Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:

Human creation and concept, not true or false. Very useful though.

Are you saying that you could take one of something, add it to one more of the same thing and come up with three of something, if we just decided it to be that way?

I think mathematics is based on concepts like one and one equals two. I think that theology and philosophy are based around concepts like one and one equals two not necessarily being true. Dual monoism, the Trinity, infinity, eternity, etc. The basic building blocks of mathematics are placed upon the shaky ground of theology and philosophy.

To answer the challenge: 1+1=3.

I've got a daughter, 4 cats and six guinea pigs. All the animals are rescue animals. I know that one plus one often results in three or more. So I suppose 'life' might be the answer to that one.

Try that answer on a math test and you'll get a big fat F.

The way we understand 1+1=2 may use concepts, such as how a number is formed or symbols are used. But those shapes and symbols do not represent human concepts but actual things. You can not feed the world by simply redefining a 'concept' and change the meaning of one grain of rice and make it 100 billion. Basic mathmatics is based on discovering what actually is, and assigning values to it that we can compute and understand.

I am not asking you about the mating habits of guinea pigs.
If you are going to use analogies like this, then it is no wonder we have seen such little progress.

You are attempting to muddy clear waters by trying to connect theological concepts like the trinity to basic rules of math.

The basic building blocks of mathematics are placed upon the shaky ground of theology and philosophy.

Please provide some proof.

Proinsias wrote:...I watched your video on youtube, great talk!

From what I gather you went from atheist to Christian pretty much due to one life, or death, changing event. I don't consider myself atheist by any stretch, I'm convinced of the value of all religion and have been for some time, I'm convinced of the value of Christianity, I just don't see it as an all or nothing option at the moment.

Brevity is not my greatest strength either

If you would like signed copy of my book, I can send you one - no charge - send me a PM and let me know.

I have copied all your last three post to a Word Document and will try a little brevity! Should have something posted in a few days.
-
-
-

jlay wrote:Try that answer on a math test and you'll get a big fat F.

The way we understand 1+1=2 may use concepts, such as how a number is formed or symbols are used. But those shapes and symbols do not represent human concepts but actual things. You can not feed the world by simply redefining a 'concept' and change the meaning of one grain of rice and make it 100 billion. Basic mathmatics is based on discovering what actually is, and assigning values to it that we can compute and understand.

I am not asking you about the mating habits of guinea pigs.
If you are going to use analogies like this, then it is no wonder we have seen such little progress.

You are attempting to muddy clear waters by trying to connect theological concepts like the trinity to basic rules of math.

I'd be rather surprised to encounter that question in math test, I think I'd be complaining to the department if they were failing students based on their answers to 1+1=3.
I'm not saying I can feed the world by calling one grain of rice a 100 billion grains, just saying with life you can take one thing and another thing and end up with three, or more, things. If you take one bacteria pretty soon you may have another bacteria, without even adding one yourself.

I'm not attempting to muddy the waters, justing calling muddy water when I see it.

The basic building blocks of mathematics are placed upon the shaky ground of theology and philosophy.

Please provide some proof.[/quote]

I can't provide you proof, only an opinion really. Mathematics is based upon logical thinking. Logic is a philosophy. Maybe more interrelated than based upon I supposed, but nevertheless mathematics is dependant on logic.
From a theological perspective we live in a world created by a God who is a trinity. If the building blocks of mathematics come from God, then 1+1=2 came from something that was 1+1+1=3.

Here you go - tried to shorten things up a bit - only two post!

Part one of Two - 02/10/10 -

To basically sum up your statements in as concise manner as possible without reviewing every comment and point made we should return to the tie the knot wrong for a rope swing set example.

B. W. wrote:…Scenario was — rope swing set tied wrong causing injury to the person swinging — no other variables. There is a right and a wrong way to tie the knot. Since there is — object right and wrong exist as well as responsibility for this injury…

Proinsias wrote:…I've said if injury has been attributed to my negligence I'll take responsibility. If it was my fault I'll admit and do what I can to remedy the situation and ensure it doesn't happen again, no need for an appeal to an objective holy law.

As I've said there is not a right way and a wrong way to tie the knot, there are many ways.

Saying that there are no other variables leads me to the conclusion that the scenario you are depicting is not from any sense of reality I'm familiar with.

It does not matter how many ways are involved in tying the knot correctly — if tied incorrectly — wrong is proven to exist. That is what you are failing to see clearly. What should be done is to secure and tie the knot correctly — the right way. From this, you learn that there is such thing as right and wrong.

B. W. wrote:New Scenario: Someone else tied the knot in the swing set. You took a swing — knot loosens causing you great injury. It doesn't matter ones social or cultural backgrounds to determine that right and wrong exist. Through your fall, you discovered what makes truly right and truly wrong. There is a right way and a wrong way...

Proinsias wrote: I don't think I do, I fall off a swing. I'm surprised it has never happened to me as I've been on some pretty unsafe swings in my younger years. I think I would have discovered more about my own stupidity than about than any true sense of right or wrong stemming from the knot maker. I've had shaving brushes where the knot has had to be sent back to the manufacturer, I didn't discover objective right and wrong, I discovered that even from well know knot makers knots aren't always perfect. I didn't email them explaining they were objectively wrong as the knot does not do what it should, I explained the problem, they explained why they aren't perfect, took responsibility and sent me a new one.

What makes the knot makers take responsibility as well as your self?

Explaining that one is not perfect does what? Justifies wrong behavior as okay does it not? Why do people make excuses for immoral behavior by citing that there are no set standards for morality that can convict one of wrong?

Therefore, why make excuses, (like no one is perfect) if there are no behaviors or deeds that are objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong?

There is something outside of ourselves that teaches what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong. What makes you, or the official knot maker, feel remorse and take responsibility for there actions and failures? If no objective moral standards exist — remorse and responsibility are simply spurious illusions.

It does not matter how many correct knots there are that can be used to secure the rope used for the rope swing. It only matters if the knot is tied correctly, the right way, as opposed to the wrong way. One produces no injury or death. The other does.

Feeling remorse and taking responsibility are simply the means of conscience needed to aid one's discovery that there are such things as objective morality.

Points to consider

Whose morality is morally good?

Mother Teresa's? or Mao Tse-Tung's?

Saint Francis of Assisi? Or Joseph Stalin's?

Gandhi's or Adolph Hitler's?

A tree is known by its fruit it produces, not by anything else. The fruit it produces is either good or bad. Eat bad fruit, you become sick or could even die.

Which is better to eat - food poisoned produce or fresh good produce?

B. W. wrote:It takes objective effort to produce an objective result.

Proinsias wrote: Not really, I wouldn't say the earth or the sun are using effort to heat things to high temperatures, purify, combine and create. There a whole school's of eastern philosophy devoted to non-action, non-effort, non-doing, wu-wei. The idea being that effort implies strain, focus, division. Non-effort implies neutrality, awareness, non-duality. Stuff will still happen and we can only speculate as to whether things would or wouldn't have turned out differently…

Answer — so you like living in contradiction? For a matter to be true, an opposite must exist. Living life in accord to contradiction would be what then?

Since stuff happens — then wu-wei, non-action, non-effort, non-doing is in itself — wrong and an excuse to do nothing, and escape ones responsibility. Non-effort implied neutrality, awareness, and non-duality is in itself an action; thus, contradicting itself.

People discover that wrong exist (such as premeditated murder) and such wrong crosses all cultural barriers and norms when this wrong is afflicted upon their loved ones and yes, even themselves…their people… the wrongness of it is discovered … absolute wrong exists…despite all cultural variables and justification. The is no neutrality in the matter.

Leaving in a ruptured appendix will kill you. It needs removed to save you. Objective Morality serves to identify the disease that will cause great harm, suffering, pain, that will eventually slay you. Therefore, Objective Morality was designed to lead people to the one identified as the Great Physician.

Eastern philosophy would rather leave disease alone, neutral, non-effort is best, as it justifies benigness. Other religious systems only seek to cover and mask the symptoms leaving the disease free to run its full course. Christianity removes the disease through a living power far greater than our own human power, healing us…

Proinsias wrote: My subjective moral scale is not true or false, it's a subjective moral scale. My taste in music is not true or false, it's my subjective taste. Because we attach more value to morals values than musical ones does not mean they then start to objectively exist. To me it seems that if we find something terribly important we feel the need for something other than our fallible selves to determine it, this does not make it so. There are a whole range of human emotions beyond love, I don't think they exist objectively either, it seems to me that as people feel love is so important they lend it some objective existence.

Again a contradiction: For ones subjective moral scale to be neither true or false is a contradiction because it means that this makes the subjective scale of neitherness an absolute standard in and of itself.

For something to be true means that there is something false. There is no neutrality. Again — you attach values to your own set of values but fail to see how these teach you, or should I say, leads you to discover that like objective reality — Objective Morality exists.

Please note:

Since God has emotions, and since we were created as a lower reflection of his image and likeness, having emotions ourselves, we discover that love exist because God exist. Without our creator, we would not be here. Objective reality of your own daughter standing before you, our her as an infant sleeping upon your chest, proves she exist. The love you feel for her teaches that love is indeed a real tangible thing.

Love does indeed let one go in order for the one loved to come into his or her own being. Through such pain of letting go, justice toward the one love is proven. Likewise, God let humanity come into his / her own. With it comes responsibility for us to adhere too or reject Him.

As Pertaining to Numbers and Math…

Psalms 147:4, 5, "He (God) counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name. 5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite."

There does not need to be people for numbers to exist. One Moon, One Earth, One Mars in our solar system equals three distinct objects. Math helps us understand that objective reality exist and if objective reality exist - then so does objective morality.

Part Two of Two Below
-
-
-

Part Two of two from above posting -- 2/10/10 ---

B. W. wrote: First off, your answer shows that you do not understand what Christianity is or its message. In fact, your answer substantiates my point. Human efforts to earn their way into favor 'was' what I was driving at. That effort seeks to supplant God. True Enlightenment comes when one sees this.

Proinsias wrote:...I tend to agree. However although true enlightenment appears to be the aim of many religious practices what marks one religion from another is intellectual ideas, the very word enlightenment is an intellectual idea to try and describe the indescribable. I suppose the difference is that you seem to see subscription to a set of intellectual ideas or practices as trying to supplant God, I see them more as aids to experience God, Brahman etc…

Whilst religions may at their heart may be a means to enlightenment they have as their body sets of idea and practices. Ten commandments, spiritual texts, intellectual theological concepts, ritual and many others - I thoroughly enjoyed Ninian Smart's a few years ago which went into this in detail.

The daoist idea of wu-wei seems to be contained within the above quote if I snip off the start…“That effort seeks to supplant God. True Enlightenment comes when one sees this.”

B. W. wrote: Next, If all is only relative — then what good are any works at all? If all leads to non-existence — what good are works?

Proinsias wrote: Indeed. Good question.

I'm not claiming all does lead to non-existence. Non-existence is a far tougher concept to wrap one's head around than God or afterlife in my opinion. God and heaven imply ideas like good and love, at least for me, things we can on at some level can identify with. All non-existence gives us it that it won't be anything like existence or anything in existence, all we can think is what it won't be like. I think it's far easier to give oneself to the idea of an afterlife which will be better and more wonderful than we can conceive as opposed to something which we simply cannot conceive.

Answer — if you admit that you can 'identify with on some level' as you so stated above — then you proven my point that Moral Absolutes teach through this identification process what makes wrong — wrong and makes right — right.

Non-existence would be wrong according to moral absolutes as it violates the principle of God being a life giving God, placing eternity in our hearts, violating the principle of God's justice in granting us intelligence, moral agency, and reason needed to govern this world all brought out within the pages of the remarkable bible.

2 Samuel 14:14 from the ESV translation uncovers these biblical principles stated above. I'll break the passage into three parts so you can understand these principles, concepts, better as they reveal uniquely the heart of the Christian message:

(A)--2 Samuel 14:14 - “We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again….”

This is stating that we, as mortals will die, and like the spilling water, we cannot save ourselves. This death came about due to human moral agency choosing sin (Gen 2:17) and through this death one is brought before God to Judgment in the afterlife (Hebrews 9:27).

(B)----Why — God is Just because…as 2 Samuel 14:14 says… “God will not take away life…”

He fashioned us as an eternal being and taking this eternity away from one to make them non-exist would prove several things, God is not just, God is unable to keep his word, etc & etc, resulting in God not being God.

How do you think Satan got away with rebelling (Ezekiel 28:13, 14, 15, 18) and why evil exist? Evil always attempts to game God — tries to entrap God in someway so that God will deny himself. If God destroyed this being unjustly, with partiality, without due process — God would not and could not be God. This being manipulates what he knows about God to attempt to cause God to deny himself in order to supplant God (Isaiah 14:13, 14, 15)

Thus a place was fashioned for this being and those that follow as Jesus said in Matthew 25:41. Why?? God does not take away life — armed with such knowledge is why this being temporally got away with rebellion. Then Humanity fell into this being's ploy and pretty much live our human lives, as we say in the States, “double dog dare'n God.”

How many times do we put God on trial, mock him, deny him, and say his way is not the only way as I have mine own better way. My subjective morals are superior to his. Figuratively we spit upon him, beat him, and scourge him, for allowing evil, not stopping it on our terms, not performing according to our standards for our needs

We chide him in our schools, universities, figuratively telling him to perform some miracle for us so we can believe and if not we make other gods, religions, political systems to assuage our conscience and justify our needs. We think the work of neutrality will absolve us of our responsibility for denying God's standards.

We interpret God's silence as proof that he does not exist, or does not cares; never realizing that his silence is summed up as slowness to anger (Nahum 1:3). We even say, non-existence cannot be conceived yet a non-existing God can! Then, we blame God for every blight and bane.

All this does is an attempt to entrap God to act contrary to himself. Something God will never do. So in slowness and patience and with mercy — he banishes Humanity away from himself…Genesis Chapter Three speaks of this occurrence (Genesis 3:23).

(C)--- 2 Samuel 14:14, “and he (God) devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast…”

God devised the means in which a banished one may yet return before their mortal life ceases and enters eternity through judgment in which their fate is sealed (Matthew 25:41, 46, Isaiah 24:21, 22).

The devised means of God is revealed in this: God's work displayed during the trial of Jesus, during his mocking, Jesus' being the victim of false testimony, his beating, scourging, Jesus' crucifixion which proves beyond all reasonable doubt what humanity thinks of God (read Mark 14:50, 53-72 and Mark 15:1-39)

What Did God do? Answered in silence — his Hand of wrath stayed. We perceive it not. Jesus stood in the gap for us, providing the means to be forgiven of this so a banished one can now find forgiveness for gaming God, making sport of Him, mocking him, denying him, blaming him, cursing him, manipulating him …through God's work, his means — upon the Cross.

Yet you say, making sport of God, denying him, challenging him, provoking him, saying his work is not good enough for a person because these things are simply morally relatively justified and okay to do! Is it? oh Really?

For one who died for you so that you may live and find that life abundant Jesus spoke so much about — life with real meaning and true purpose. To deny God's means of salvation — simply believing in what He did. That His plan is far better than any other manner or way we devise of…

If one denies this — God has no choice other than deny that person and grant them what they desire — banishment forever. Return according to His means and ways one is forgiven and finds life.

You see, eternity seals the deal. Make the right choice before it is too late.

God is indeed absolutely just (Job 34:10, 11, 12b). He lets people come into their own despite foreknowing ones conclusion, he lets them decide.

B. W. wrote: You say — go with feelings of others — why then the exclusion of the Christian message then?

Proinsias wrote:… I'm trying to incorporate it. If I was trying to exclude the Christian message I wouldn't be here, I came here to hear it.

Are you hearing???-
-
-

I'm not saying I can feed the world by calling one grain of rice a 100 billion grains, just saying with life you can take one thing and another thing and end up with three, or more, things. If you take one bacteria pretty soon you may have another bacteria, without even adding one yourself.

Pros, you have people here that have given valuable time to share with you. BW has gone to exhaustive measures to share with you. Often it appears you are just being unreasonable, and looking for any opportunity to jump the rail, and run the discussion of course.
Based on your response to a question by BW, we are talking about basic facts of math, not the reproductive characteristics of bacteria. 1+1=2 not because of a concept, but because it is an objective truth. If you can not agree with that, then I'm afraid you are either being willfully stubborn or worse. You are taking one fact of math, 1+1=2, and are trying to confuse it with biology. We are not talking about reproduction. If you have one bacteria and add one more, you will have two bacteria. That is an objective fact. If those bacteria then reproduce, it does not change the fact one iota. It is a completely seperate event.

From a theological perspective we live in a world created by a God who is a trinity. If the building blocks of mathematics come from God, then 1+1=2 came from something that was 1+1+1=3.

You don't have to believe in a creator to see and know the natural laws. They are testable and observable. If God created them, which I believe he did, it has nothing to do with whether you can know that 1+1=2. Pro, this is muddying the water as I said. And this proves it.

BW asked you a basic question. "One plus one equals two — true or false?" You said,
"Human creation and concept, not true or false. Very useful though."
You are wrong. Not wrong, in my opinion. You are fundementally and objectively wrong. Worse, you refuse to lay aside this ridiculous assertion, and defend it with even more flawed analogies.
When I acted like this as a child, my mom would say, 'you are as stubborn as a fence post.' I know how she felt.

jlay and readers,

Eastern Philosophic traditions of Buddhism, Zen, etc work very hard at learning to remain neutral, rarely ever taking a stance on anything except the concept of never taking a stance to achieve a sort of balance and harmony.

One needs to ask — harmony of what? What purpose is harmony if none can exist since to achieve harmony one needs to act and do. To act and do is contrary to harmony; thus, conflict is all that exists. You have the Yin-Yang in action while the person hums blissfully in ignorance, never taking a stand on anything for fear of breaking oriental philosophic traditions.

The bible states it better in 2 Timothy 3:7, “…who are always learning but never able to come to full knowledge of the truth.” CJB

When I said in two frames above that, “human effort seeks to supplant God. True Enlightenment comes when one sees this,” I meant human self works all kinds and types to achieve heaven, earn favor, earn bliss-harmony are an affront to the Lord. Why and How — because such say to God that Human works and deeds are better than anything God can do: that God, or a natural force of the universe, must accept human effort — or else.

Therefore, when we begin to see our efforts and even the efforts and works at neutrality seek to overthrow God and declare that His plan and works for salvation and true harmony are unworthy of the time of day. There you have the test — who will accept God and who will not. As it I had written: God test the heart.

Jeremiah 17:10, “...the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.” NKJV

Daoism cannot find true harmony because that is in itself is a contradiction. For such, they define true enlightenment as coming through neutrality and achieving balance. Not relying on God's way and plan of salvation but instead relying on their-own methods to achieve, lack for better words, a divine hum...

Please note that what I wrote above is an oversimplification written in order for people to be able to get to the crux of the matter avoiding lengthily dribble.

Bottom line: God demonstrated his plan and works through Christ Jesus in a manner that crosses cultures, societies, and transcends our linear time eras. He paid the debt, I could not pay. He did the work I could never do. God made it so simple for us to find life — life restored back into his fold and this way is best described by Jesus Himself:

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” ESV

One way — by human works to achieve, whatever it seeks, causes a person to remain in a continual state of contradiction.

God's way, well — sets you free from this…and it is free!
-
-
-

BW,
Do you think that is really what we are butting up against here? (Sincere question)

jlay wrote:BW,
Do you think that is really what we are butting up against here? (Sincere question)

Well to be polite - the answer would be yes...

Also, No offense at all to Pros in this at all. I do not mind discussing these things with an honest seeker asking questions from his / her point of reference.
-
-
-

BW,

Read back through, and i don't see it. Perhaps you are right. I see you spilling your heart and pearls of wisdom, only to be met with the reproductive habits of whatever, when we are talking basic math principles. I'm a big enough boy to know I can be wrong, and if so, so be it. I do want Pros to know that like you, I am most interested in his eternal well being. I guess BW, you and I see eternity at stake. Kudos to you on your long suffering. I'll let you guys continue.

jlay wrote:BW,

Read back through, and i don't see it. Perhaps you are right. I see you spilling your heart and pearls of wisdom, only to be met with the reproductive habits of whatever, when we are talking basic math principles. I'm a big enough boy to know I can be wrong, and if so, so be it. I do want Pros to know that like you, I am most interested in his eternal well being. I guess BW, you and I see eternity at stake. Kudos to you on your long suffering. I'll let you guys continue.

Math examples help us to discover objective truths and since it does - objective truth exist. Like math, thru subjective morality one discovers that objective morality exist. One discovers that there are wrongs and rights that are objective wrongs and objective rights which transcend ones personal subjectivity.

Enlightenment comes upon the discovery thru subjective morality that objective morality sets a standard for right and wrong in which one must choose either to continue to use subjective morality as a tool to avoid such discovery, or be lead by objective morality to our need for the Savior - Jesus Christ because through objective morality comes the knowledge of what makes sin - sin.

Subjective morality seeks to justify sin as not being so bad nor wrong or right. Objective morality teaches us what makes sin — sin and that we need to be set free from such an enslaving taskmaster. Romans 7:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18-24 speaks of this. Simply substitute objective morality for the word law in chapter seven.

Note that in Romans 2:14 speaking of the OT Jewish law in light of this as well and that the plan involved the Jewish people to be a light midst the rest of the world (John 4:22). Then read Galatians 3:23, 24

The world teaches — sin is okay — celebrate it. Therefore, life remains ugly lost in a dreamland of subjectivity, always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Jlay — please continue posting here as you are doing very well.
-
-
-

BW,
I'm with you. I don't take acception with anything you've said. I think you have spelled out some incredible things for our friend Pros. Let's say that establishing any objective truth is the foundation. If that is the case, then we are building on sand, IMO. It is just that if one can not or will not accept that 1+1=2 is knowable objective truth, then where can you really go from here? I mean, you can't even get hired at McDonalds without knowing this. Is this a case of casting Pearls where they don't go? Just asking. I guess my concern is are we dealing with a person who is confused about reality, or one who is being willfully stubborn?



Pros, know that I could have sent this in a pmail, but I want you to know what I am thinking and where I am coming from. Being candid and transparent here.

Hi B.W,

I just lost my reply due to closing the wrong tab, doh. Attempt two:

It does not matter how many ways are involved in tying the knot correctly — if tied incorrectly — wrong is proven to exist. That is what you are failing to see clearly. What should be done is to secure and tie the knot correctly — the right way. From this, you learn that there is such thing as right and wrong.

I really don't think we do. We define what we mean by a knot, by the very nature of language, and we set expectations. We say that if the knot slips it does not meet the expectations and if it does not slip it does meet the expectations. We learn to set expectations and judge our knot making based on this.

You could tie a textbook knot but use it for the wrong purpose, this does not make the knot wrong. The knot is 'right', just not the best knot for this purpose, context matters.

What makes the knot makers take responsibility as well as your self?

A knot maker will set certain standards. If they fail to meet these standards they tend to take responsibility. It's not God making them take responsibility, if you are knot maker and your knots do not do what they claim to do you will not earn a living from making knots.

Explaining that one is not perfect does what? Justifies wrong behavior as okay does it not? Why do people make excuses for immoral behavior by citing that there are no set standards for morality that can convict one of wrong?

Are you perfect? if not then, by this reasoning, you are justifying any behavoiur you indulge and view as wrong as okay.

Therefore, why make excuses, (like no one is perfect) if there are no behaviors or deeds that are objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong?

Not being perfect is not an excuse. It's about falling short of human set standards, which are not perfect either. Killing someone is not something I plan on doing but if I do it I would hope I had a fair amount of explanation as to why. Not to excuse myself but so as others may understand why I ended up there. Saying premeditative murder is wrong doesn't make any difference - leave that to God. Trying to understand why people end up doing it and what we can do to prevent it may make a difference, again understanding context as opposed to saying 'right' or 'wrong'.

There is something outside of ourselves that teaches what is objectively morally right and what is objectively morally wrong. What makes you, or the official knot maker, feel remorse and take responsibility for there actions and failures? If no objective moral standards exist — remorse and responsibility are simply spurious illusions.

I would say the knot maker would feel remorse if they were trying to provide a knot that wouldn't slip or shed and did. They failed their own expectations. If my daughter turns into the next Hitler I will have failed my own expectations, I'm sure a select few on the planet would feel differently.

If remorse and responsibility are spurious illusions, which they may well be, I'm not going to value them any differently. If the love I have for my family is an illusion, it doesn't lose its value for me.

Whose morality is morally good?

Mother Teresa's? or Mao Tse-Tung's?

Saint Francis of Assisi? Or Joseph Stalin's?

Gandhi's or Adolph Hitler's?

All on a grey scale. Not black or white.

I don't know much about St.Francis but both Mother Teresa and Ghandi had some morals I find questionable.

A tree is known by its fruit it produces, not by anything else. The fruit it produces is either good or bad. Eat bad fruit, you become sick or could even die.

That's not really true though is it? There are plenty of trees which do not produce fruit which are known.

Fruit isn't good or bad, it's just fruit - I was surprised to find recently just how narrow the definition of fruit is. If you eat fruit that your body can't handle it doesn't make it bad fruit - you've eaten fruit that makes you sick or kills you. If you eat a knot and die it doesn't make it a bad knot.

Which is better to eat - food poisoned produce or fresh good produce?

That's a pretty loaded question. Which is better? the one with good in the description.

Answer — so you like living in contradiction? For a matter to be true, an opposite must exist. Living life in accord to contradiction would be what then?

I don't feel like I'm living in a contradiction. More a sea of grey where nothing is obviously this or that.

People discover that wrong exist (such as premeditated murder) and such wrong crosses all cultural barriers and norms when this wrong is afflicted upon their loved ones and yes, even themselves…their people… the wrongness of it is discovered … absolute wrong exists…despite all cultural variables and justification. The is no neutrality in the matter.

It doesn't really cross all cultural barriers. The death penalty, human sacrifice, abortion, Islamic honor killing, war, are all premeditative murder in some sense. There maybe no neutrality but there is a sea of confusion.

Eastern philosophy would rather leave disease alone, neutral, non-effort is best, as it justifies benigness. Other religious systems only seek to cover and mask the symptoms leaving the disease free to run its full course. Christianity removes the disease through a living power far greater than our own human power, healing us…

I wouldn't say that eastern philosophy would rather leave disease alone. Eastern medicine is heavily rooted in its philosophy, the 5 elements, chi, prevention before cure etc. Western medicine is based upon curing identified issues, Christianity also creates an issues that needs to cured - we need to be saved and this is how to do it.

Again a contradiction: For ones subjective moral scale to be neither true or false is a contradiction because it means that this makes the subjective scale of neitherness an absolute standard in and of itself.

My subjective morality is neither tall nor short, black nor white. This does not create a contradiction, it does not make it an absolute. Just as my taste in music, tea or wine is not true or false does not make my taste in music, tea or wine an absolute. Again as we attatch more significance to morals than musical tastes does not mean they need to be true or false, no matter how much we may like them to be.

For something to be true means that there is something false. There is no neutrality. Again — you attach values to your own set of values but fail to see how these teach you, or should I say, leads you to discover that like objective reality — Objective Morality exists.

If there is true there is false. If there isn't a true then the point vanishes.

Since God has emotions, and since we were created as a lower reflection of his image and likeness, having emotions ourselves, we discover that love exist because God exist. Without our creator, we would not be here. Objective reality of your own daughter standing before you, our her as an infant sleeping upon your chest, proves she exist. The love you feel for her teaches that love is indeed a real tangible thing.

If we were created there is a creator, if we weren't there isn't. I have no knowledge of the objective reality of my daughter, I have my subjective experience. The feelings I have for my daughter change constantly, maybe they are approaching objective love maybe they are are not - what matters to me is the relationship, I don;t think that relationship has an objective bridge.

There does not need to be people for numbers to exist. One Moon, One Earth, One Mars in our solar system equals three distinct objects. Math helps us understand that objective reality exist and if objective reality exist - then so does objective morality.

I disagree. People create numbers and labels. There are no distinct objects without a subject to label them. Objectivity means nothing without subjectivity, they are complementary.

Answer — if you admit that you can 'identify with on some level' as you so stated above — then you proven my point that Moral Absolutes teach through this identification process what makes wrong — wrong and makes right — right.

I don't think I have. Sharing relatively common experience does not prove objective existence. Loads of people saying that the Beatles make good music does not mean that the music is objectively good. The same as loads of people agreeing that Hitler is wrong does not make Adolf Hitler objectively wrong.

Non-existence would be wrong according to moral absolutes as it violates the principle of God being a life giving God, placing eternity in our hearts, violating the principle of God's justice in granting us intelligence, moral agency, and reason needed to govern this world all brought out within the pages of the remarkable bible.

I can't agree that non-existence is wrong, it's just something I have trouble getting my head around. As I said the only way I can relate to it is by thinking it is like nothing else I can think of, which isn't very helpful.

(B)----Why — God is Just because…as 2 Samuel 14:14 says… “God will not take away life…”

He fashioned us as an eternal being and taking this eternity away from one to make them non-exist would prove several things, God is not just, God is unable to keep his word, etc & etc, resulting in God not being God.

How do you think Satan got away with rebelling (Ezekiel 28:13, 14, 15, 18) and why evil exist? Evil always attempts to game God — tries to entrap God in someway so that God will deny himself. If God destroyed this being unjustly, with partiality, without due process — God would not and could not be God. This being manipulates what he knows about God to attempt to cause God to deny himself in order to supplant God (Isaiah 14:13, 14, 15)

This is something I can't really answer atm. I had thought of evil as an absence of God, or a falling away from God, not as something that is capable in its own right or trapping God. I'll give it some thought. I think I need some time with the bible.

The rest of your post is not something I can make any attempt to disagree with, I need to involve myself with the bible. I've been here for coming on a year and I'm still nowhere near reading the whole bible, I get carried away with the smallest of things and there is sooooo much info out there. This thread on Mark has been keeping me busy for a long while and I went with Job for the OT first, amongst others, but after many readings I'm still learning. I suspect this will be a lifelong pursuit.

Are you hearing???-

Yes I am. As John Peel once said you are providing a 'complete and logical entity', he was talking about the songs of The Nice, but I think it holds for this. It makes sense, I'm just not quite buying it as the 'truth' - much like evolution and whatnot.

My concept of Christianity has changed greatly since I arrived here. I have a great deal of respect for Christianity and this board is primarily the reason for that. I'm not convinced that it is the 'best' religion or that it is the only way to go.

There is a gulf between hearing something and trying to understand it and accepting that thing as the only way to go.

There is much I would like address in your post for 'jlay and readers' and I will do soon.

I will also address jlay's posts asap.

If this conversation is you suffering, as jlay says, I'd rather not continue it. If you don't feel it is suffering I'd be more than happy to continue, as long as you don't mind my rather slow pace