Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not trying to convince you Danny.
Like I said earlier, this will be a case of "agreeing to disagree".
You asked and I replied.
Like I also said:
I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.
I respect those views, even if I don't agree with them 100%.

Cool, Brother

RickD wrote:

I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.

Paul, I have no problem with taking the bible as inerrant, and literal. I do have a problem with taking the bible in a rigid, concrete way. For example, YECs take the bible in an extremely concrete way when it comes to their interpretation of the text to back up their view. Being too concrete, doesn't leave any room to be open to possible errors in one's interpretation of biblical things. Especially non-essential things. Not to mention that it's a horrible witness to unbelievers, when a Christian is so rigid, as to put his interpretation, as being equal to the text itself.

Yes, I agree, that is MY view.
But if someone choose to have the view that it IS "concrete" then so be it.

I view the bible as infalliable, I see in it the progressive revelation of God to the Hebrew people and beyond.
There are so many lessons that even for today, we can take to heart.
So why do I NOW view it as inerrant?
Honestly, because inerrant means without ERROR, it means quite simply perfection.
NOTHING that is man-made can be viewed as inerrant and the bible is man-made ( no matter how inspired it was still written and copied by Man).

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.

Paul, I have no problem with taking the bible as inerrant, and literal. I do have a problem with taking the bible in a rigid, concrete way. For example, YECs take the bible in an extremely concrete way when it comes to their interpretation of the text to back up their view. Being too concrete, doesn't leave any room to be open to possible errors in one's interpretation of biblical things. Especially non-essential things. Not to mention that it's a horrible witness to unbelievers, when a Christian is so rigid, as to put his interpretation, as being equal to the text itself.

Yes, I agree, that is MY view.
But if someone choose to have the view that it IS "concrete" then so be it.

I view the bible as infalliable, I see in it the progressive revelation of God to the Hebrew people and beyond.
There are so many lessons that even for today, we can take to heart.
So why do I NOW view it as inerrant?
Honestly, because inerrant means without ERROR, it means quite simply perfection.
NOTHING that is man-made can be viewed as inerrant and the bible is man-made ( no matter how inspired it was still written and copied by Man).

Would you possibly concede that the original texts of the bible were inerrant?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.

Paul, I have no problem with taking the bible as inerrant, and literal. I do have a problem with taking the bible in a rigid, concrete way. For example, YECs take the bible in an extremely concrete way when it comes to their interpretation of the text to back up their view. Being too concrete, doesn't leave any room to be open to possible errors in one's interpretation of biblical things. Especially non-essential things. Not to mention that it's a horrible witness to unbelievers, when a Christian is so rigid, as to put his interpretation, as being equal to the text itself.

Yes, I agree, that is MY view.
But if someone choose to have the view that it IS "concrete" then so be it.

I view the bible as infalliable, I see in it the progressive revelation of God to the Hebrew people and beyond.
There are so many lessons that even for today, we can take to heart.
So why do I NOW view it as inerrant?
Honestly, because inerrant means without ERROR, it means quite simply perfection.
NOTHING that is man-made can be viewed as inerrant and the bible is man-made ( no matter how inspired it was still written and copied by Man).

Would you possibly concede that the original texts of the bible were inerrant?

I can even concede that the text we have now MAY be inerrant.
I am searching for the truth, as we all are, and I am very open to saying, " I was wrong".
But to your question, YES.
And I add that, what we have now is "error free" in regards to the core of what God wanted us to understand about Him.
I don't think any of the issues that anyone has with the bible are enough to make the bible an "obstacle" to God, I believe they ALL can be resolved with some understanding of the bible.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.

Paul, I have no problem with taking the bible as inerrant, and literal. I do have a problem with taking the bible in a rigid, concrete way. For example, YECs take the bible in an extremely concrete way when it comes to their interpretation of the text to back up their view. Being too concrete, doesn't leave any room to be open to possible errors in one's interpretation of biblical things. Especially non-essential things. Not to mention that it's a horrible witness to unbelievers, when a Christian is so rigid, as to put his interpretation, as being equal to the text itself.

Yes, I agree, that is MY view.
But if someone choose to have the view that it IS "concrete" then so be it.

I view the bible as infalliable, I see in it the progressive revelation of God to the Hebrew people and beyond.
There are so many lessons that even for today, we can take to heart.
So why do I NOW view it as inerrant?
Honestly, because inerrant means without ERROR, it means quite simply perfection.
NOTHING that is man-made can be viewed as inerrant and the bible is man-made ( no matter how inspired it was still written and copied by Man).

Would you possibly concede that the original texts of the bible were inerrant?

I can even concede that the text we have now MAY be inerrant.
I am searching for the truth, as we all are, and I am very open to saying, " I was wrong".
But to your question, YES.
And I add that, what we have now is "error free" in regards to the core of what God wanted us to understand about Him.
I don't think any of the issues that anyone has with the bible are enough to make the bible an "obstacle" to God, I believe they ALL can be resolved with some understanding of the bible.

I agree.

domokunrox wrote:Oh, echoside. I got you exactly where I want you.

Really? Well let's see where that goes

domokunrox wrote:Moral experience reveals that objective values and duties do exist. My senses are not infallible, and it does not lead me to think that there is no external world around me. In the absence of some reason to distrust my moral experience, I should accept what it tells me, which includes that some things are good or evil, right or wrong.

Ah so your own PERSONAL, possibly SUBJECTIVE feelings on the subject are proof. What if my moral experience is different?

domokunrox wrote:Actions like rape, torture, theft, child abuse, and so forth are not just socially unacceptable behavior. They are moral abominations.

Quite the assertion, but I haven't seen anything "as concrete as they come" in your argument.

domokunrox wrote:You and other people who fail to see this are just handicapped. The moral equivalent of someone who is physically blind, and there is no reason I will let your impairment call into question what we see clearly.

Insult the opposition as morally inferior, well played

domokunrox wrote:As I have pointed out, the position that objective moral values and duties do not exists leads to sociocultural relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

domokunrox wrote: If you do not believe it is bankrupt, then you must prove it is not. I cannot do that for you.

Simple as that.

Can you give me any reasons why is it bankrupt? I'm not opposed to the idea of objective morality, I'm just not going to jump on the bandwagon and concede it for no reason. In fact, can you tell me why objectivity in something like morals is so likely?

Echoside, you already sunk your own battleship last week.

Without God, naturalism is true, morality is illusionary. Do you assert this? Cause I don't. You're going to need to actually assert that morals exist in some sort of fashion, and how people come to that.

You think its a stretch that rape, theft, child abuse, etc are moral abominations?
That begs the question, sir. Since you don't agree, and morals are not an illusion, what are moral abominations according to your moral experience, sir? That I would like to know. Go ahead sir, let's see if there is a shred of moral fiber in your being.

You sound insulted that you are morally inferior and bankrupt. We're not here to appeal to emotion. We're discussing morals to establish truth and facts about it. Its long overdue that you begin to discuss what you what think is truth and facts if they are not illusions.
Here is your chance to prove it is not.

What is morally bad, and how did you come to those beliefs? What is the truth behind those beliefs? What is the justification for holding those beliefs?

What a revelation! Here we are, and you are about to realize what is morally wrong. How exciting is this?

Not that I have a vested interest in this debate but I just wanted to remind you guys that what WE may call rape, theft, murder and child abuse are perfectly "acceptable" in some societies ( as long as they are done to others of course).
Raping and pillaging was always accetable in war time and in some cultures, still is.
What WE may view as child abuse ( sexual relations with a child for example) is accetable in some societies and we all know that murder is highly subjective.

Paul,

I should inform you need to read up and catch up with our discussion before you get involved with it. You are giving him more ammo to do another run around of what I already refuted.

We are already in the process that truths needs to be established here in regards to morality.

Some people believe X, therefore X is true is a fallacy. If it was not, Hitler and Stalin were perfectly within their right as world leaders for their policies.

domokunrox wrote:Paul,

I should inform you need to read up and catch up with our discussion before you get involved with it. You are giving him more ammo to do another run around of what I already refuted.

We are already in the process that truths needs to be established here in regards to morality.

Some people believe X, therefore X is true is a fallacy. If it was not, Hitler and Stalin were perfectly within their right as world leaders for their policies.

Subjective morals has been refuted?
Well then what is the discussion? LOL !

domokunrox wrote: Without God, naturalism is true, morality is illusionary. Do you assert this? Cause I don't. You're going to need to actually assert that morals exist in some sort of fashion, and how people come to that.

I agree that without a god, naturalism is true. To say without God naturalism is true assumes a god would have an interest in objective morals. You haven't given me a reason why objective morals are inherently more logical than subjective, yet things like ice cream preference for example would be left untouched.

domokunrox wrote: You think its a stretch that rape, theft, child abuse, etc are moral abominations?
That begs the question, sir. Since you don't agree, and morals are not an illusion, what are moral abominations according to your moral experience, sir? That I would like to know. Go ahead sir, let's see if there is a shred of moral fiber in your being.

Would you mind asking a question without asserting "morals are not an illusion" as that's exactly what you are trying to prove? I think you may need to brush up on your logical fallacies, lest you look like a hypocrite.

domokunrox wrote: You sound insulted that you are morally inferior and bankrupt. We're not here to appeal to emotion. We're discussing morals to establish truth and facts about it. Its long overdue that you begin to discuss what you what think is truth and facts if they are not illusions.
Here is your chance to prove it is not.

not insulted, bored at debate tactics that have so far answered none of my questions.

domokunrox wrote: What is morally bad, and how did you come to those beliefs? What is the truth behind those beliefs? What is the justification for holding those beliefs?

What a revelation! Here we are, and you are about to realize what is morally wrong. How exciting is this?

You've given me no reason thus far in this thread to lead me to believe any of the answers to those questions is anything more than preference.

Wow, I have 2 people here who seem to not know that objective morals exist. The only things you guys are stating is that morals can be and have been subject to preference. NO KIDDING?!!?! You mean that people can freely do something despite how obviously wrong it is, and try to justify it with a fallacy? NO WAY!!

Echoside wrote:I agree that without a god, naturalism is true. To say without God naturalism is true assumes a god would have an interest in objective morals. You haven't given me a reason why objective morals are inherently more logical than subjective, yet things like ice cream preference for example would be left untouched.

You're not understanding why I am spearheading that angle with you. If there is no objective morals, then moral truths DO NOT EXIST. Hence, they are an illusion. Do you really think that the moral truth of something like Murder or Rape comes in flavors? Vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, Rainbow Sherbet, etc? Thats absurd. Do you see it? Nobody should be this dense. You have the ability to identify moral abominations by moral experience because you do eventually come to a resolution of a conflict either by observation, instruction, or kinesthetics.

Echoside wrote:Would you mind asking a question without asserting "morals are not an illusion" as that's exactly what you are trying to prove? I think you may need to brush up on your logical fallacies, lest you look like a hypocrite.

I am giving you a chance to recognize it on your own. How old are you? If you're here, and your age is a 1 digit number I'll give you a free pass since your morals are not fully developed. However, I seriously doubt that you are. What logical fallacies have I committed? Ad Hominem's will happen when you have someone so dense that they refuse to identify and look for truth statements. Especially when they go in circles, closed minded, and refuse to engage any further than "It doesn't exist, prove it". YOU NEED TO ENGAGE the conversation, so that it can be PROVEN.

Echoside wrote:not insulted, bored at debate tactics that have so far answered none of my questions.

Your questions will be answered by you. If you really are the smartest 2 year old on the planet or the most sheltered 40 year old on the face of the earth, then I have no choice but to make all the statements needed, as well as teach 120 hour lecture on introduction to social sciences. Again, I doubt it and don't be insulted. If you going to pull the "Appeal to emotion" card, then I'll freely choose the most polite Ad hominem's I can find to mock your ideas. If you act silly, you will look silly. Appeal to emotion in the method you are using it is PURPOSELY and UNNECESSARILY moving the goal posts to avoid finding truth statements that destroy your worldview.

Echoside wrote:You've given me no reason thus far in this thread to lead me to believe any of the answers to those questions is anything more than preference.

When I murder, I prefer rocky road. Its way better then chocolate and coffee flavor.

^^^^^^^^^

I challenge you echoside, I want you to prove that chocolate or coffee flavored murder is better then rocky road.

Here is your chance, Echoside. Hopefully a lightbulb popped up, and you found that objective morals exist. Please do not make me explain it. I would like you to maintain at least some credibility.

Wow, I have 2 people here who seem to not know that objective morals exist

As a christian I believe in an absolute moral ( God), that here is an absolute right and wrong.
If there is no absolute moral, then ALL morals are subjective.
If all morals are subjective then right and wrong is subjective.

Subjective Morality: some thoughts

The naturalist secularist and naturalist secularist atheists deem it is morally right to rid the world of Christianity, disprove it, and take it away from all humanity, to free humankind from illusions. That is the highest most-noblest moral goal to achieve at all cost.

However, their brand of secularism subjective morals allegedly based on loving others as one would their self, tolerance, doing unto others as they do unto you. See this Link: Yet, they do things like this all over the western world

Would naturalist secularist feel the same way if someone took them to court, sued them, constantly stripped their human rights away? Interrupted them as they speak in universities, workplace, schools, call them names like ignorant, stupid, weak minded? In some cases, threaten their very lives?

So much for the naturalist secularist and naturalist secularist atheist’s brand of subjective morality…
-
-
-

Even ancient egyptians had a objective moral code

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat#42_Ne ... _of_Ani.29

42 confessions in the book of the dead

I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men and women.
I have not stolen grain.
I have not purloined offerings.
I have not stolen the property of the god.
I have not uttered lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not uttered curses.
I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.
I have made none to weep.
I have not eaten the heart [i.e I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse].
I have not attacked any man.
I am not a man of deceit.
I have not stolen cultivated land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have slandered [no man].
I have not been angry without just cause.
I have not debauched the wife of any man.
I have not debauched the wife of [any] man. (repeats the previous affirmation but addressed to a different god)
I have not polluted myself.
I have terrorised none.
I have not transgressed [the Law].
I have not been wroth.
I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.
I have not blasphemed.
I am not a man of violence.
I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace).
I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste.
I have not pried into matters.
I have not multiplied my words in speaking.
I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King).
I have never stopped [the flow of] water.
I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger).
I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God.
I have not acted with evil rage
I have not stolen the bread of the gods.
I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the Spirits of the dead.
I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.
I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.