive to be honest when it hinders them, does nothing good for them, often harsm them, etc.?

And beyond that, what is "preferable"?..

At the moment, I'm trying to show that without an absolute authority, there is no morality, period.

Without an absolute authority, there is no absolute morality. There is relative morality, which has evolved throughout the existence of human kind. If there was an absolute morality would it not be required to adher too it for all of god's beings. So would an animal murdering for food, not be an absolute wrong. Humans do have a sense of morality, which is both through the evolution of our species as through learned behaviour.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Actually, the majority is agaisnt it, but that is besides the point. The point is, your side has not declared it "right", because your side has no concept of "right" and "wrong", since those concepts require a standard greater than ourselves, and that standard is something you refuse to admit. On the other hand, we *can* declare it wrong because we DO have a standard.

The majority isn't against it, but let's not get into that. Please elaborate on something if for example abortion, torture and slavery are wrong, are they wrong because god prohibits it or does god prohibit them because they are wrong?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

It is not just "not an absolute". It isn't anything at all. It isn't "right", period. It's NOTHING.

Okay, so you have just admitted that morality does not exist. That's wonderful. Since 95% of the world at least, disagrees with you, they must now declare there is a higher Authority.

I have admitted that absolute morality does not exist. 95% of the world haven't even asked themselves questions like this, they simply follow the religion of their parents blindly.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

There is no change in morality. The only change is in the arguments for the application of the principles we all agree to. Who ever says it is better to be cowardly than to be brave, better to be honest than dishonest, better to be gluttonous than moderate? Sure, a few random individuals throughout history, perhaps, but that is to be expected even if there is a natural law written in us.

A change in human morality throughout history is an observable fact, the leading societies of each time-era show so, from the gladiators in Rome on. That this not coincide with your theory of absolute morality doesn't change this.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

There is certainly a middle ground between good and evil, but you are right, I don't think Ghandi was the greatest dude of all time.

A middle ground? Now you are contradicting yourself, either it is according to the absolute standard or it is not, so it is evil or it is not evil. There can be no middle ground, otherwise evil would be relative.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

First off, who says I would not favor a country that went by the laws of God? But secondly, God gave us free will, and because of this, it is also permissible to have a government which follows the same principles. Speaking of which, we do indeed have many laws based on morality.

I never stated that you didn't want a theocracy, in fact I'll ask it now, would you favor a theocracy above the democracy you live in now? Ofcourse the problem would be in which sort of theocracy the people would want to live in? Are you a fan of president Bush? Isn't he evil for claiming that islam is a respectable religion? Giving respect to followers of false gods, what Allah obviously is to you, are evil, aren't they? Absolute morals aren't only unproven, they are almost impossible to live with.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

According to you, there was no objectvie wrong. You are once again contradicting yourself.

I disagree, the consensus of subjective wrongs (mostly made into law) constitute an objective wrong, therefore it was possible to put some of Hitler's cronies on trial and to sentence them.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

You ask silly questions. Even the most misguided of all humans has never been "all evil, all the time", as silly as that sounds. Once again you beg the question though: who says being nice to his dogs wasn't evil?

Ofcourse these are silly questions for me, but I'm trying to find out how you use your absolute standards, what you're thoughts are on these things, since I cannot fathom how to put all these things in line in my mind, absolute standards, evil being the absence of god etcetera. These things just don't rhyme together for me, so I am inquiring? Does this bother you?

So if evil is the absence of god and hitler wasn't evil all the time, why was god present at the most inconvenient times, meaning when Hitler was with his dogs, his girlfriend or other examples and not at the times when he decided to kill 6 million jews. In my subjective morality god really showed poor judgement to be present with Hitler at the wrong times. Is is really so silly to ask such questions?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I'd say there is a proof for God. There must either be a God or not be a God. Anythign else would be a contradiction. Hence, if you can prove that the non-existance of God is impossible, you can show His existance. Our universe could not be here without a God. Seems like proof to me. Granted, this does not necessariyl prove morality, but most people take morality for granted, not God.

I already answered this above, but once again, is something wrong because god forbids it or does god forbid it because it's wrong?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I find both your premise (that believers aren't more moral than non-believers) and your conclusion to be faulty. Atheists are far more likely to be immoral because they don't believe in morality, so whats it to them? If I was an atheist, I sure as heck wouldn't be living the way I am now. Second, the idea that atheists might be just as moral as believers only hurts your cause. It is evidence for the existance of a moral law engrained in our being, that even those who claim not to believe in any type of morality, would still be moral beings.

Once again you substitute absolute morality for morality, atheists do believe in morality, they just don't think that things are absolutely wrong. Believers have just as little reason to adher to speed limits as non-believers do, it is, as far as I know, not mentioned in the word of god. In your reasoning any believer who adher to laws that aren't of god are proof that there is morality without god.

The basic claim remains to proof an absolute morality and I can see no proof in your statements.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Well you are right to a degree, *in* our universe the principle of causality cannot be broken, but this does not apply to the universe itself as a whole.
The universe itself therefore would not need a cause and be uncaused. There is no need for the original uncaused cause to be a being.

A commonly stated workaround for the cosmological argument is the nature of time. The Big Bang is said to be the start of both space and time, so the question "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. This has been put forward by Stephen Hawking, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole (however, this comment was made in reference to cosmology and not theology).

If the universe is infinitely old, for instance, every thing could indeed be caused by something else before it; the series of causes could go back forever. But perhaps more importantly, one could hold that the argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes--multiple gods, say--or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. Finally, the argument holds that God is required to explain the existence of the universe, but offers no explanation for why God exists. If you invoke God to answer the question "Why is there a universe rather than nothing?," you raise the further question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The fundamental question--"Why is there something rather than nothing?"--remains unanswered either way; so why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?

I am really shocked. The depths of absurdity which one has to go to maintain one's atheism are unbelievable. If this were an argument you were not invested in, you would never accept such a ludicrous argument.

But beyond that, you simply keep losing the point. God is the uncause Cause, whose very nature is to exist, hence He does. Our nature is not necessarily to exist. We can die, change, etc. Something caused us. You so far have come up with nothing which did.

Quote:

This does not answer the question, where did Satan come from?

Satan was a fallen angel but he was still created by God, before he fell.

Quote:

Without an absolute authority, there is no absolute morality. There is relative morality, which has evolved throughout the existence of human kind. If there was an absolute morality would it not be required to adher too it for all of god's beings. So would an animal murdering for food, not be an absolute wrong. Humans do have a sense of morality, which is both through the evolution of our species as through learned behaviour.

You are making my case. We have a sense of morality. This sense of morality could not come from "evolution" because often, morality requires the worst possible things for survival. Also, the idea that we simpyl learned it only pushes the question back. Where did the first people "learn" it?

Quote:

The majority isn't against it, but let's not get into that. Please elaborate on something if for example abortion, torture and slavery are wrong, are they wrong because god prohibits it or does god prohibit them because they are wrong?

They are wrong because they are against God's nature. Godd and evil are synonymous with "Godly" and "ungodly"

Quote:

I have admitted that absolute morality does not exist. 95% of the world haven't even asked themselves questions like this, they simply follow the religion of their parents blindly.

Not so. Most people, when asked, would believe there is soem type of morality. YOU even think this. You think we have a moral sense. You then contradict yourself by saying there is no absolute morality but i digress.

Quote:

A change in human morality throughout history is an observable fact, the leading societies of each time-era show so, from the gladiators in Rome on. That this not coincide with your theory of absolute morality doesn't change this.

I see no change in morality. There are always wild, minor exceptions, but where was dishonor ever thought good? When was cowardice ever praised?

Quote:

A middle ground? Now you are contradicting yourself, either it is according to the absolute standard or it is not, so it is evil or it is not evil. There can be no middle ground, otherwise evil would be relative.

Sure there can. The vast majority of acts we commit in life are neutral. The vast majority of us both do good things and bad things. one wrong act does not make on evil anymore than one good act makes one a saint.

Quote:

I never stated that you didn't want a theocracy, in fact I'll ask it now, would you favor a theocracy above the democracy you live in now? Ofcourse the problem would be in which sort of theocracy the people would want to live in? Are you a fan of president Bush? Isn't he evil for claiming that islam is a respectable religion? Giving respect to followers of false gods, what Allah obviously is to you, are evil, aren't they? Absolute morals aren't only unproven, they are almost impossible to live with.

Actually, the only societies in hirtory that survived for long periods of time were moralistic. The ones that dont are secular.

And theocracy is an ambiguous term. any people mean different things when they say it.

Quote:

I disagree, the consensus of subjective wrongs (mostly made into law) constitute an objective wrong, therefore it was possible to put some of Hitler's cronies on trial and to sentence them.

No, they don't. No amount of subjectivity ever amounts to objectivity. That is ridiculous. It is like claiming that a thing that is standing in space, with no movement, would suddenly move without any forces acting on it. OH WAIT, you do believe that this anti-science event could happen, no wonder you are having trouble.

Quote:

Ofcourse these are silly questions for me, but I'm trying to find out how you use your absolute standards, what you're thoughts are on these things, since I cannot fathom how to put all these things in line in my mind, absolute standards, evil being the absence of god etcetera. These things just don't rhyme together for me, so I am inquiring? Does this bother you?

These posts are getting long. I can't even remeber what this was in response to.

Quote:

So if evil is the absence of god and hitler wasn't evil all the time, why was god present at the most inconvenient times, meaning when Hitler was with his dogs, his girlfriend or other examples and not at the times when he decided to kill 6 million jews. In my subjective morality god really showed poor judgement to be present with Hitler at the wrong times. Is is really so silly to ask such questions?

God is always everywhere. If Hitler truly repented of all his sins before he died, God would accept him into Heaven. Now since it is believe Hitler commited suicide, this is impossible, but yes, God will always be merciful. No human is completely evil because that would mean they were beyond grace, which they are not.

Quote:

Once again you substitute absolute morality for morality,

That is because they are the same thing. Subjective morality isn't morality. It is nothingness.

Quote:

atheists do believe in morality, they just don't think that things are absolutely wrong.

Morality without authority is useless. Your idea of morality is akin to laws in the U.S. not being enforced. If no one was ever prosecuted for crime, are laws would not really BE laws.

Quote:

Believers have just as little reason to adher to speed limits as non-believers do, it is, as far as I know, not mentioned in the word of god.

First off, that isn't true, second, I don't quite get your point here...

Quote:

In your reasoning any believer who adher to laws that aren't of god are proof that there is morality without god.

Absolutely not. I follow the laws of the U.S. because breaking them would entail bad things. Why would anyone follow a moral "law" that doesn't have any force behind it? They wouldn't. They don't.

Quote:

The basic claim remains to proof an absolute morality and I can see no proof in your statements.

For oen thing, I'm not trying to. I'm trying to show that there is NO morality without God. But also, I seem to have foudn it in YOUR statements. If even an ardent non-believer thinks there is morality in life, there must be inherent morality in life. It had to come from somewhere, i.e. God.

Anyway, i have enjoyed this discussion, I think for the most part we have remained civil, and I wouldn't mind continuing it, but I simply cannot go on responding to and writing posts of this length. We either need to narrow the focus or I will have to stop. I apologize, but I simply do not have the time.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I am really shocked. The depths of absurdity which one has to go to maintain one's atheism are unbelievable. If this were an argument you were not invested in, you would never accept such a ludicrous argument.

On the contrary I find your claims absurd, but as we are rapping up this debate I won't get into it anymore.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

But beyond that, you simply keep losing the point. God is the uncause Cause, whose very nature is to exist, hence He does. Our nature is not necessarily to exist. We can die, change, etc. Something caused us. You so far have come up with nothing which did.

Well, just a short reaction than. Exactly, what you state!!! Indeed I/we (non-believers) do not claim to know the entire truth about the start / the cause of this universe, so far there are only theories as to what might have happened, based on the knowledge at hand. You (believers) on the other hand have come up with something, meaning you made up/invented a reason for it all, and named it God and furthermore you've excluded this invention from all the reasoning you apply to everything else, because it's 'his nature', this is not a solution, it's a delusion, wishful thinking at best.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Satan was a fallen angel but he was still created by God, before he fell.

Is Satan all evil now? Can god (something all good) therefore create something that turns all evil? How is the creator than not responsible for the evil of his creation? Can Satan reform? Has he? How would we ever know?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

You are making my case. We have a sense of morality. This sense of morality could not come from "evolution" because often, morality requires the worst possible things for survival. Also, the idea that we simpyl learned it only pushes the question back. Where did the first people "learn" it?.

How do we learn the most basic things and skills? Observation, trial and error etcetera. As men developped from the early stages of animalism, he observed how family members reacted to death, these negative emotions they would want to avoid ergo killing became 'wrong', first only for members of your own group, later came a realisation, that everyone has family, so killing became a general 'no-no'. The same thing with stealing, someone took his brother's spear to hunt before he woke up, when he came back the brother was mad, because he couldn't go hunting, because his spear was gone ergo taking something that isn't yours is 'wrong'. And they learned that to forbid these 'wrongs' and endorce the 'rights' (actions that caused positive reactions) was good for the community they lived in and thus a sense of morality grew, which involved throughout time as humans became more intelligent and more 'civilized' and as societies became more complicated. I can't imagine it to be very hard to understand this process.

[quote=uncertaindrumer]
They are wrong because they are against God's nature. Godd and evil are synonymous with "Godly" and "ungodly".
I refer to Satan, probably the most ungodly being, yet created, by your own admission by god, something turned him away from god, something that also must have come from god, as everything comes from god or not? Isn't Satan all evil? How can 'all evilness' come from/turn away from 'all goodness'?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I see no change in morality. There are always wild, minor exceptions, but where was dishonor ever thought good? When was cowardice ever praised?

Honor and pride aren't that far apart, and pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. And I'm sure many a war-widow would have loved for her husband to be maybe less courageous if that would have brought hime home to provide for her and the family. Why is deciding wrong from right often so difficult and can the decision vary upon the different circumstances? Is lying absolutely wrong or can little, white lies to protect those who you love be sometimes right? There are no absolutes in situations like these, would be my answer. Everybody has to make his own decision, based on his own morals.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Sure there can. The vast majority of acts we commit in life are neutral. The vast majority of us both do good things and bad things. one wrong act does not make on evil anymore than one good act makes one a saint.

So if I murder someone that doesn't make me evil? Absolute morality sure doesn't sound like it's all that it's made out to be

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Actually, the only societies in hirtory that survived for long periods of time were moralistic. The ones that dont are secular.

What would you consider long periods of time? The roman empire ruled for centuries and there morals, gladiator fights, orgies, false gods etcetera, etcetera was nothing like your absolute standards. Btw the opposite of moral is not secular. And ofcourse you prove my point here, societies do need moral standards for them to work out in the long run, that's why we humans developped a sense of morality.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

No, they don't. No amount of subjectivity ever amounts to objectivity. That is ridiculous. It is like claiming that a thing that is standing in space, with no movement, would suddenly move without any forces acting on it. OH WAIT, you do believe that this anti-science event could happen, no wonder you are having trouble.

Well your second statement has nothing to do with your first. I do not believe the latter could happen in space as we know it now. To the first statement, if you and I would be stranded on an uninhibited island and we both agreed we would need eatchother to survive and therefore it would be wrong for one of us to kill the other, wouldn't the objective morality on that island be 'that killing is wrong'? Objective morality is nothing more than consensus of 'subjective moralities', mostly even only in majority and not unanimous.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

God is always everywhere. If Hitler truly repented of all his sins before he died, God would accept him into Heaven. Now since it is believe Hitler commited suicide, this is impossible, but yes, God will always be merciful. No human is completely evil because that would mean they were beyond grace, which they are not.

So god was present at Auschwitz and what happened there wasn't against his nature? Why did he directly interfere with Sodom and Gomorra, Babylon, the flood, but has he taken a backseat and only looks on since he died? Is he really dead?

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

That is because they are the same thing. Subjective morality isn't morality. It is nothingness.

Or so you would want us to believe? Not only do I think you didn't prove (the necessity for an) absolute morality, but what I've read in this debate so far, it is not always absolute, since many things are according to you neither bad nor good and the bad things can all be absolved with one act of repentence.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Morality without authority is useless. Your idea of morality is akin to laws in the U.S. not being enforced. If no one was ever prosecuted for crime, are laws would not really BE laws.

Exactly, as there is no absolute authority, therefore there is also no absolute morality. Our relative morality is on big issues decided by the laws, on the smaller issues by the approval or disapproval of the people around us.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

For oen thing, I'm not trying to. I'm trying to show that there is NO morality without God. But also, I seem to have foudn it in YOUR statements. If even an ardent non-believer thinks there is morality in life, there must be inherent morality in life. It had to come from somewhere, i.e. God..

It didn't come somewhere out of the blue, it is learned behaviour. Some people in the world lived/live with partial nakedness and see no problem in that, as they mixed with other nations who did object, some of them began to dress (more). And I'm not sure wether this morality is inherent, maybe some collective recollection of morals has evolved in mankind, but maybe you could teach a newborn 'evil things' in separation of our society and portray them as 'good', I don't know.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Anyway, i have enjoyed this discussion, I think for the most part we have remained civil, and I wouldn't mind continuing it, but I simply cannot go on responding to and writing posts of this length. We either need to narrow the focus or I will have to stop. I apologize, but I simply do not have the time.

I agree that this discussion has run its course for the most part and it is growing out of hand and I also feel that we are retracing our steps and hitting out heads against walls we cannot tear down. And indeed it is obvious that with mutual respect we will have to agree to disagree as noone can convince or persuade the other of the error in his ways, as I wouldn't have imagined possible from the start, but as you say it was enjoyable to try and see the other's perspective on these things, but it is indeed to time-consuming.