Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote: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

Sometimes I truly wonder if you actually believe what you write. For the love of anything you hold dear man I urge you to stop making a fool of yourself and think about what you're saying. WHO THE HECK CARES if something is meaningful because you deem it so? What I believe is meaningful to me is not only in direct opposition to what you deem meaningful but also constitutes an imminent threat to you. From my perspective, not yours, am I wrong?

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote: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

Sometimes I truly wonder if you actually believe what you write. For the love of anything you hold dear man I urge you to stop making a fool of yourself and think about what you're saying.

Calm down. You can make your point without getting angry.

Byblos wrote: WHO THE HECK CARES if something is meaningful because you deem it so?

I care, and people who share my opinion care. The fact that you don't care does not mean it has no value/meaning.

Byblos wrote:What I believe is meaningful to me is not only in direct opposition to what you deem meaningful but also constitutes an imminent threat to you. From my perspective, not yours, am I wrong?

The fact that something might be an imminent threat to me has nothing to do with weather it has meaning or not.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote: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

Sometimes I truly wonder if you actually believe what you write. For the love of anything you hold dear man I urge you to stop making a fool of yourself and think about what you're saying.

Calm down. You can make your point without getting angry.

Byblos wrote: WHO THE HECK CARES if something is meaningful because you deem it so?

I care, and people who share my opinion care. The fact that you don't care does not mean it has no value/meaning.

Byblos wrote:What I believe is meaningful to me is not only in direct opposition to what you deem meaningful but also constitutes an imminent threat to you. From my perspective, not yours, am I wrong?

The fact that something might be an imminent threat to me has nothing to do with weather it has meaning or not.

Ken

But I'm not one of the ones that share your opinion. In fact I believe everything you hold meaningful is nothing but filthy rags. Again, kenny, from my perspective and not yours, am I wrong? It's a simple yes or no question. I promise you there ain't no false dichotomy here.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote: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

Sometimes I truly wonder if you actually believe what you write. For the love of anything you hold dear man I urge you to stop making a fool of yourself and think about what you're saying.

Calm down. You can make your point without getting angry.

Byblos wrote: WHO THE HECK CARES if something is meaningful because you deem it so?

I care, and people who share my opinion care. The fact that you don't care does not mean it has no value/meaning.

Byblos wrote:What I believe is meaningful to me is not only in direct opposition to what you deem meaningful but also constitutes an imminent threat to you. From my perspective, not yours, am I wrong?

The fact that something might be an imminent threat to me has nothing to do with weather it has meaning or not.

Ken

But I'm not one of the ones that share your opinion. In fact I believe everything you hold meaningful is nothing but filthy rags. Again, kenny, from my perspective and not yours, am I wrong? It's a simple yes or no question. I promise you there ain't no false dichotomy here.

That gets back to the objective vs subjective morality debate we had before; in my eyes you are wrong, in your eyes you are right. Without an agreed upon standard, It's all subjective.
But this discussing is not about right or wrong, it's about weather something has meaning/value or not. As long as someone values it, it has value.

Ken

RickD wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

Ken wrote:

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

Ken,
There's no reason for me to reinvent the wheel. Jac has written the answer to your false dichotomy in the best, easiest to understand way. I couldn't reword what he wrote to make it any better or easier for you to understand. It makes no sense to put something in my own words, when it's already written correctly.

If you don't want to read it to understand what you're arguing against, I can't make you.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote: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

Sometimes I truly wonder if you actually believe what you write. For the love of anything you hold dear man I urge you to stop making a fool of yourself and think about what you're saying.

Calm down. You can make your point without getting angry.

Byblos wrote: WHO THE HECK CARES if something is meaningful because you deem it so?

I care, and people who share my opinion care. The fact that you don't care does not mean it has no value/meaning.

Byblos wrote:What I believe is meaningful to me is not only in direct opposition to what you deem meaningful but also constitutes an imminent threat to you. From my perspective, not yours, am I wrong?

The fact that something might be an imminent threat to me has nothing to do with weather it has meaning or not.

Ken

But I'm not one of the ones that share your opinion. In fact I believe everything you hold meaningful is nothing but filthy rags. Again, kenny, from my perspective and not yours, am I wrong? It's a simple yes or no question. I promise you there ain't no false dichotomy here.

That gets back to the objective vs subjective morality debate we had before; in my eyes you are wrong, in your eyes you are right. Without an agreed upon standard, It's all subjective.
But this discussing is not about right or wrong, it's about weather something has meaning/value or not. As long as someone values it, it has value.

Ken

They are one and the same subject kenny. What you deem of great value I find detestable. Your opion versus mine, it's nothing more than personal preference, pure unadulterated subjective opinion. To me it makes not a lick of difference what you find valuable or meaningful. In my personal opinion it is abhorrent and must be eliminated because it goes against everything I deem of value. I ask again, from my perspective, am I wrong?

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

Ken wrote:

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

Ken,
There's no reason for me to reinvent the wheel. Jac has written the answer to your false dichotomy in the best, easiest to understand way. I couldn't reword what he wrote to make it any better or easier for you to understand. It makes no sense to put something in my own words, when it's already written correctly.

If you don't want to read it to understand what you're arguing against, I can't make you.

If the best you can do is point to a book; I guess our discussion is over. Good day my friend.

Ken

Byblos wrote:[They are one and the same subject kenny. What you deem of great value I find detestable. Your opion versus mine, it's nothing more than personal preference, pure unadulterated subjective opinion. To me it makes not a lick of difference what you find valuable or meaningful. In my personal opinion it is abhorrent and must be eliminated because it goes against everything I deem of value. I ask again, from my perspective, am I wrong?

I repeat; from your perspective you are right.

K

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

Ken wrote:

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

Ken,
There's no reason for me to reinvent the wheel. Jac has written the answer to your false dichotomy in the best, easiest to understand way. I couldn't reword what he wrote to make it any better or easier for you to understand. It makes no sense to put something in my own words, when it's already written correctly.

If you don't want to read it to understand what you're arguing against, I can't make you.

If the best you can do is point to a book; I guess our discussion is over. Good day my friend.

Ken

The best I or anyone else here can do is point you to the answers Kenny. You can continue to turn a blind eye to the truth if you choose. Again, the answer was shown to you. Choose to learn something, or don't. You're the one who has to face your maker and give account for your choices.
Just to let you know, from experience here with other people who have refused to engage in honest discussion like you're doing, you are alienating people who care about you, and have the means to lead you on the right path.
I'm going to ask you as nicely as I can. If you won't engage in discussions by seeing differing points of view, please stop wasting our time, and go away until you can have an honest conversation.

Nobody has time to waste with someone who won't care enough to listen to our pov. It's just plain disrespectful.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

Ken wrote:

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

Ken,
There's no reason for me to reinvent the wheel. Jac has written the answer to your false dichotomy in the best, easiest to understand way. I couldn't reword what he wrote to make it any better or easier for you to understand. It makes no sense to put something in my own words, when it's already written correctly.

If you don't want to read it to understand what you're arguing against, I can't make you.

If the best you can do is point to a book; I guess our discussion is over. Good day my friend.

Ken

The best I or anyone else here can do is point you to the answers Kenny. You can continue to turn a blind eye to the truth if you choose. Again, the answer was shown to you. Choose to learn something, or don't. You're the one who has to face your maker and give account for your choices.
Just to let you know, from experience here with other people who have refused to engage in honest discussion like you're doing, you are alienating people who care about you, and have the means to lead you on the right path.
I'm going to ask you as nicely as I can. If you won't engage in discussions by seeing differing points of view, please stop wasting our time, and go away until you can have an honest conversation.

Nobody has time to waste with someone who won't care enough to listen to our pov. It's just plain disrespectful.

It’s not a matter of disrespect, it’s a matter of trying to keep the peace. The book makes perfect sense to you because you agree with his (the author) views; I don’t. If I were to go through the book and tear it apart page by page pointing out flaws in his reasoning, he would see it as a personal attack and another fight would ensue. If you were to express the points made in the book you feel are pertinent to this discussion I could respond to your words without the appearance of starting a fight with somebody who really isn't even a part of this discussion. Again; the reason I refuse to go though the book and respond to what I disagree with, is because I am trying to keep the peace.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
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 wrote:
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.

Ken wrote:

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

Ken,
There's no reason for me to reinvent the wheel. Jac has written the answer to your false dichotomy in the best, easiest to understand way. I couldn't reword what he wrote to make it any better or easier for you to understand. It makes no sense to put something in my own words, when it's already written correctly.

If you don't want to read it to understand what you're arguing against, I can't make you.

If the best you can do is point to a book; I guess our discussion is over. Good day my friend.

Ken

The best I or anyone else here can do is point you to the answers Kenny. You can continue to turn a blind eye to the truth if you choose. Again, the answer was shown to you. Choose to learn something, or don't. You're the one who has to face your maker and give account for your choices.
Just to let you know, from experience here with other people who have refused to engage in honest discussion like you're doing, you are alienating people who care about you, and have the means to lead you on the right path.
I'm going to ask you as nicely as I can. If you won't engage in discussions by seeing differing points of view, please stop wasting our time, and go away until you can have an honest conversation.

Nobody has time to waste with someone who won't care enough to listen to our pov. It's just plain disrespectful.

It’s not a matter of disrespect, it’s a matter of trying to keep the peace. The book makes perfect sense to you because you agree with his (the author) views; I don’t. If I were to go through the book and tear it apart page by page pointing out flaws in his reasoning, he would see it as a personal attack and another fight would ensue. If you were to express the points made in the book you feel are pertinent to this discussion I could respond to your words without the appearance of starting a fight with somebody who really isn't even a part of this discussion. Again; the reason I refuse to go though the book and respond to what I disagree with, is because I am trying to keep the peace.

Ken

Keep the peace? Sorry Kenny, that's a load of crap. Jac wrote the book. And he already has you on ignore, so it makes no difference.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with what he wrote. I want you to read that section because I want you to understand our argument. You need to take the step of seeing what we're actually saying in our argument. We are not asking you to agree with us. But, if you disagree, you need a logical reason why you disagree. And refusing to read it, and "keeping the peace" aren't good enough reasons. They're copouts.

Look, if you don't want to have a reasonable conversation, which includes making an effort to understand other peoples' points of views, fine. But please go away until you are able to give us the common courtesy and respect that any discussion deserves. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

RickD wrote: Keep the peace? Sorry Kenny, that's a load of crap. Jac wrote the book. And he already has you on ignore, so it makes no difference.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with what he wrote. I want you to read that section because I want you to understand our argument.

I already understand he argument from the book! Nicki explained it back on page 14 or 15 already; haven't you been keeping up?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Keep the peace? Sorry Kenny, that's a load of crap. Jac wrote the book. And he already has you on ignore, so it makes no difference.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with what he wrote. I want you to read that section because I want you to understand our argument.

I already understand he argument from the book! Nicki explained it back on page 14 or 15 already; haven't you been keeping up?

Ken

No Kenny, you don't understand what Jac wrote. Otherwise you wouldn't have said this:

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.

Ken wrote:
Sounds like answer #1. Thanks for answering my question.

Ken

You want to try again?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Keep the peace? Sorry Kenny, that's a load of crap. Jac wrote the book. And he already has you on ignore, so it makes no difference.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with what he wrote. I want you to read that section because I want you to understand our argument.

I already understand he argument from the book! Nicki explained it back on page 14 or 15 already; haven't you been keeping up?

Ken

No Kenny, you don't understand what Jac wrote. Otherwise you wouldn't have said this:

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.

Ken wrote:
Sounds like answer #1. Thanks for answering my question.

Ken

You want to try again?

I also said this:
Nicki answer was "X" is right because "X" is an expression of God's nature.
Do you agree this is the answer the book provides?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Keep the peace? Sorry Kenny, that's a load of crap. Jac wrote the book. And he already has you on ignore, so it makes no difference.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with what he wrote. I want you to read that section because I want you to understand our argument.

I already understand he argument from the book! Nicki explained it back on page 14 or 15 already; haven't you been keeping up?

Ken

No Kenny, you don't understand what Jac wrote. Otherwise you wouldn't have said this:

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.

Ken wrote:
Sounds like answer #1. Thanks for answering my question.

Ken

You want to try again?

I also said this:
Nicki answer was "X" is right because "X" is an expression of God's nature.
Do you agree this is the answer the book provides?

Ken

Actually Kenny,

You wrote:

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

It's not "basically" the same as #1. It's a completely different answer. #1 says morality is determined by God's decrees. Which would mean that if God decided to decree that murder is not wrong from now on, then morality is based on nothing more than God's arbitrary declaration. And there really would be no such thing as a moral law.

Whereas the third option is based on God's unchanging nature. And since God decrees according to His nature, or who He is. So, murder is wrong because murder is contrary to God's nature. And since God's nature is unchanging, morality is unchanging and objective.
Some of what I said, was just repeating what Jac said in his book. He says it much better than I can, so again, I ask you to read pg 93-97 of his book.

And yes, I agree with what Jac says about this in his book. Neither of the other 2 answers is logical.