Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: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.

Ok, good, you had me worried, Paul.

domokunrox wrote: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?

What? The act itself doesn't come in flavors, I'm talking about the judgement as to whether the act is wrong. But yea, here's another definition for you to check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

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.

domokunrox wrote: What logical fallacies have I committed?

I didn't really care for the ad hominems before this but i don't know let's see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

let's start with those shall we?

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

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.

domokunrox wrote: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.

And then you post this mindless drivel which has nothing to do with my point. You can keep up with the insults all day, but it's definitely not helping YOUR credibility one bit

I'm done by the way, as I'm sure your next post will involve you ascending to debate heaven in a chariot of your own ego when you haven't at all made a case for morality being "as strong as they come", let alone a case for morality. Regardless of whether God exists or not, your apologetics seem to be full of holes a freshman in college taking basic philosophy could point out.

Echoside wrote:What? The act itself doesn't come in flavors, I'm talking about the judgement as to whether the act is wrong. But yea, here's another definition for you to check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Heres a definition for you to check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sameness

Echoside wrote:I didn't really care for the ad hominems before this but i don't know let's see

Sure, lets take a look

Echoside wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Wrong, sorry chap. I have never been interested in coming to logical conclusions via ad populum fallacy. I am only interested in finding truth statements, and in order to find them, you must recognize them. The only thing you've done for the past 2 weeks here is stick your fingers in your ears going "la la la, can't hear you" every time I ask you to find truth statements.

Echoside wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Wrong again. Between me and you, its a new discussion. Does objective morality exist? Objective morals require God. Objective morals exist. Therefore God exists. An ironclad argument that only the foolish attempt to refute.

Echoside wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

You're guilty of this one, bud. Not me. You've been chasing your tail the whole time, and still don't want to participate in finding truth statements. The truth statements will come out of your fingers for yourself and everyone else to read, if you decide to participate. So far, you've proven how incompetent you are in these matters.

Is murder, rape, child abuse, theft, etc. morally wrong?

Lets see your response

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.

My reponse

domokunrox wrote: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.

You come back with...

Echoside wrote:And then you post this mindless drivel which has nothing to do with my point.

Oh, the irony of this post. I went ahead and accepted your subjective moral view, made a moral choice a preference like you want me to believe it is, and then I wanted you to prove that my preference is inferior to other preferences and your head just exploded with the fact that murder cannot be subjective. And here you are backpedaling that its mindless, and you never said morals are preference (subjective) (See the definition of sameness).

Echoside wrote:You can keep up with the insults all day, but it's definitely not helping YOUR credibility one bit

I normally don't insult anyone until they clearly have only entered a discussion, spoke their mind, and then refuse to prove their worldview with truth statements. Its the true sign of a coward who has no interest in finding truth in life, but rather the continuation of their voluntary ignorance and for others to do the same.

I doubt my credibility has taken any drop here even on you. I've illustrated perfectly why morals are not subjective by playing the little game you wanted me to play. All you had to do was open up what you thought was going to be a single, tiny statement on your worldview, and I ran with it.

As much as you don't want to believe it, that tin foil hat isn't going to prevent objective morality from existing. But feel free to continue to make a fashion statement, its not lost on anyone the foolishness of your ideas.

Echoside wrote:I'm done by the way, as I'm sure your next post will involve you ascending to debate heaven in a chariot of your own ego when you haven't at all made a case for morality being "as strong as they come", let alone a case for morality. Regardless of whether God exists or not, your apologetics seem to be full of holes a freshman in college taking basic philosophy could point out.

I actually predicted you would be done or you would finally see it. Because once the truth statements start to come around, you do what childish people do. Put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la, can't hear you". You just hate being wrong, and don't want to admit it. Again, its not lost on anyone here how wrong you are. Its not lost on you, either. Perhaps you need someone to threaten your honest way of life, or a family member victimized by a moral atrocity before you finally admit it.

And thats just the sad state of our world. To some, it won't be wrong until you're a victim. Here it is folks. Exhibit A on the problem of suffering.