Hi August
You missed the point a bit. If the standard by which you judge the difference between right and wrong is a social construct, i.e. that which a society considers to be absolutely right or worng, then you have to explain where that comes from.
Why? Social constructs are a brute fact. They exist. Do you have to explain God? Do you have to explain why he exists - or should I just take him as a brute fact?
I think we first have to determine why I have to explain everything yet God requires no explanation. God can be presupposed and not explained yet I have to explain ALL my presuppostions? Is that it? Are we going to argue on a level playing field?
Why does God exist?
The fact is, right and wrong differ from society to society and that is why different laws exist in different countries and cultures. However, generally, man has found that it is more profitable to work in co-operation than to work in isolation. It profers certain survival advantages. Survival is not subjective in any sense.
What are social constructs? Where do they come from?
A good question, because even animals appear to have them. There are certain species that live in social groups - others do not. They appear to come from human instinct and thought.
Who decides which social construct is the ultimate basis for right or wrong, and what are the criteria?
Ultimate base for right and wrong? What if there is no ultimate basis? We simply decide right and wrong on the basis of objectionable or acceptable outcomes.
What do understand by "faith"? And I'm interested to hear how you arrive at a conclusion that it is "inherently subjective".
Faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you don't see. Any system of thought that bypasses the senses is inherently subjective. Faith is about hope and confidence. Hope and confidence are both inherently subjective aren't they?
By which standard do you judge the Christian faith to be subjective, is that not a subjective judgment in itself? In that case why should your subjective opinion be held as valid?
Why is it invalid?
How do you explain those that undertake actions that are contra to survival, like soldiers or firemen? Is it your opinion they do not have common sense? How do you connect survival and common sense? Please explain your logic. Where does common sense come from? ow do you know if someone has common sense or not?
Ultimately, human survival is what appears to matter to us, even if certain members of society are not simply promoting survival for themselves, they are seeking to promote survival for humanity as a whole.
The idea of good and evil being linked to survival seems to lay at the heart of certain religions. Most religions (including Christianity) seem to be concerned with cheating death in some way. Cheating death has to do with survival.
It is valid because God is the ultimate standard of good and evil. Why would a legal system be valid if it was based on the whims and moods of men?
Why would a standard of good and evil be valid simply because it was based on the whims and moods of God - especially if his ways are so beyond us that we could not derive any sense of good and evil from him?
You haven't actually explained why "good" and "evil" exist. You have made them knowledge attributes of a postulated God that can be presupposed and remain unexplained. But this simply removes "good" and "evil" from the need of an explanation.
Why does material existence have to be explained yet God's existence doesn't?
You still have to show how the Christian faith is inherently subjective, that is merely your own subjective assertion. If there is no objective standard, then how do you determine whether something is subjective?
Subjective is "that which is contingent upon a mind in order to exist and would cease to exist if no minds existed." If there were no people, would there be faith? That should answer your question I hope.
I don't know where you get that I think both opinions are valid. Yours is wrong. You clearly misunderstood what I wrote. Your position as a relativist is the one that leads to the opinions being equally valid, not mine. Read again what I wrote.
Apologies - I did misread your initial post. The question simply needs to be reversed. Why aren't atheism and theism equally invalid?
Please prove that "The Bible was written by people expressing their opinion about God". How do you know that?
What do you mean by prove? Do you mean, remove ALL doubt? That would be impossible.
The Bible was written by people - unless you want to argue otherwise. Therefore it is full of human assertions and human ideas (whatever their basis). If you think that it is divinely inspired then please present your evidence for this. The burden rests upon anyone making any sort of a truth claim.
You are demanding explanations from me. Why should I accept that the Bible is divinely inspired without explanation?
Yes, personal opinion does not matter when it comes to God.
Doesn't it? Why not? Because you say so?
What do you mean by "other systems of thought"? If you mean atheism, then I am applying exactly the same principles to atheististic thought as I do to Christianity. What is the objective logical basis for atheism?
Objective logical basis? Logic depends upon a mind in order to exist and is therefore subjective. Would there be logic with no minds? I'm not sure what you mean by objective logical basis?
How do you assert that there is no God, by your personal opinion?
But the view that my opinions don't matter is based on
your opinion. If you carry on like this we will just end up running around in circles
What do you base that opinion on? What are the logical arguments you followed to arrive at your conclusion?
I simply think that certain things that are given a divine status (such as the Bible) have more of the hallmarks of being the product of frail human thinking. That's all. Please demonstrate how this view is invalid or doesn't matter.
The Bible expresses the opinion of people.
You keep on asserting that. It is up to you prove that it is so.
The burden rests upon anyone making a truth claim August.
The Bible was written by people. I expect that they engaged in thinking while they were writing. Therefore I conclude that the Bible expresses human opinion about God. What or who else wrote the Bible August?
You misunderstand faith, but we will get to that later. Again, please show that the Christian faith is subjective.
I thought that faith was being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you don't see? Something is subjective if its existence is contingent upon a mind. There is some interconnecting between the subjective and objective and that I can pad out in more detail.
You are creating a false dilemma based on faulty assumptions. Sure there is a place for subjective thoughts, but you want to deny that there is any objective thought systems.
If subjective is, by definition, that which requires a mind in order to exist, what do you mean by objective thought system?
In the case of God, human subjective thought does not matter.
Why not? Because you say so? Because that is your opinion? Why did God create subjective human thought then? Why did he create something that you assert doesn't matter?
No, we do know that there is evil in an absolute sense, i.e. things that are wrong everywhere at all times.
But if God can justify allowing EVERYTHING to happen - then nothing is wrong in and of itself - because God can do no wrong. What we call wrong is based on our limited perspective.
Do you deny that? It has nothing to do with perception, it has to do with your denial of the existence of evil.
I'm not denying the existence of evil. I think that evil acts occur.
I'm saying that if there is a God who can justify what we call evil, then nothing is truly evil in and of itself - because it all achieves God's good.
You are going to have to explain your logic to me. Please start by defining God and evil.
God is the creator of the universe.
Evil is any unjustifiable suffering caused to another person.
If someone commits evil (because no-one can see the justification for the act), yet God knows of an unknown justifiable purpose for allowing it, then the act was not evil in any absolute sense - only from a certain perspective.
Please prove that the Christian faith is subjective. (Is this the 3rd time I'm asking this? )
Something is subjective (or subjectively based) when it needs minds in order to exist.
Again.....please prove your assertions. And, as I noted many times, I am not concerned with other theistic schools of thought, I am only making a case for the Christian God.
But you can't simply rule out other systems of thought in such an ad hoc way. The truth is, God belief does not result in an absolute idea of right and wrong. There are many different forms of theism. Why is your form of theism the only valid one? Why should I ignore the others - simply because you say so?
I am quoting what the Bible says about arguments like these. Let's see how we proceed, then we can come back to the statement.
The Bible was mostly written to theists of some form or another. It was written to Jews and Greeks, all of whom were extremely theistic (even if different expressions thereof). I don't see that it really deals with atheistic objections (lack of belief in a God or gods). God or gods are assumed throughout.
Why should I presuppose God?
You appear to be stereotyping and generalising here.
