Evidence for God from Science

Kenny,

Read that section of Jac's book, to understand what error you made.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

kenny wrote: If we assume "X" to be right, is "X" right because God says it is right or is it right regardless of what God says but because God is perfect he will agree it to be right as well. Which of those statements do you agree with?

The dilemma you set up is as false as Euthyphro's and you know it. At least you ought to from the myriad discussions we had on the subject in the past. Did you really forget or are you just playing your usual games?

I don't remember discussing this question with you in the past. It is a question; not a dilemma. Perhaps you can explain why the question is false.

Ken

Kenny it is a dilemma because the way it is phrased it sets up a false dichotomy. First look up Euthyphro's Dilemma, then look up why it is a false dilemma (just as yours is), then come back and we'll discuss it.

There is no false dilemma, You made the claim that "right and wrong is meaningless without God", so I asked you

If we assume "X" to be right, is "X" right because
(1) God says it is right, or….
(2) It is right regardless of what God says but because God is perfect he will agree it to be right as well.

Now if you wish to hold to your original claim that right and wrong is meaningless without God, you must choose (1). The problem with choosing (1) is it exposes the flaws of your claim; so you call it a false dilemma to get out of answering the question

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:I was clear,

You say you value life - so do you value life of ISIS members, Child molesters, the same as you own?

I believe all human lives are equal, regardless of behavior; good or bad.

Why do you not value the life and faith of Christians?

Ken, reality is, you do not value life.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Look at the links provided and let us know.

I refuse to look at any link preceded with a "graphic photo" warning

You do not value objective truth.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Next, what good is doing any right if then at the end of your rope there is only nothing?

My dad used to say; Integrity is the DESIRE to do the right thing; even when nobody's looking. For a person with no integrity your question makes perfect sense. But for myself, I don't need to be bribed,, I don't need a reward, and I don't need anyone looking over my shoulder to do the right thing.

Ken

You have refused to do the right thing and honestly look into a matter objectively. Your refusal to look at the links proves that, you live according to a form of self deception.

Lastly:

You did mention that you do more right than wrong. So I ask:

What is the long term effect of daily eating small amounts of strychnine in other wise healthy food on the human body?

One small Listeria bacterium spoils the best cut of steak.

Alll the right you do is ruined by the bad you do.

Your response shows you do not understand Christianity at all. No one bribes us, or forces us against our will, and we do not go around in fear looking over the shoulder in fear that if we don't do right, we'll get hit with a bolt of lightening and made toast. However, Islam, Hinduism, Pantheism, Buddhist (Taoist - etc), Paganism all teach this is some form or another. Christianity does not teach this. Therefore you assumptions on true Christianity is error but however, for a person who does not value integrity, then why am I not surprised?

Have a nice day
-
-
-

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

kenny wrote: If we assume "X" to be right, is "X" right because God says it is right or is it right regardless of what God says but because God is perfect he will agree it to be right as well. Which of those statements do you agree with?

The dilemma you set up is as false as Euthyphro's and you know it. At least you ought to from the myriad discussions we had on the subject in the past. Did you really forget or are you just playing your usual games?

I don't remember discussing this question with you in the past. It is a question; not a dilemma. Perhaps you can explain why the question is false.

Ken

Kenny it is a dilemma because the way it is phrased it sets up a false dichotomy. First look up Euthyphro's Dilemma, then look up why it is a false dilemma (just as yours is), then come back and we'll discuss it.

There is no false dilemma, You made the claim that "right and wrong is meaningless without God", so I asked you

If we assume "X" to be right, is "X" right because
(1) God says it is right, or….
(2) It is right regardless of what God says but because God is perfect he will agree it to be right as well.

Now if you wish to hold to your original claim that right and wrong is meaningless without God, you must choose (1). The problem with choosing (1) is it exposes the flaws of your claim; so you call it a false dilemma to get out of answering the question

Ken

Jac's book answered this quite nicely, I thought - in essence, that God is goodness, or good is what God is, and when he says what is right that's his expression of his nature. Hope my summary's all right, Jac.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

kenny wrote: If we assume "X" to be right, is "X" right because God says it is right or is it right regardless of what God says but because God is perfect he will agree it to be right as well. Which of those statements do you agree with?

The dilemma you set up is as false as Euthyphro's and you know it. At least you ought to from the myriad discussions we had on the subject in the past. Did you really forget or are you just playing your usual games?

I don't remember discussing this question with you in the past. It is a question; not a dilemma. Perhaps you can explain why the question is false.

Ken

Kenny it is a dilemma because the way it is phrased it sets up a false dichotomy. First look up Euthyphro's Dilemma, then look up why it is a false dilemma (just as yours is), then come back and we'll discuss it.

There is no false dilemma, You made the claim that "right and wrong is meaningless without God", so I asked you

If we assume "X" to be right, is "X" right because
(1) God says it is right, or….
(2) It is right regardless of what God says but because God is perfect he will agree it to be right as well.

Now if you wish to hold to your original claim that right and wrong is meaningless without God, you must choose (1). The problem with choosing (1) is it exposes the flaws of your claim; so you call it a false dilemma to get out of answering the question

Ken

Kenny,
You're being ridiculous. Read this, and the pages from Jac's book that he linked above.
We don't have to choose #1, because it's a false dilemma. There's a third choice. But if you were interested in an honest dialogue, then you would make the effort by reading the links to see why.
Again, Jac's book explains why we don't need to choose #1. And why we shouldn't choose #1.

Kenny,
Anyone who wishes to have an honest discussion, at least has to make an effort to understand to opposing person's pov. You refuse to do that. Why?

Nicki wrote:


Jac's book answered this quite nicely, I thought - in essence, that God is goodness, or good is what God is, and when he says what is right that's his expression of his nature. Hope my summary's all right, Jac.

Nicki,

I think you got it. That's why we can't choose #1. We choose #3.

Kenny forcing us to choose either #1 or #2, is a false dilemma. Just like this question is a false dilemma:

Did you stop beating your wife?

1) yes

2) no

If I choose either 1 or 2, it shows that I've beaten my wife at some point. The question like the one Kenny is asking, creates a false dilemma by making us choose between 2 wrong answers, when the 3rd correct answer isn't given as a choice.

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:I was clear,

You say you value life - so do you value life of ISIS members, Child molesters, the same as you own?

I believe all human lives are equal, regardless of behavior; good or bad.

Why do you not value the life and faith of Christians?

Ken, reality is, you do not value life.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Look at the links provided and let us know.

I refuse to look at any link preceded with a "graphic photo" warning

You do not value objective truth.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Next, what good is doing any right if then at the end of your rope there is only nothing?

My dad used to say; Integrity is the DESIRE to do the right thing; even when nobody's looking. For a person with no integrity your question makes perfect sense. But for myself, I don't need to be bribed,, I don't need a reward, and I don't need anyone looking over my shoulder to do the right thing.

Ken

You have refused to do the right thing and honestly look into a matter objectively. Your refusal to look at the links proves that, you live according to a form of self deception.

Lastly:

You did mention that you do more right than wrong. So I ask:

What is the long term effect of daily eating small amounts of strychnine in other wise healthy food on the human body?

One small Listeria bacterium spoils the best cut of steak.

No, all right you do is ruined by the bad you do.

Your response shows you do not understand Christianity at all. No one bribes us, or forces us against our will, and we do not go around in fear looking over the shoulder in fear that if we don't do right, we'll get hit with a bolt of lightening and made toast. However, Islam, Hinduism, Pantheism, Buddhist (Taoist - etc), Paganism all teach this is some form or another. Christianity does not teach this. Therefore you assumptions on true Christianity is error but however, for a person who does not value integrity, then why am I not surprised?

Have a nice day
-
-
-

BW
Why do you not value the life and faith of Christians?

Ken
Oh so I don’t value Christian life now? While we are on the subject of “loaded questions”, when are you going to quit beating your wife?
As far as faith, I think I’ve explained to you before why I don’t value faith. In case you don’t remember; because there is no way of establishing the truth.


BW
Ken, reality is, you do not value life.

Ken
The reality is; you need to quit beating your wife


BW
Ken You do not value objective truth.

Ken
I think the type of truth you are referring to is subjective; not objective; but for the record I value both objective and subjective truth.


BW
You have refused to do the right thing and honestly look into a matter objectively. Your refusal to look at the links proves that, you live according to a form of self deception.

Ken
I refused to look at the links because I don’t have the stomach to look at grotesque photos. I don’t need to look at evil actions to know it exists.


BW
Lastly:

You did mention that you do more right than wrong. So I ask:

What is the long term effect of daily eating small amounts of strychnine in other wise healthy food on the human body?

One small Listeria bacterium spoils the best cut of steak.

No, all right you do is ruined by the bad you do.

Ken
Strychnine is more powerful than healthy food. Listeria bacterium is more powerful than the best cut of steak. Are you suggesting evil is more powerful than good? Doesn’t your bible say you are supposed to overpower evil with good? How is that supposed to happen if you insist on giving evil more power than you give good?

Ken

Nicki wrote:Jac's book answered this quite nicely, I thought - in essence, that God is goodness, or good is what God is, and when he says what is right that's his expression of his nature. Hope my summary's all right, Jac.

Sounds like answer #1. Thanks for answering my question.

Ken

RickD wrote: Kenny,
You're being ridiculous. Read this, and the pages from Jac's book that he linked above.
We don't have to choose #1, because it's a false dilemma. There's a third choice. But if you were interested in an honest dialogue, then you would make the effort by reading the links to see why.
Again, Jac's book explains why we don't need to choose #1. And why we shouldn't choose #1.

Kenny,
Anyone who wishes to have an honest discussion, at least has to make an effort to understand to opposing person's pov. You refuse to do that. Why?

I am not here to find flaws or critique anybody's book. If you believe the answer is in a book, read the book and share the answer with me.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:Jac's book answered this quite nicely, I thought - in essence, that God is goodness, or good is what God is, and when he says what is right that's his expression of his nature. Hope my summary's all right, Jac.

Sounds like answer #1. Thanks for answering my question.

Ken

And as usual Kenny,

You don't understand the argument. If you read Jac's book(at least the section regarding this) it's clear as day, that what Nicki said IS NOT the same as #1.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Kenny,
You're being ridiculous. Read this, and the pages from Jac's book that he linked above.
We don't have to choose #1, because it's a false dilemma. There's a third choice. But if you were interested in an honest dialogue, then you would make the effort by reading the links to see why.
Again, Jac's book explains why we don't need to choose #1. And why we shouldn't choose #1.

Kenny,
Anyone who wishes to have an honest discussion, at least has to make an effort to understand to opposing person's pov. You refuse to do that. Why?

I am not here to find flaws or critique anybody's book. If you believe the answer is in a book, read the book and share the answer with me.

Ken

I'm not doing your homework for you Kenny(please forgive me for sounding like Jac ). Again, if you don't make an effort to understand what you're arguing against, it just shows your laziness, intellectual dishonesty, or both.
Ken,
Understanding the argument is one thing, but not even making an effort to understand is just not acceptable.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:Jac's book answered this quite nicely, I thought - in essence, that God is goodness, or good is what God is, and when he says what is right that's his expression of his nature. Hope my summary's all right, Jac.

Sounds like answer #1. Thanks for answering my question.

Ken

And as usual Kenny,

You don't understand the argument. If you read Jac's book(at least the section regarding this) it's clear as day, that what Nicki said IS NOT the same as #1.

Nicki answer was "X" is right because "X" is an expression of God's nature. Though worded differently, that is basically the same as #1.

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Kenny,
You're being ridiculous. Read this, and the pages from Jac's book that he linked above.
We don't have to choose #1, because it's a false dilemma. There's a third choice. But if you were interested in an honest dialogue, then you would make the effort by reading the links to see why.
Again, Jac's book explains why we don't need to choose #1. And why we shouldn't choose #1.

Kenny,
Anyone who wishes to have an honest discussion, at least has to make an effort to understand to opposing person's pov. You refuse to do that. Why?

I am not here to find flaws or critique anybody's book. If you believe the answer is in a book, read the book and share the answer with me.

Ken

I'm not doing your homework for you Kenny(please forgive me for sounding like Jac ). Again, if you don't make an effort to understand what you're arguing against, it just shows your laziness, intellectual dishonesty, or both.

So I ask you a question, and you point to a book for me to read; and you call ME the lazy one?

RickD wrote:Ken,
Understanding the argument is one thing, but not even making an effort to understand is just not acceptable.

I am putting forth an effort to understand what YOU say. If you have an opinion, say it! Don't point to a book and ask me to read it, use your voice; use your own words.

Ken

Nicki wrote:Jac's book answered this quite nicely, I thought - in essence, that God is goodness, or good is what God is, and when he says what is right that's his expression of his nature. Hope my summary's all right, Jac.

That's a fine summary, Nicki.

For the record, I didn't post the link for Kenny. I quit talking to him a long time ago as he is no more interested or capable in honest dialogue than an earthworm (he made my permignore list some time ago). Sorry if that sounds harsh (I hear the howls of complains about bullying and personal attacks now), but if the shoe/description fits. If you prefer something more biblical, go take a look at Prov 26:4. Anyway, I posted it for you all. The fact that Kenny is too blind to see that what you all have said is not the same thing as #1 is willful on his part. It's widely accepted, even by atheist philosophers, that there is a clear and real distinction. If you, Nicki, or anyone else who is interested and capable in a real discussion of these matters and not in boring and ignorant preaching, I would highly recommend to you a paper titled “Dawkins’s Gabmit, Hume’s Aroma, and God’s Simplicity,” which was published in Philosophia Christi 11 (2009): 113-27. You can read it in full here. It goes into significant detail the issues I mention briefly in that section of the book. The real point I would make in that reference is that clear thinking atheists aren't so naive as to promote the stupid dilemma our friend is raising here. Rather, they focus on the much more robust objections relating to divine simplicity and claim, with Hume, that if God is not simple (as the majority of evangelicals agree (that He is not simple)), then the principle of parsimony allows us to simply do away with God entirely. For if a complex entity is allowed to exist necessarily and essentially for reasons unknown to us, then the universe itself (including whatever it is that constitutes morality) could fit the bill just sa well as any so-called God. But, again, that's the argument of the clear thinking and sophisticated unbeliever. I would far rather you be aware with and interact with that level of real discussion than with the silliness going on here. (Though by all means, continue with this discussion insofar as it helps you and others--we can learn a lot even from silliness!)

As an aside, I would further encourage you not to read it and try to suggest Kenny do so. He has a long history of intellectual laziness in that he won't do the requisite work to have meaningful conversation. Again, I am very seriously offering these resources for you and others who are interested in educating themselves.

Anyway…..getting back to the point (before going off track) the reason God is not necessary for right, or good to have meaning, is because the person judging an action as good or right will determine it as meaningful weather God was a contributing factor in their determination or not, and each person decides what is meaningful or has value to them. IOW; it is foolish to say something has no value/meaning at all when it clearly has value/meaning to me.

Ken