Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that it was not my intention to be facetious nor flippant.

It's not my "feeling." It's your wording.

I get the feeling...

"Feelings" are of little interest. Let's go with reasoning, shall we?

[Gary Childress]

Is it unreasonable to think that when God comes to someone, God will appear physically and say something to the person?

Is it reasonable to suppose that the Supreme Being, having had one kind of interaction with Moses, owes it to every other person to have the same sort of interaction?

What would you suppose is the answer, Gary?

I mean, I've never been to Boston but I've seen photos and people I know who have been to places or seen things that I haven't have shown me photos or at least can describe the place physically in terms of what they saw, heard, smelled, touched.

Well, suppose you had not only the physical evidence of the visible universe around you, and not merely the testimony of those who have had interactions with God of various kinds, but also a written revelation? Would that do it for you?

If not, how about the Incarnation. Suppose God Himself came to earth as the most universally-recognizable moral authority ever to touch the planet, walked among men, and was resurrected to the heavens, all with witnesses present? Would that do it for you?

Or do you need a personal encounter different from that? If you do, then I'm the wrong person to be asking. I'm not God's booking-agent. But you could speak to Him directly about that.

OK. Then God can make himself known to me. Until then I'll be agnostic. As far as Christ goes, I find it no more miraculous that Christ did what he did, than that Romulus and Remus founded Rome, Mohammed went to heaven in front of everyone present or Orpheus actually went to the afterlife which was called Hades to rescue Eurydice. In other words, religions and the people who participate in them and write about them, have a tendency to propagate garbage that isn't true quite a bit.

[Gary Childress]

It's not my "feeling." It's your wording.

I get the feeling...

"Feelings" are of little interest. Let's go with reasoning, shall we?

OK. Sure. What "reasoning" tells me there is a God? I mean, reason doesn't tell me there's a place called Antarctica, people do. Reason doesn't tell me there's a person named Michael Jordan, people do. Reason doesn't tell me that God exists, people do.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it unreasonable to think that when God comes to someone, God will appear physically and say something to the person?

Is it reasonable to suppose that the Supreme Being, having had one kind of interaction with Moses, owes it to every other person to have the same sort of interaction?

What would you suppose is the answer, Gary?

I mean, I've never been to Boston but I've seen photos and people I know who have been to places or seen things that I haven't have shown me photos or at least can describe the place physically in terms of what they saw, heard, smelled, touched.

Well, suppose you had not only the physical evidence of the visible universe around you, and not merely the testimony of those who have had interactions with God of various kinds, but also a written revelation? Would that do it for you?

If not, how about the Incarnation. Suppose God Himself came to earth as the most universally-recognizable moral authority ever to touch the planet, walked among men, and was resurrected to the heavens, all with witnesses present? Would that do it for you?

Or do you need a personal encounter different from that? If you do, then I'm the wrong person to be asking. I'm not God's booking-agent. But you could speak to Him directly about that.

OK. Then God can make himself known to me. Until then I'll be agnostic.

So...none of what He's already done, such as giving you the witness of design in Creation, or of human intuition, or even of written revelation, is sufficient for you, even to make you mildly curious?

As far as Christ goes, I find it no more miraculous that Christ did what he did, than that Romulus and Remus founded Rome,...

Then it's obvious: you don't know even the first thing about Him. And even a rudimentary knowledge of the various characters to whom you attempt to compare Him would convince you that's an inept analogy. But lack of knowledge...that's something you could remedy: you could read about Christ, at the very least...which clearly, you haven't done...

So is your agnosticism a willful one, then? That is, are you insisting on being an agnostic, and on keeping yourself ignorant of who Christ is?

[Immanuel Can]

I get the feeling...

"Feelings" are of little interest. Let's go with reasoning, shall we?

OK. Sure. What "reasoning" tells me there is a God?

Read Romans 1: 18-end. Question answered.

[Gary Childress]

"Feelings" are of little interest. Let's go with reasoning, shall we?

OK. Sure. What "reasoning" tells me there is a God?

Read Romans 1: 18-end. Question answered.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

Good grief. Talk about logical fallacies. How is that passage above the least bit relevant to reasoning that God exists? Apparently God uses the Argumentum Ad Baculum to make himself known?

[Gary Childress]

Is it reasonable to suppose that the Supreme Being, having had one kind of interaction with Moses, owes it to every other person to have the same sort of interaction?

What would you suppose is the answer, Gary?

Well, suppose you had not only the physical evidence of the visible universe around you, and not merely the testimony of those who have had interactions with God of various kinds, but also a written revelation? Would that do it for you?

If not, how about the Incarnation. Suppose God Himself came to earth as the most universally-recognizable moral authority ever to touch the planet, walked among men, and was resurrected to the heavens, all with witnesses present? Would that do it for you?

Or do you need a personal encounter different from that? If you do, then I'm the wrong person to be asking. I'm not God's booking-agent. But you could speak to Him directly about that.

OK. Then God can make himself known to me. Until then I'll be agnostic.

So...none of what He's already done, such as giving you the witness of design in Creation, or of human intuition, or even of written revelation, is sufficient for you, even to make you mildly curious?

As far as Christ goes, I find it no more miraculous that Christ did what he did, than that Romulus and Remus founded Rome,...

Then it's obvious: you don't know even the first thing about Him. And even a rudimentary knowledge of the various characters to whom you attempt to compare Him would convince you that's an inept analogy. But lack of knowledge...that's something you could remedy: you could read about Christ, at the very least...which clearly, you haven't done...

So is your agnosticism a willful one, then? That is, are you insisting on being an agnostic, and on keeping yourself ignorant of who Christ is?

A bunch of sophistry isn't going to convince me, IC. If God is a good being, then God is welcome to come before me and make his presence known if that's what God wants to do. Until, then I'll remain agnostic.

[Atla]

22k+ comments and still no converts. God has raised the other eyebrow too. This is bad, this is really, really bad.

[Harbal]

All "evidence" is something that "suggests" the truth. When a murder has been committed, perhaps there are no witnesses. The disposition of the body is "suggestive" of a murder, not a suicide, perhaps. The blunt instrument on the floor is "suggestive" of being the murder weapon. The DNA traces are "suggestive" of the identity of the murderer -- but never quite conclusive, since he might have been present for other reasons. But taken together, these things may well "suggest" that there is no other possible "reasonable" conclusion than that X murdered Y.

Well what do you see in "existence" that is analogous to the dead body, and what evidence have you identified that shows it didn't die of natural causes?

Head trauma, perhaps. Blood spatter. The presence of a weapon with the deceased's brain matter on it. Being bludgeoned to death looks rather different from "natural causes," doesn't it?

You are continuing with the analogy, but I am asking what phenomena you see in our world to which the only possible, or even most likely, explanation could be God?

But when you come across a state of affairs that current human knowledge does not seem able to explain, you are only allowing for one possible conclusion; God.

Show me where this has ever been the case.

I think you cited the "order" you perceive in the universe as inevitably leading to that conclusion. Did I misunderstand? Were you saying that God was just one possible explanation?

When I said there is no evidence, I just assumed you to know that I meant no evidence that we are aware of.

Who is "we"? Are you suggesting you're able to speak for all mankind? Then you are indeed claiming a level of certitude you simply cannot possibly have. I don't think there's a "we" rationally available in your claim. Just an "I."

Well now we are talking about evidence of evidence. I feel quite sure that had any solid, irrefutable evidence of God's existence come to light, there would have been extensive coverage of it in the main-stream news.

And I have no knowledge of Boston. I have never been there. Others have told me it exists. Some claim to have personal experience with Boston. There are those who say there are pictures and artifacts from Boston, though I have no certain way of knowing if they're telling me the truth. Would I be wise, then, to disbelieve in the existence of Boston? And if I did, would it negate the right of others who did have some experience of Boston to believe in Boston?

What firm evidence of God's existence do you have that is as verifiable as the claim that Boston exists?

Your personal confession of unknowing about God is neither surprising nor compelling, then. Anyone could fully accept your claim that you are "not aware of any evidence of God," and not even question it. Why should they? But that would still count for zero in the question of whether or not God -- or Boston -- exists.

You seem to be implying that someone who believes in God to start with is in a better position to judge what constitutes evidence for his existence.

When you look at the world, you do it from the perspective of someone who already takes it for granted that God exists, so you are not really looking for evidence, you are just looking for confirmation, and you are all too open to seeing it wherever you look. When I look at the world, I have absolutely no reason to consider God as an explanation for anything I might not understand, or have an explanation for. If I am honest, I do have a pre-existing reluctance to see anything as a sign of God, but even so, I think I am a bit more impartial than you are.

[Immanuel Can]

OK. Sure. What "reasoning" tells me there is a God?

Read Romans 1: 18-end. Question answered.

How is that passage above the least bit relevant to reasoning that God exists?

The evidence is not merely out there in nature, around us all, but we also have intuitive knowledge of God, for, as it says "God has made it evident to them." In fact, says Romans, we all have enough knowledge that only a willful effort will prevent us realizing that God exists.

You may not take my word for it, but then, the Bible isn't my word. It's His.

[Immanuel Can]

Well what do you see in "existence" that is analogous to the dead body, and what evidence have you identified that shows it didn't die of natural causes?

Head trauma, perhaps. Blood spatter. The presence of a weapon with the deceased's brain matter on it. Being bludgeoned to death looks rather different from "natural causes," doesn't it?

You are continuing with the analogy, but I am asking what phenomena you see in our world to which the only possible, or even most likely, explanation could be God?

Creation itself, for one. Morality, for another. Revelation, for another. The person of Jesus Christ, for the conclusive evidence.

But when you come across a state of affairs that current human knowledge does not seem able to explain, you are only allowing for one possible conclusion; God.

Romans 1 will cover that question for you.

Show me where this has ever been the case.

I think you cited the "order" you perceive in the universe as inevitably leading to that conclusion. Did I misunderstand? Were you saying that God was just one possible explanation?

My argument was that there is, by far, no more plausible explanation than that God exists. That doesn't mean it's the only "possible explanation," just the only plausible conclusion.

Who is "we"? Are you suggesting you're able to speak for all mankind? Then you are indeed claiming a level of certitude you simply cannot possibly have. I don't think there's a "we" rationally available in your claim. Just an "I."

Well now we are talking about evidence of evidence.

No, we aren't, actually. We're only asking what one Harbal is capable of claiming, rationally speaking.

And I have no knowledge of Boston. I have never been there. Others have told me it exists. Some claim to have personal experience with Boston. There are those who say there are pictures and artifacts from Boston, though I have no certain way of knowing if they're telling me the truth. Would I be wise, then, to disbelieve in the existence of Boston? And if I did, would it negate the right of others who did have some experience of Boston to believe in Boston?

What firm evidence of God's existence do you have that is as verifiable as the claim that Boston exists?

Actually, I have MORE evidence that God exists than that Boston does. As I said, I have no personal experience with Boston...just testimony by others, a few pictures people tell me are Boston, and maybe an artifact that says, "My parents went to Boston, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

Your personal confession of unknowing about God is neither surprising nor compelling, then. Anyone could fully accept your claim that you are "not aware of any evidence of God," and not even question it. Why should they? But that would still count for zero in the question of whether or not God -- or Boston -- exists.

You seem to be implying that someone who believes in God to start with is in a better position to judge what constitutes evidence for his existence.

The opposite. I'm pointinog out that one Harbal's lack of knowledge has no relevance to anybody else's decision about that, and does not constrain the contrary experience of even one person. Heck, it doesn't even stop Harbal himself from discovering something new in the next five minutes. That's fairly obvious, isn't it?

When I look at the world, I have absolutely no reason to consider God as an explanation for anything I might not understand, or have an explanation for.

Romans 1 says you do. And I agree, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

If God is a good being, then God is welcome to come before me and make his presence known if that's what God wants to do. Until, then I'll remain agnostic.

What if he's already done enough, and you are just unwilling to accept His terms? What if you insist on running the relationship your own way...meaing without having to trust Him at all? Do you suppose, then, that the Supreme Being owes you to bend to your will? Or do you think that being defiant is going to win you something?

You really should take Pascal more seriously, perhaps. You're not being very prudent.

[Gary Childress]

Read Romans 1: 18-end. Question answered.

How is that passage above the least bit relevant to reasoning that God exists?

The evidence is not merely out there in nature, around us all, but we also have intuitive knowledge of God, for, as it says "God has made it evident to them." In fact, says Romans, we all have enough knowledge that only a willful effort will prevent us realizing that God exists.

You may not take my word for it, but then, the Bible isn't my word. It's His.

As far as I know, the Bible is no different than many other human mythologies. There's often the threat of punishment if a person doesn't believe in a particular set of religious beliefs. Apparently, being threatened is the best way to gain converts.

[Gary Childress]

If God is a good being, then God is welcome to come before me and make his presence known if that's what God wants to do. Until, then I'll remain agnostic.

What if he's already done enough, and you are just unwilling to accept His terms? What if you insist on running the relationship your own way...meaing without having to trust Him at all? Do you suppose, then, that the Supreme Being owes you to bend to your will? Or do you think that being defiant is going to win you something?

You really should take Pascal more seriously, perhaps. You're not being very prudent.

If there's a God, I don't know why s/he/it would send me to hell just for being agnostic. Seems kind of ridiculous.

[Gary Childress]

IC. I'm sure you're a decent human being. However, if there's a God, then God is welcome to show him or herself to me. I would think such an event would be a welcoming one. I mean, if God came before me in some threatening manner, then I might bow to him out of fear, if that's what he wants. And if God is too busy or too supreme to come before me, then whatever. It's fine. I'm agnostic. I stay out of trouble as much as I can. If I were God, I don't think I would care one way or the other if someone didn't know with certainty that I existed and was agnostic. I'm sure God has better things to do, like bask in his own divine presence.