Is morality objective or subjective?

[FlashDangerpants]

If I think about God, I have also to think about what He requires of me.

And He requires me to speak. So that's really not an option.

Would it be possible for Him to please suggest you fuck off to the religion sub with this boring shit?

[Atla]

If I think about God, I have also to think about what He requires of me.

And He requires me to speak. So that's really not an option.

Would it be possible for Him to please suggest you fuck off to the religion sub with this boring shit?

He has 20k comments but probably hasn't converted anyone here. He shouldn't be wasting time on a philosophy forum at all, he should be preaching somewhere else. God must be very disappointed by now.

[Sculptor]

If I think about God, I have also to think about what He requires of me.

I think he wants you to fuck off to a website that might be interested in your BS

[Sculptor]

Immanuel Can

STATS
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 19220
Converts to Christianity: 0
Convincing arguments: 0

[Immanuel Can]

God must be very disappointed by now.

We're going to see.

One thing for sure: whether it turns out to be in the salvation of souls or the condemnation of the wicked, God's word will do its work. You need not be afraid that it will fail.

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it produce and sprout,
And providing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;

So will My word be which goes out of My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it."

Isaiah 55:9-11.

[Atla]

One thing for sure ... God's word will do its work. You need not be afraid that it will fail.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Allah's word will prevail, no matter what. Of that, there cannot be any doubt.

[Harbal]

I treat all concepts of God with equal disinterest, and that includes all the Gods you probably don't approve of, so that is something you should be pleased about.

If I thought a person who did not think about God as being better than somebody who worshipped the wrong god, then perhaps so.

But there are really only two types of people: those who know God, on the one hand, and on the other, those who know something else or nothing at all. There really is no subsitute for knowing God as He is.

Well I don't know God, of course, but I seem to be able to get by without having a substitute, so maybe there are three types of people.

Have you considered thinking about him more, but speaking about him less?

If I think about God, I have also to think about what He requires of me.

And He requires me to speak. So that's really not an option.

Well I really don't know why you put up with it; I certainly wouldn't. Anyone who has a wife, and I believe you have mentioned having one, will already have more than enough requirements placed on him.

I suppose there are people who enjoy abuse...or at least enjoy exchanging abusive emails with other people. I'm not one of those. Left to my own interests, I would perhaps not speak at all. However, God Himself is interested in the welfare of those who may hear about Him, so I cannot be indifferent to them either.

If God thought it important for us all to know about him, I'm sure he would just make himself known in such a way as to leave no one in any doubt. Why do you suppose he would rely on people like you to spread the word? Especially when nobody seems to believe you. Do you think it possible that, in your eagerness to please God, you might be taking on more than is expected of you? Or even worse; perhaps your promotional activities might be seen by God as unwelcome interference. I really do think it would be wiser to stop talking about God so much, because omnipatience might not be one of his attributes.

[Immanuel Can]

Allah's word will prevail, no matter what. Of that, there cannot be any doubt.

We shall see whose word will prevail. And you will see it with your own eyes, and hear with your own ears.

That, I promise you.

[Atla]

Allah's word will prevail, no matter what. Of that, there cannot be any doubt.

We shall see whose word will prevail. And you will see it with your own eyes, and hear with your own ears.

That, I promise you.

Thank you for assuring me. I was a little uncertain, but now all doubt is gone forever.

[Peter Holmes]

Yes. And Atheism claims, "There is no God." If there's any kind of gods, then Atheism is, by definition false. So it has to include that claim, implicitly even if the Atheist is reluctant to make it overt.

To reject all god claims is not to claim there is no god.

Yes, it is. Because "rejecting" also requires reasons. If I "reject" the existence of cancer, I need to be able to say why I don't believe in something that many other people do. And if I have no reasons, they're going to suspect me of lunacy...and they're rightly going to disregard me.

This analogy exposes the irrationality of your position. There's very strong empirical evidence for the existence of cancer. (Presumably created by your team's omnibenevolent, but sadly invented, god.) But for god-claims? - no empirical evidence whatsoever. Just claims - some in old books - which are, obviously, not evidence for their own truth, as I'm sure you agree. That's why the rational can disregard those claims.

Moreover, the Atheist has to decide if he wants to claim, "I believe there are no gods," or "There are no gods, and other people should believe the same." If it's the former, it's merely trivial: it amounts to, "I, the Atheist, do not happen to have any experience of what gods there may be." But if it's the latter, it's overly-ambitious: it tells people, "You have to disbelieve in the way I disbelieve, because you can't possibly have any evidence to which I'm not already privy."

...you assume that to express a belief is to want to impose it on others,

No, I clearly do not say that. What I say is obviously true: that the Atheist has two ways to go, not one; and he can pick which way he wants to fail. He can say, "I only mean myself as a disbeliever," and then he can fail to impress anyone with the truth of that belief. Or he can say, "I mean you should disbelieve too," in which case he fails for lack of evidence to warrant that.

As always, an attempt to deflect the failure to meet the burden of proof - to shift the burden onto the disbeliever. I really think that, as an apparently intelligent person, you should be ashamed.

So Atheism is not protected by that defense. It's on the hook for what its claim is. And it's certainly not flattering to Atheism to suggest it claims nothing at all. Any position that claims nothing can safely be dismissed without further thought.

As can any claim that lacks evidence.

Exactly right.

Atheism need not be 'a claim', much as you insist it is.

If it is not a claim, it can be totally disregarded.

Fine. Close your faith-clouded eyes to your failure - as of all supernaturalists - actually to provide evidence for your belief.

Provide evidence for the non-existence of the invisible goblin in my kitchen

Now you've summarized the Atheist's plight admirably. He cannot disprove anything at all...gods, goblins or fairies...unless he can devise an evidentiary method to do so. And in the case of God, he simply can't.

Strange that you think this a convincing argument. Please explain your evidentiary argument for dismissing belief in the countless other supernatural beings invented by our ancestors. What grounds do you have for doing so - assuming you do?

But what is the Theist's need to find evidence? All he has to do is find one true evidence of God -- just one. Because one definite evidence of God destroys Atheism completely -- so let there be just one case of a genuinely divine action in any point in history, and Atheism's dead. Let there be one Creation, one miracle, one prophecy, one existential religious experience, one prayer answered, one Incarnation, one healing, one revelation, one person's relationship with God...so long as that one thing is genuine, Atheism's dead.

Agreed. That's all your and other teams need to establish the truth of their competitive god-claims. One event whose cause is demonstrably non-physical would go a long way to demolishing physicalism. One empirical demonstration of a non-physical cause and the causal mechanism for a physical event. Funny how supernaturalists have nothing - NOTHING - but claims. 'A fairy dun it.'

Bottom line: Atheism has to (dis)prove every possibility. Theism only has to find one single case of an authentic religious event. The playing field is badly tilted against Atheism...almost vertical, in fact.

Wrong. A possibility has to be demonstrated before it can enter the lists. Otherwise, any suggestion whatsoever has to be considered possible. In your desperation to salvage a chance for theism, you turn the actual empirical situation upside down.

...we're comfortable with the conclusion that, pending (empirical) evidence, belief in their existence is irrational.

But there is empirical evidence...and lots of it. However, the Atheist has already decided he's "comfortable" with treating none of it as if it were evidence.

NO THERE IS NOT. There are CLAIMS. of countless different kinds, and not one jot of empirical evidence for any supernatural thing or cause. To my knowledge, of course. Try presenting your go-to piece of what you call evidence, and you'll find it's an unsubstantiated claim.

In my opinion, people should be free to believe whatsoever nonsense they do or choose to believe...

Funny that you spend so much time arguing they shouldn't, then.

I wonder why you think I spend a lot of time doing that? Do you feel threatened or persecuted? Does an argument against the existence of supernatural things amount to a claim that people shouldn't believe in them?

[Immanuel Can]

To reject all god claims is not to claim there is no god.

Yes, it is. Because "rejecting" also requires reasons. If I "reject" the existence of cancer, I need to be able to say why I don't believe in something that many other people do. And if I have no reasons, they're going to suspect me of lunacy...and they're rightly going to disregard me.

There's very strong empirical evidence for the existence of cancer.

And for God. But not everybody wants to see that.

...you assume that to express a belief is to want to impose it on others,

No, I clearly do not say that. What I say is obviously true: that the Atheist has two ways to go, not one; and he can pick which way he wants to fail. He can say, "I only mean myself as a disbeliever," and then he can fail to impress anyone with the truth of that belief. Or he can say, "I mean you should disbelieve too," in which case he fails for lack of evidence to warrant that.

As always, an attempt to deflect the failure to meet the burden of proof - to shift the burden onto the disbeliever.[/quote]
Well, you can have your pick: either Atheism owes no evidence, because it claims nothing...so it can be ignored.

Or it claims something; but then it owes evidence.

But anybody can see that Atheism is really a claim, though you'd like us not to notice, I'm sure.

Atheism need not be 'a claim', much as you insist it is.

If it is not a claim, it can be totally disregarded.

Fine. Close your faith-clouded eyes to your failure

It's Atheism's own failure, intrinsic to its position. And it would have it if I were not here.

Provide evidence for the non-existence of the invisible goblin in my kitchen

Now you've summarized the Atheist's plight admirably. He cannot disprove anything at all...gods, goblins or fairies...unless he can devise an evidentiary method to do so. And in the case of God, he simply can't.

Strange that you think this a convincing argument. Please explain your evidentiary argument for dismissing belief in the countless other supernatural beings invented by our ancestors. What grounds do you have for doing so - assuming you do?

Knowing the true God makes one very able to detect the false versions. So it's actually rather simple to do.

Bottom line: Atheism has to (dis)prove every possibility. Theism only has to find one single case of an authentic religious event. The playing field is badly tilted against Atheism...almost vertical, in fact.

Wrong.

No, it's correct.

A possibility has to be demonstrated before it can enter the lists.

Actually, it only has to be available to reasonable observation. It's in nowise incumbent upon the Theist to prove anything to an intransigent objector. If the Atheist has already made up his mind, and will not look at the abundant evidence around him, it's nobody's fault but his own. And his is the irrationality.

...we're comfortable with the conclusion that, pending (empirical) evidence, belief in their existence is irrational.

But there is empirical evidence...and lots of it. However, the Atheist has already decided he's "comfortable" with treating none of it as if it were evidence.

NO THERE IS NOT.

There it is: the intransigent refusal to observe the world. In capital letters, no less.

It's always so interesting to me how Atheists swagger in with an attitude like, "I scoff at the idea of God, and you all should, too." But when asked to justify that, they squeak like mice and run under the fridge, crying "We don't owe you anything."

Well, if they've got no reasons why we shouldn't believe in God -- except the bare fact that they, themselves, happen to know nothing about Him -- then they've really got no reason we should take particular notice, and particularly if we think we DO have evidence of God that they simply refuse to consider out of sheer obstinacy.

[Harbal]

There's very strong empirical evidence for the existence of cancer.

And for God. But not everybody wants to see that.

When you look at the universe, the world, nature, and see "order" and "design" that seem to suggest something beyond our ordinary account of things, that might seem like evidence of some kind of intentional power, but you can't know the source or nature of it. God is but one of many speculative explanations, so all you have is evidence of something unknown, not evidence of God, but not everybody wants to see that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There it is: the intransigent refusal to observe the world. In capital letters, no less.

It's always so interesting to me how Atheists swagger in with an attitude like, "I scoff at the idea of God, and you all should, too." But when asked to justify that, they squeak like mice and run under the fridge, crying "We don't owe you anything."

Well, if they've got no reasons why we shouldn't believe in God -- except the bare fact that they, themselves, happen to know nothing about Him -- then they've really got no reason we should take particular notice, and particularly if we think we DO have evidence of God that they simply refuse to consider out of sheer obstinacy.

This is a philosophy-Forum and the protocol and default is, those who make positive claims has the onus to prove their claim.

Nonetheless, as a non-theist I have presented the argument
New: It is Impossible for God to exist as Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

This is a revised argument, so don't give the 'running away' retort, 'I have already countered that'.

What is your counter to the above.

As I had stated, the question of God's existence is not an epistemology or even ontological issue but rather a psychological issue.
Resolve the psychological issue and there is no need to cling to a God like a drowning man clinging to whatever twig he can grab in the turbulent waters.
Then we don't have the threat of the extermination of the human species via WMDs by Islamists as indirectly supported by all other theists.

[Skepdick]

This is a philosophy-Forum and the protocol and default is, those who make positive claims has the onus to prove their claim.

All ontological claims are positive so... claims of existence or non-existence carry a burden.

As I had stated, the question of God's existence is not an epistemology or even ontological issue but rather a psychological issue.

Psychology is ontology and epistemology.

[popeye1945]

This is not a time for little gods, the mystery is too grand for the old mythologies of the past in their anthropomorphisms. As old Albert stated, "It is time for humanity to grow up!