Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

So, are you saying that someone's reason must be in alignment with yours before you can present what is reasonable?

No. I'm saying we must agree that reason will decide.

"Come, let us reason together, says the Lord." (Isaiah 1:18)

Okay, so why don't you present what is reasonable so that you and Harbal can reason together?

Because (in case you didn't notice) it's an invitation to TWO, not a unilateral offer. Both sides of the discussion have to be willing to let reason decide the case; and if that arrangement is good enough for God, it's certainly good enough for us.

[Gary Childress]

If God revealed himself to me, I'd still have free choice.

You wouldn't have the choice of what you believe. You could no longer waver over the questions of His existence

If God has a problem with me wanking, then it might be a good idea for him/her/it to step in and change my beliefs, don't you think?

[Gary Childress]

No. I'm saying we must agree that reason will decide.

"Come, let us reason together, says the Lord." (Isaiah 1:18)

Okay, so why don't you present what is reasonable so that you and Harbal can reason together?

Because (in case you didn't notice) it's an invitation to TWO, not a unilateral offer. Both sides of the discussion have to be willing to let reason decide the case; and if that arrangement is good enough for God, it's certainly good enough for us.

Then try being reasonable and maybe Harbal will reciprocate.

[Lacewing]

No. I'm saying we must agree that reason will decide.

"Come, let us reason together, says the Lord." (Isaiah 1:18)

Okay, so why don't you present what is reasonable so that you and Harbal can reason together?

Because (in case you didn't notice) it's an invitation to TWO, not a unilateral offer. Both sides of the discussion have to be willing to let reason decide the case.

Do you imagine that Jesus approached this as you are doing, or did he just speak the truth generously and openly without expecting/asking anything of anyone?

[Immanuel Can]

If God revealed himself to me, I'd still have free choice.

You wouldn't have the choice of what you believe. You could no longer waver over the questions of His existence

If God has a problem with me wanking,

Gary, nobody...and I mean nobody here...is interested in your sexual proclivities. You figure yourself out.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you imagine that Jesus approached this as you are doing, or did he just speak the truth generously and openly without expecting/asking anything of anyone?

So...you haven't ever read any of the Gospels, I'm taking it. It's obvious from your comment. You're going on what somebody told you, or what you imagined? You'd best go read at least John 3. It'll take you about ten minutes.

[Harbal]

Because "reason" is the judge here. It's the adjudicator or arbitrator of truth. It's the thing that decides which view should prevail, and which should be dismissed. We have to both accept its deliverances, or we're not going anywhere, intellectually speaking...and then, there's no point in conversing about it at all.

I have said quite a lot about my views on morality, and I stand by every word.

And yet, you've abandoned reason as the decider.

So we have lost the referee for the "match." We can stand on the field, holding the ball and waiting for another to show up...but one won't.

You want to be both the referee and a player in the same game.

Look, it's on the record that you totally reject my views on morality because of their lack of rationality. Fair enough, now let's put my views aside and test yours for rationality. How can we judge which one of us is being more rational when you won't present your case? Who knows? when you have finished, I might be forced to rethink my entire outlook on morality.

[Gary Childress]

You wouldn't have the choice of what you believe. You could no longer waver over the questions of His existence

If God has a problem with me wanking,

Gary, nobody...and I mean nobody here...is interested in your sexual proclivities. You figure yourself out.

I'm not interested in your personal religious opinions either. Maybe you should keep them to yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

You want to be both the referee and a player in the same game.

Not at all. I just want the referee. You've offered none. And there's really none that's fit for the job but reason. What's the alternative?

[Harbal]

You want to be both the referee and a player in the same game.

Not at all. I just want the referee. You've offered none. And there's really none that's fit for the job but reason. What's the alternative?

You have told us that you know the truth about morality, and you can either tell us what that truth is, or you can refuse to tell us. It's as simple as that. I would like to hear what you have to say, but I won't be agreeing to any preconditions.

If I am reading the situation correctly, you are refusing, and I am getting tired of being messed about by you, so we should leave it at that.

[iambiguous]

Ok, so just to go along with your rather strange presumptive notion that there is a God who exists. Why then does that God feel like he has to hide himself for people to find. Almost like he has to plead with his people to come and find him, and that until they seek him out first, he'll just remain bugged out in his secret little hideaway bunker, totally unavailable.

But why would a God who already exists, need to do that, if God really does exist, surely he'd want his people to know he exists, surely he'd just be right here and now in the exact same place where his people are ''in plain sight'' for everyone to see.

Well put, in my view.

After all, the fact that the Christian God has not made it impossible to deny [or to ignore] His existence is precisely why there are all of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...other Gods and spiritual paths out there to choose from.

Most of them have their own rendition of prayer, of course. The flocks pray to God but then all those other flocks are praying to a different God.

How can this not be a truly preposterous -- even cruel? -- situation? Objective morality, immortality and salvation itself at stake here and not one of these denominations can bring their own God out from behind the bushes.

Still, the beauty of religious belief for mere mortals is that for many, leaps of faiths, wagers and/or Scriptures are there to close "the gap" just enough to comfort and console them all the way to the grave.

And as long as a Creator is in fact one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself, then atheists are themselves no less in the existential leap of faith business.

A leap of faith to No God? Then back to the part where many insist it is still far more incumbent upon those who believe in God to demonstrate His existence than for those who don't believe in Him to demonstrate that.

[Lacewing]

Do you imagine that Jesus approached this as you are doing, or did he just speak the truth generously and openly without expecting/asking anything of anyone?

So...you haven't ever read any of the Gospels, I'm taking it. It's obvious from your comment. You're going on what somebody told you, or what you imagined? You'd best go read at least John 3. It'll take you about ten minutes.

Yes, I have. Can you not answer the question from your own perspective? Must there be more of your conditions before you say anything? In other words... lay it all out the way you insist it must be before you can give a direct response... and then when it's laid out just right, there won't be need for a direct response because everyone will already be aligned and in agreement.

[iambiguous]

Why then does that God feel like he has to hide himself for people to find.

Do you have any idea at all what it would be like if the Supreme Being actually revealed Himself to you?

Right, like all of the other religious flocks in the link above can't make exactly the same claim about their own Supreme Being.

Then what?

But let's just imagine Him revealing Himself to the folks in, say, Israel and the Gaza Strip. Or in Ukraine? He makes it absolutely, abundantly clear which side He is on, prompting all the folks there to accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior. Even Vladimir Putin. The wars are over.

Instead, He he's up there in Heaven somewhere watching these religious fanatics maim, mutilate and murder each other. And, as it turns out, it's all for the wrong God of Abraham!!

Do you suppose, after that, you would have any choice at all about what you knew? If you suppose that, you don't have any conception of God at all.

Indeed, the True Christians here simply accept that IC's own "conception of God" is what "by default" we must all commence with.

Then -- gasp! -- back to "because the Bible says so":

The choice you have, you have now, and because God has not appeared to you in such a way as you cannot doubt -- if you are already obdurately set to deny what everybody ought to know. But the Bible says He has revealed enough of Himself to you that you really ought to know He exists...and that if you don't, it's only because you're choosing not to recognize what you really ought to know...and that's on you, not on God.

Think about it...

Beyond a leap of faith and Scripture, IC claims there is both scientific and historical proof of the existence of the Christian God: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Now, you would think he'd be coming back to those videos over and over again. Why? Precisely because any number of mere mortals would jump at the chance to grasp empirical/factual evidence for God's existence.

[Immanuel Can]

You have told us that you know the truth about morality, and you can either tell us what that truth is, or you can refuse to tell us. It's as simple as that.

Well, I started showing you why I'm not a subjectivist, and you got mad. Then I said we might consider nihilism, and you didn't even want to hear about it.

Now, we're at objectivism. What do you want to know?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you imagine that Jesus approached this as you are doing, or did he just speak the truth generously and openly without expecting/asking anything of anyone?

So...you haven't ever read any of the Gospels, I'm taking it. It's obvious from your comment. You're going on what somebody told you, or what you imagined? You'd best go read at least John 3. It'll take you about ten minutes.

Yes, I have. Can you not answer the question from your own perspective?

I did. You didn't like the answer.

So I pointed you to Scripture. You say you already know about that, even though you said it said the opposite of what it actually said.

So I have to take you at your word, as having read John 3. That means you know you were wrong in your characterization of Jesus, and I don't see that you have a question anymore.