Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:

waynepii wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Wayyne,

YOu haven't addressed the question of what books you have read concerning the Bible. Many of the criticisms you have withthe Bible are common criticisms from those who havent studied it, the language, the culture, etc. We can indeed address them, but you are not listening to Jac's arguments or mine.

You are still missing the point. The "do unto others" test that youhave is simply a test that YOu prefer. Why is yor test better than anothers?

Because ...

1. It's relatively absolute (most people don't want to be raped, murdered, stolen from, discriminated against, beaten, enslaved, scammed, abused, ... )
2. it's relatively constant (most people x years ago didn't want to be raped, murdered, stolen from, discriminated against, beaten, enslaved, scammed, abused, ... )
3. it's straightforward (not sure what to do? Just reverse the roles and see your options from the other's viewpoint)
4. it's simple
5. it handles most situations
6. it's fairly reliable

It is possible to come up with examples where "do unto others" fails, but it works fine in most real situations.

To all of these, I still say, so what? Why is THIS method more *RIGHT* than the society who selects those who will die....by the way Richard Dawkins actually supports this idea

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Read/ ... x?aid=9490

NOte his quote....there is no good or evil.

Dawkins wrote:If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies... are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention... In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.(1)

Great....murder and mayhem can be the order of the day, after all, there IS no justice....people will get hurt.

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Read/ ... x?aid=9508

I have absolutely ZERO interest in Richard Dawkins.

waynepii wrote:

Wayne, I AGREE that there is a lot more to it. In fact, I KNOW there is a lot more to it. MOral law, as CS Lewis states, is part of our inherent notion that there is an OBJECTIVE fairness, OBJECTIVE right and wrong. There is evil and there is good. My worldview champions "do unto others". YOu have no right to proclaim that your notion of sweetness and goodness and fairness is the proper way for us to be.

All I have been saying is that according to a natrualistic worldview....YOUR notion of "do unto others" is simply *your* preference. Despite its easiness, despite its workability (which you are right, it is a good notion!), if all we are is animals, then who are YOU to proclaim that YOUR genes, YOUR upbringing, and YOUR notion of right and wrong is better?!?!

YOU dislike it...so what?!?!? Animal kill...so what?

At least I've clearly defined what my morality is based on. What (exactly) is yours based on? Why is yours "better" than mine? It's easy to cast stones, how about something to back up your claims? Prove my morality is invalid. What makes your morality objective (yes I know what "objective" means, which is exactly why I ask).

For example, one difference between your morality and mine is gay marriage. Gay marriage is of no concern to me because I wouldn't want someone telling me who I could or couldn't marry. On what would you base the right to deny marriage to a committed, monogamous, same-sex couple? If you'd prefer to use a less contentious example, feel free. I am interested in how your moral compass works, not upon debating the issue of gay marriage.

Wayne, it shouldn't MATTER whose morlaity is better according to the atheist worldview. In fact, ours are equal and it shouldn't matter that we don't approve of homosexuality or not. Our morality is JUST as valid YOURS in your worldview. Let's not bicker!! If I think homosexual behavior is a sin, if I think rape is sin, if I think lying is a sin, then great. If you don't find it a sin, well, okay, everybody gets to have their morality.

According to DAWKINS....there is no rhyme or reason, no justice.
I don't have a problem with "do unto others" as a general rule of behavior. You, however, should.

If somebody does find a mutilated corpse attractive then that, I guess, is their perogative, according to your worldview.

It's funny, when this whole conversation started, everybody took offense at this idea that somebody would find a picture of the mutilted corpse attractive. "Why would we think it's attractiive...that's offensive!!" And yet, when Robert MAplethorpe decided to show his grotesque and mutlitated, sexually offensive pictures, free-thinking morality is all anybody can talk about.

Wayne, you STILL avoid my scenario about a society who sanctions murder. As long as they have agreed and their genes and upbringing allows it, how can it be wrong. You can't use your "do unto others" rule because THEY don't hold to it. How could you condemn them?

I will respond concerning my objective morality when you can successfully respond to that scenario above.


Wayne, I really think that you haven't thought through the atheist worldview. As obnoxious as Dawkins is, he does represent the ultimate conclusion of th e atheist worldview.

Have you read Mere Christianity?

zoegirl wrote:

waynepii wrote:

wayne wrote:As I said innumerable times, it's not a preference.

YOu prefer "do unto others". And I'm not disagreeing with you that it is a nice test. The question is why is your test any more valid than the murderer''s IN YOUR WORLDVIEW? YOur worldview states this test is that result of a devlopment in our neuron pathways stemming form our genes and then taught and maintained in the culure through upbringing. That test, that pathway, that ability to feel empathy, is inherently no better than the animals that rape and kill. YOur genes and your culture tell you that?

If culture changed, if our brains changed so that "do unto others" was not deemed reasonable, then YOU can have no objection, for the worldview you hold is that morality is the result of genes and upbringing. IF those change, if the genes and upbringing change so that the "do unto others" test is not resulting in fitness, then the current mode of ethics simply changes.

HOw about actually addressing these points?

Have you read Mere Christianity?

What points was it you wanted me to address?

Was it ...

• The question is why is your test any more valid than the murderer''s IN YOUR WORLDVIEW??
  My "compass" tells me murder is "bad" (I wouldn't want to be murdered) - duh.
• YOur worldview states this test is that result of a devlopment in our neuron pathways stemming form our genes and then taught and maintained in the culure through upbringing. That test, that pathway, that ability to feel empathy, is inherently no better than the animals that rape and kill. YOur genes and your culture tell you that?
  YOU said that, not I.
• If culture changed, if our brains changed so that "do unto others" was not deemed reasonable, then YOU can have no objection, for the worldview you hold is that morality is the result of genes and upbringing. IF those change, if the genes and upbringing change so that the "do unto others" test is not resulting in fitness, then the current mode of ethics simply changes.
  However much society changes, "do unto others" will still be valid. It may well not be adhered to (as was the case in the past), but it will still be valid. Can you really say as much for whatever you use as a moral compass?

There you go putting words in my mouth again. I've already said I've done some things that violated my moral compass and that I felt bad about it afterwards. And THIS is your "proof" of God? Could it not be that social animals are wired to conform to the group? Could it not be that this is the root of our conscience?

Where to start?
First. I don't see where I put words in your mouth. Are you not the one proposing (hypothetically of course) that you are a, "reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being?" Are you claiming to not have lied, that lying is decent, or that lying doesn't violate your conscience?

I simply commented on what you said. You are proposing that you are a good person. Which means there is a standard of goodness. If your standard of good is just in your mind, then its not a standard at all. Anyone can compare themselves to other people and find enough people worse than them. Yet you contradict yourself and say that the standard could be (hypothesis) that morality is just a trait that results in social animals. So, now we are back to morality not being morality at all, but no different than hunger pains. In other words, the conscience in no different than a grumbling stomach, right? If that is true then how can you claim morality. Can somene take credit for buying a bag of cheetos when they are hungry. If it is just a product of instinct or physiology, then claiming you are good is like saying, "I'm hungry."

And then you say something interesting. That animals could be wired. Wired like programmed? Wonder who did the programming. Imagine someone looking at a robot performing a function, and then imply that it is all the result of millions of years of random purposelss events, and that there was no programmer. But yet, somehow you think the burden of proof is no us.

Yes, your conscience IS proof. It condemns you when you lie, steal, lust, commit adultery. We can quiet our conscience and we can ignore our conscience, but it speaks volumes.

Have you lied? If yes, then what does that make you?
Answers:
a. A reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being.
b. A liar


Also,
Is excluding women from the NFL discrimination?

Again, it is only an example or historical snobbery to say the bible discrimnates agaisnt women. It shows an unreasonable standard in your arguments. Not taking into consideration the social norms of 3,000 years ago is simply not reasonable. No more reasonable then saying that we oppress women because they are not allowed to play in the NFL. Perhaps you'd like to site specific examples of such discrimination and we can really unwind them. Because I'll be glad to show you that in light of the social norms of the times, the bible is more radical than the ERA movement when it comes to women's rights. I mean this is just another example of irrational arguing to exclude the evidence. "Sure there are some prophecies, but what about women's rights." Apply a 21st century view to a 3,000 year old social norm, and therefore ignore the evidence. This is another, "God doesn't exist, because I don't like him," argument. "I need evidence." Sure, here's some. "People in the bible had slaves, so it can't be true." And round and round we go. And you can still, claim, "see I'm open, you just haven't met my standard yet."

You presented an analogy? The only one I remember you then retracted. If there is another, please restate it or direct me to it.

yes, I presented two. One about a radio waves, and one about treasure. Your responses show that you are either being overly literal in interpreting the analogy, and thus missing the point, or just being smarmy. Either way, I can't possibly consider engaging you by responding to your analogy.

Are there not false prophets? People using religion to take advantage of the unwary? Cults? Religious extremists?

Yep, and it proves nothing about the claims of Christ, or what we are talking about. Just as quacks, counterfeit money, and crooked lawyers, do not prove that good doctors, real money, and justice do not exist. It's just another argument for arguments sake, and only further builds the case that you are not open, and have precluded yourself from seeing evidence by setting blinders in your mind.

If there is evidence on the other side of a bridge, it is unreasonable to say that the evidence doens't exist because bridges have collapsed in the past. Or, that if the evidence were real, it would already be on this side of the bridge.

In contrast, I had an experience that precludes me from denying. I've been to the other side of the bridge. Having had the experience I can have a reasonable bias.
If I see a black dog run by, I have seen it. I can't change it. I can't prove to you I saw it, but i can testify about it, and KNOW I saw it. You can make all kinds of arguments that I didn't, but I KNOW that I did. A man with an argument is no contest for a man with an experience.

You say you've read the bible. Then you should have caught this. John 14:21 says, "he who has MY commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I to will love him and will MANIFEST myself to him."
Now contrast that with, If God obeys me and meets my criteria of proof, then, I will obey him. maybe. If I can get past the slavery and discrimination thing.

waynepii wrote:

zoegirl wrote:

waynepii wrote:

wayne wrote:As I said innumerable times, it's not a preference.

YOu prefer "do unto others". And I'm not disagreeing with you that it is a nice test. The question is why is your test any more valid than the murderer''s IN YOUR WORLDVIEW? YOur worldview states this test is that result of a devlopment in our neuron pathways stemming form our genes and then taught and maintained in the culure through upbringing. That test, that pathway, that ability to feel empathy, is inherently no better than the animals that rape and kill. YOur genes and your culture tell you that?

If culture changed, if our brains changed so that "do unto others" was not deemed reasonable, then YOU can have no objection, for the worldview you hold is that morality is the result of genes and upbringing. IF those change, if the genes and upbringing change so that the "do unto others" test is not resulting in fitness, then the current mode of ethics simply changes.

HOw about actually addressing these points?

Have you read Mere Christianity?

What points was it you wanted me to address?

Was it ...

• The question is why is your test any more valid than the murderer''s IN YOUR WORLDVIEW??
  My "compass" tells me murder is "bad" (I wouldn't want to be murdered) - duh.

It's great that YOU don't want to be murdered, but whyshould the muderer listen to you? THere's no DUH about it...why is his morality any less than yours?

wayne wrote: [*]YOur worldview states this test is that result of a devlopment in our neuron pathways stemming form our genes and then taught and maintained in the culure through upbringing. That test, that pathway, that ability to feel empathy, is inherently no better than the animals that rape and kill. YOur genes and your culture tell you that?
YOU said that, not I.

Good grief...as an atheist, where else would you say morality comes from!?!? Other than our ability in our brains to think and rationalize?

wayne wrote: [*]If culture changed, if our brains changed so that "do unto others" was not deemed reasonable, then YOU can have no objection, for the worldview you hold is that morality is the result of genes and upbringing. IF those change, if the genes and upbringing change so that the "do unto others" test is not resulting in fitness, then the current mode of ethics simply changes.
However much society changes, "do unto others" will still be valid. It may well not be adhered to (as was the case in the past), but it will still be valid. Can you really say as much for whatever you use as a moral compass? [/list]

YOu still aren't getting the example, in this society, they see that those humans that have low quality of life or that are a burden to others can be sanctioned to be killed. Why? Because in THIS society, it MAKES sense (just as "do unto others" does to you) that those who are not living a life of quality shoujldn't be a burden to society. THose that are old and elderly or have been diagnosed with a terminal illness are appointed a time to die, to relieve society of the burden to care for them. We know they will die, we know that they are not living a life of quality, better to die with dignity.

IN this society, the majority see this as MAKING SENSE (they reply to your "do unto others" with a smirk and to your questions they answer with a "duh!") and even those that have appointed to die have been brought up with this morality see this as perfectly fine. IN fact, when you bring up do unto other" they tell you that they would WANT their rlatives to die a painless death. When they ponder this "do unto others" they tell you that this IS their reasoning. They want a society where all are contributing t society and not to be a burden. If this is the morality that hs provided the advantage, then WHO AER YOU to DECLARE THIS MORALITY AS WRONG?

And you know, there are some dangerous ideas already wth this notion. Peter Singer,a moder ethicist, believes tat babies up to 3-4 years old can be killed.

petersinger wrote:You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents. Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely.

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn't your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that's a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

Q. Elderly people with dementia, or people who have been injured in accidents, may also have no sense of the future. Can they also be killed?

A. When a human being once had a sense of the future, but has now lost it, we should be guided by what he or she would have wanted to happen in these circumstances. So if someone would not have wanted to be kept alive after losing their awareness of their future, we may be justified in ending their life; but if they would not have wanted to be killed under these circumstances, that is an important reason why we should not do so.

DOn't know why he stops with the elderly...in his line of thinking, they are just like the infant!!!

Notice,by the way, that hi reason for not killing a NORMAL baby is that the parents love it....that the love of the parent gives the baby value. Scary, that, that the baby doesn't have inerent value as a human.

Sooo... all it would take is for a society to view sanctioned killing much like Singer does and your "do unto others" is completely thrown out the window. (or at least...YOUR understanding of "do unto others").

Of course with the atheist worldview...this is perfectly fine.



HAve you read MEre CHristianity?

AS to how we as CHristians understand morality? We read....the Bible, Bible commentaries, Sermons, Historical studies of the cultures invovled...so how many of these have you read in order to criticize the morality of the Bible? Have their been mistakes....absolutely...doesn't negate, as JAc pointed out, that the measuring device is wrong.

zoegirl wrote:

waynepii wrote:

Wayne, I AGREE that there is a lot more to it. In fact, I KNOW there is a lot more to it. MOral law, as CS Lewis states, is part of our inherent notion that there is an OBJECTIVE fairness, OBJECTIVE right and wrong. There is evil and there is good. My worldview champions "do unto others". YOu have no right to proclaim that your notion of sweetness and goodness and fairness is the proper way for us to be.

All I have been saying is that according to a natrualistic worldview....YOUR notion of "do unto others" is simply *your* preference. Despite its easiness, despite its workability (which you are right, it is a good notion!), if all we are is animals, then who are YOU to proclaim that YOUR genes, YOUR upbringing, and YOUR notion of right and wrong is better?!?!

YOU dislike it...so what?!?!? Animal kill...so what?

At least I've clearly defined what my morality is based on. What (exactly) is yours based on? Why is yours "better" than mine? It's easy to cast stones, how about something to back up your claims? Prove my morality is invalid. What makes your morality objective (yes I know what "objective" means, which is exactly why I ask).

For example, one difference between your morality and mine is gay marriage. Gay marriage is of no concern to me because I wouldn't want someone telling me who I could or couldn't marry. On what would you base the right to deny marriage to a committed, monogamous, same-sex couple? If you'd prefer to use a less contentious example, feel free. I am interested in how your moral compass works, not upon debating the issue of gay marriage.

Wayne, it shouldn't MATTER whose morlaity is better according to the atheist worldview. In fact, ours are equal and it shouldn't matter that we don't approve of homosexuality or not. Our morality is JUST as valid YOURS in your worldview. Let's not bicker!! If I think homosexual behavior is a sin, if I think rape is sin, if I think lying is a sin, then great. If you don't find it a sin, well, okay, everybody gets to have their morality.

I wouldn't want to be raped (or have my wife or daughter raped) ergo rape is bad!
I wouldn't want to be lied to about anything important ergo lying is bad!
I wouldn't want anyone telling me I couldn't marry my wife ergo restricting marriage is bad!

According to DAWKINS....there is no rhyme or reason, no justice.

Again, I have NO interest in Richard Dawkins.

I don't have a problem with "do unto others" as a general rule of behavior. You, however, should.

Why would that be?

If somebody does find a mutilated corpse attractive then that, I guess, is their perogative, according to your worldview.

I think someone who finds a mutilated corpse "attractive" is probably deranged.

It's funny, when this whole conversation started, everybody took offense at this idea that somebody would find a picture of the mutilted corpse attractive. "Why would we think it's attractiive...that's offensive!!" And yet, when Robert MAplethorpe decided to show his grotesque and mutlitated, sexually offensive pictures, free-thinking morality is all anybody can talk about.

YOU brought this up, not I.

FWIW I think Maplethorp's "art" is offensive, but assuming that he had the deceased's permissions to be displayed as he did (presumably for monetary compensation), freedom of speech gives him the right to such a display.

Wayne, you STILL avoid my scenario about a society who sanctions murder. As long as they have agreed and their genes and upbringing allows it, how can it be wrong. You can't use your "do unto others" rule because THEY don't hold to it. How could you condemn them?

Unless all members of the hypothetical society agree to be killed at any time, the "do unto others" test will still say murder is bad. The only situation I can think of where a society could "sell" the idea that "death is good" is if some religion convinces the faithful that the afterlife is preferable to life on Earth (witness the suicide bombers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, 9/11, etc). Of course, I haven't seen Osaba or the other leaders wearing explosive vests or flying aircraft into building, so assert "do unto others" still holds so far.

I will respond concerning my objective morality when you can successfully respond to that scenario above.

I've been trying to respond to your requests. How about some responses from you. Or do you just throw stones?

Wayne, I really think that you haven't thought through the atheist worldview. As obnoxious as Dawkins is, he does represent the ultimate conclusion of th e atheist worldview.

Have you read Mere Christianity?

Nope. Give me some reason to do so.

jlay wrote:

There you go putting words in my mouth again. I've already said I've done some things that violated my moral compass and that I felt bad about it afterwards. And THIS is your "proof" of God? Could it not be that social animals are wired to conform to the group? Could it not be that this is the root of our conscience?

Where to start?
First. I don't see where I put words in your mouth. Are you not the one proposing (hypothetically of course) that you are a, "reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being?" Are you claiming to not have lied, that lying is decent, or that lying doesn't violate your conscience?

No, I was asking if that might not that have been said by a "reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being"

Where did I claim not to have ever lied?

I simply commented on what you said. You are proposing that you are a good person. Which means there is a standard of goodness. If your standard of good is just in your mind, then its not a standard at all. Anyone can compare themselves to other people and find enough people worse than them. Yet you contradict yourself and say that the standard could be (hypothesis) that morality is just a trait that results in social animals. So, now we are back to morality not being morality at all, but no different than hunger pains. In other words, the conscience in no different than a grumbling stomach, right? If that is true then how can you claim morality. Can somene take credit for buying a bag of cheetos when they are hungry. If it is just a product of instinct or physiology, then claiming you are good is like saying, "I'm hungry."

And then you say something interesting. That animals could be wired. Wired like programmed? Wonder who did the programming. Imagine someone looking at a robot performing a function, and then imply that it is all the result of millions of years of random purposelss events, and that there was no programmer. But yet, somehow you think the burden of proof is no us.

Social animals benefit from operating in cooperative groups. Individuals that don't participate effectively in the group endanger the group. Therefore, groups that evict (or kill) non-cooperative individuals are at a significant disadvantage and are thus more likely to fail (spelled 'D'-'I'-'E'). Individuals evicted from their group are very unlikely to survive and highly unlikely to mate. Bottom line, individuals with behaviors consistent with their group are far more likely to pass their genes on. Groups that require cooperative behavior are far more likely to pass their genes on. Ergo, individuals wired to cooperate with the group.

Yes, your conscience IS proof. It condemns you when you lie, steal, lust, commit adultery. We can quiet our conscience and we can ignore our conscience, but it speaks volumes.

Have you lied? If yes, then what does that make you?
Answers:
a. A reasonably responsible, decent, and caring human being.
b. A liar

OK, I'm a liar. Are you?

Also,
Is excluding women from the NFL discrimination?

Yes - IF a women can perform at her position better than the available male candidates, she should get the job (assuming she wants it).

Again, it is only an example or historical snobbery to say the bible discrimnates agaisnt women. It shows an unreasonable standard in your arguments. Not taking into consideration the social norms of 3,000 years ago is simply not reasonable. No more reasonable then saying that we oppress women because they are not allowed to play in the NFL. Perhaps you'd like to site specific examples of such discrimination and we can really unwind them. Because I'll be glad to show you that in light of the social norms of the times, the bible is more radical than the ERA movement when it comes to women's rights. I mean this is just another example of irrational arguing to exclude the evidence. "Sure there are some prophecies, but what about women's rights." Apply a 21st century view to a 3,000 year old social norm, and therefore ignore the evidence. This is another, "God doesn't exist, because I don't like him," argument. "I need evidence." Sure, here's some. "People in the bible had slaves, so it can't be true." And round and round we go. And you can still, claim, "see I'm open, you just haven't met my standard yet."

If The Bible is the word of God, why was it constrained by the norms of the day? Why hasn't God revised The Bible in 2000 years?

You presented an analogy? The only one I remember you then retracted. If there is another, please restate it or direct me to it.

yes, I presented two. One about a radio waves, and one about treasure. Your responses show that you are either being overly literal in interpreting the analogy, and thus missing the point, or just being smarmy. Either way, I can't possibly consider engaging you by responding to your analogy.

I responded to both.

• Radio waves were unknown until evidence of their existence was discovered.
• When a treasure is discovered, there is conclusive evidence of its existence (namely the physical treasure itself)

I'll elaborate if you have don't understand the answers. Otherwise it's your turn. Or do you not have a response to my analogy?

Are there not false prophets? People using religion to take advantage of the unwary? Cults? Religious extremists?

Yep, and it proves nothing about the claims of Christ, or what we are talking about. Just as quacks, counterfeit money, and crooked lawyers, do not prove that good doctors, real money, and justice do not exist.

Absolutely agree! But don't the "quacks, counterfeit money, and crooked lawyers" et al make you want to see some evidence to help you determine the good doctors, that your money is real, and what a judge's decision is just?

It's just another argument for arguments sake, and only further builds the case that you are not open, and have precluded yourself from seeing evidence by setting blinders in your mind.

Hey, wanna a great buy on a big red bridge in San Fransisco?

If there is evidence on the other side of a bridge, it is unreasonable to say that the evidence doens't exist because bridges have collapsed in the past. Or, that if the evidence were real, it would already be on this side of the bridge.

In contrast, I had an experience that precludes me from denying. I've been to the other side of the bridge. Having had the experience I can have a reasonable bias.
If I see a black dog run by, I have seen it. I can't change it. I can't prove to you I saw it, but i can testify about it, and KNOW I saw it. You can make all kinds of arguments that I didn't, but I KNOW that I did. A man with an argument is no contest for a man with an experience.

So how do you know I also saw the dog? Why am I somehow inferior if I didn't see the dog? Why should I completely restructure my ethics because you saw the dog but can't provide any other evidence? Why do you think that I am unwilling or unable to restructure my ethics should I see the dog at some time in the future?

You say you've read the bible. Then you should have caught this. John 14:21 says, "he who has MY commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I to will love him and will MANIFEST myself to him."

There's lots of directives in various books. Why do you choose to follow those in that particular book but not the others?

But, there are very few commandments that I have ever violated. I'm almost always truthful, have never committed adultery, never murdered anyone, very seldom shown anger, don't smoke, seldom drink and never to excess, never stolen (at least not since very young). But He hasn't manifested Himself to me yet.

Now contrast that with, If God obeys me and meets my criteria of proof, then, I will obey him. maybe. If I can get past the slavery and discrimination thing.

Why should I not expect some proof? If there is proof, I'll do whatever He wants. The slavery and discrimination thing is just an anomaly that makes The Bible seem like it was authored by MEN 2,000+ years ago (divine inspiration questionable).

If The Bible is the word of God, why was it constrained by the norms of the day? Why hasn't God revised The Bible in 2000 years?

Don't need to. The new testament is very inclusive of women. It makes allowances for the social norms of the culture. That is not constrained. You are the one being constraining, not the bible.

OK, I'm a liar. Are you?

I have broke every command either in word, thought or deed.

Absolutely agree! But don't the "quacks, counterfeit money, and crooked lawyers" et al make you want to see some evidence to help you determine the good doctors, that your money is real, and what a judge's decision is just?

Exactly.
And this leads to this.

There's lots of directives in various books. Why do you choose to follow those in that particular book but not the others?

1st, Because it is testable. There are a lot of ways to examine the faith. If a faith makes claims that you can experience God, and KNOW, then it certainly deserves some attention. However, how many of the major religions claim this? Have you investigated? 2nd. You can't simply go on these claims alone. For example, if the bible were full of historical innacuracies, then I would conclude that the claims of John 14:21 are not worth my attention. If the bible demonstrates itself to be reliable in the knowable areas, then I can take the next step of investigating its claims of divinty.

But, there are very few commandments that I have ever violated. I'm almost always truthful, have never committed adultery, never murdered anyone, very seldom shown anger, don't smoke, seldom drink and never to excess, never stolen (at least not since very young). But He hasn't manifested Himself to me yet.

Let us start with the 1st commandment. Have you put God 1st in all you do? Have you loved Him with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength? The bible says no one has. #2 Have you ever put your affections on yourself, money, possessions, a person, etc. more than seeking after and following God?
#3 Have you ever used the name of Jesus or God in a less than honorable fashion?

What you are doing is called self-justification. You are trying to justify your goodness. Which is exactly what the bible prophecies you will do. That is why I provided Prov. 16:2 "All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits."

Jesus said, if you look with lust, you have committed adultery in your heart. If you have hate, you have murdered in your heart. This is in Matt. 5. James 2:10 says, if you keep the whole law and stumble at one point you have broken ALL of it. You see you are making a very common error. You are comparing yourself to your own standard. But, in actuality you have also violated your own standard, in violating your conscience. If there is an infinite, eternal and Holy God, would His standard be the same as yours? Have you ever looked with lust? Hated or been angry? God sees you as anadulterer and murderer at heart.

never stolen (at least not since very young).

Which is it, never, or in the past? Time doesn't erase past sins. And stealing doesn't matter regarding value or size. Ever cheated on a test? That is stealing as well.

God has weighed you, and found you lacking. You can react with pride and continue to try and justify yourself. If you do, the bible declares that God will resist you. However, if you humble yourself before him, convinced a sinner, then He will begin to manifest the truth to you. This is the truth. "God resist the proud, and gives grace to the humble."

Let's say we placed a device in your brain that recorded every action and thought. Let's say we record for one month. At the end we compile some of the questionable thoughts and actions, and then we gather all your friends and family to watch. Would you be concerned? Of course you would. How much more should you be concerned that the God who created you, has seen every hidden thought, and has declared that they will come under judgment?

Why should I not expect some proof?

I dont' think that is the issue at all. Your intellect has been addressed ad-nauseum on this board. Sadly, many here want to argue you into the faith, and think that you just need to read the right book, and that will answer it. But the bible says, that you are incapable of seeing the evidence as long as you try to rationalize and justify your sin. In essence, you are proving the bible in your efforts to disprove it. The bible predicts how you will react.

So how do you know I also saw the dog? Not the point. Why am I somehow inferior if I didn't see the dog? Not the point at all. Why should I completely restructure my ethics because you saw the dog but can't provide any other evidence? Completely missed it.

again, that is not the central point in the analogy. You only further prove your stubborness, and that you are not what you claim. Open.

If somebody does find a mutilated corpse attractive then that, I guess, is their perogative, according to your worldview.

I think someone who finds a mutilated corpse "attractive" is probably deranged. [/quote]

Why?!?!? According to evolutionsists, beauty and death are just derived from neuronal pathways. If one neuronal pathway gives a better fitness, who are you to argue? RIght now there ARE more people who view that with disgust. Why are you so judgemental towards those who have the mutation to see it as attractive?

wayne wrote:

It's funny, when this whole conversation started, everybody took offense at this idea that somebody would find a picture of the mutilted corpse attractive. "Why would we think it's attractiive...that's offensive!!" And yet, when Robert MAplethorpe decided to show his grotesque and mutlitated, sexually offensive pictures, free-thinking morality is all anybody can talk about.

YOU brought this up, not I.

I know I did, it was just a train of thought that came to me.

wayne wrote: FWIW I think Maplethorp's "art" is offensive, but assuming that he had the deceased's permissions to be displayed as he did (presumably for monetary compensation), freedom of speech gives him the right to such a display.

So you think people who view Maplethorpes art with pleasure deranged. For that matter, Maptlethorpe, in viewing his own sexual deviancy in the artwork, was probably deranged?

So let's apply the "do unto others" rule here. I see that art and I think to myself "I wouldn't want my daughter, son, child portrayed in that manner, therefore this is bad" Okay, according to the rule, this form of artwork should be banned. Great.

wayne wrote:

Wayne, you STILL avoid my scenario about a society who sanctions murder. As long as they have agreed and their genes and upbringing allows it, how can it be wrong. You can't use your "do unto others" rule because THEY don't hold to it. How could you condemn them?

Unless all members of the hypothetical society agree to be killed at any time, the "do unto others" test will still say murder is bad. The only situation I can think of where a society could "sell" the idea that "death is good" is if some religion convinces the faithful that the afterlife is preferable to life on Earth (witness the suicide bombers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, 9/11, etc). Of course, I haven't seen Osaba or the other leaders wearing explosive vests or flying aircraft into building, so assert "do unto others" still holds so far.

Wayne I GAVE you a scenario!!

wayne wrote:

I will respond concerning my objective morality when you can successfully respond to that scenario above.

I've been trying to respond to your requests. How about some responses from you. Or do you just throw stones?

YOu haven't responded to my scenario!!!

zoegirl wrote:
YOu still aren't getting the example, in this society, they see that those humans that have low quality of life or that are a burden to others can be sanctioned to be killed. Why? Because in THIS society, it MAKES sense (just as "do unto others" does to you) that those who are not living a life of quality shoujldn't be a burden to society. THose that are old and elderly or have been diagnosed with a terminal illness are appointed a time to die, to relieve society of the burden to care for them. We know they will die, we know that they are not living a life of quality, better to die with dignity.

IN this society, the majority see this as MAKING SENSE (they reply to your "do unto others" with a smirk and to your questions they answer with a "duh!") and even those that have appointed to die have been brought up with this morality see this as perfectly fine. IN fact, when you bring up do unto other" they tell you that they would WANT their rlatives to die a painless death. When they ponder this "do unto others" they tell you that this IS their reasoning. They want a society where all are contributing t society and not to be a burden. If this is the morality that hs provided the advantage, then WHO AER YOU to DECLARE THIS MORALITY AS WRONG?

And you know, there are some dangerous ideas already wth this notion. Peter Singer,a moder ethicist, believes tat babies up to 3-4 years old can be killed.

petersinger wrote:
You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents. Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely.

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn't your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that's a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

Q. Elderly people with dementia, or people who have been injured in accidents, may also have no sense of the future. Can they also be killed?

A. When a human being once had a sense of the future, but has now lost it, we should be guided by what he or she would have wanted to happen in these circumstances. So if someone would not have wanted to be kept alive after losing their awareness of their future, we may be justified in ending their life; but if they would not have wanted to be killed under these circumstances, that is an important reason why we should not do so.

wayne wrote: Have you read Mere Christianity?
Nope. Give me some reason to do so.

Merely that for someone who earnestly asks questions and yet criticizes the Bible, one should be reading up on those they criticize. It is a good book explaining a lot of our apologetics. Even if you don't end up agreeing with it, it is a nice read. I would encourage reading about it if you are interested.


Wayne, just to clear the air, I DO want to explain (and I did in a previous e-mail, maybe that e-mail slipped by?

zoegirl wrote:AS to how we as CHristians understand morality? We read....the Bible, Bible commentaries, Sermons, Historical studies of the cultures invovled...so how many of these have you read in order to criticize the morality of the Bible? Have their been mistakes....absolutely...doesn't negate, as JAc pointed out, that the measuring device is wrong.

) I don't want to just throw stones. I just feel like you aren't getting my points. I understand your test of do unto others. I understand that you are moral....I am not criticizing these things. My point has always been that once morality is simply a matter of selective fitness, then we cannot create and hold to moral absolutes. YOu saying over and over again that "do unto others" is a good test is a futile exercise when the class changes. ie, that test is ONLY as strong as the people holding to THAT test. If society changes, if our brains changes, if the deranged people are in charge, then THEIR moral test changes and that is perectly FINE in a naturalistic world. (it sounds as if you are proclaiming that there are moral absolutes, which is really strange coming from an atheist.)

By the way, thanks for the discussion, I am really appreciating the exchange. If I have come across as throwing stones, I don't mean to be, I just want to settle this point before progressing.

wayne wrote:Absolutely agree! But don't the "quacks, counterfeit money, and crooked lawyers" et al make you want to see some evidence to help you determine the good doctors, that your money is real, and what a judge's decision is just?

THis is an excellent point, and yes, you are right to examine everthing. The question is, HAVE you? If you haven't even read Mere Christianity!! (being only slightly facetious there, it is a good foundational book)

wayne wrote:OK, I'm a liar. Are you?

Yep, I will answer it, even if it wasn't directed at me.

wayne wrote:But, there are very few commandments that I have ever violated. I'm almost always truthful, have never committed adultery, never murdered anyone, very seldom shown anger, don't smoke, seldom drink and never to excess, never stolen (at least not since very young).

Christianity has never been about comparing oneself to the most evil person. It is about humans that have chosen their way instead of God's way and thus are in rebellion against HIm. It is about seeing yourself with respect to God, not with respect to a really, really evil person.

wayne wrote: But He hasn't manifested Himself to me yet.

Not yet, but I've been praying

wayne wrote:I dont' think that is the issue at all. Your intellect has been addressed ad-nauseum on this board. Sadly, many here want to argue you into the faith

I don't know if this is aimed at me or not. I like debating If God wants to use this, He certainly can.

zoegirl wrote:

wayne wrote: Wayne, you STILL avoid my scenario about a society who sanctions murder. As long as they have agreed and their genes and upbringing allows it, how can it be wrong. You can't use your "do unto others" rule because THEY don't hold to it. How could you condemn them?

Unless all members of the hypothetical society agree to be killed at any time, the "do unto others" test will still say murder is bad. The only situation I can think of where a society could "sell" the idea that "death is good" is if some religion convinces the faithful that the afterlife is preferable to life on Earth (witness the suicide bombers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, 9/11, etc). Of course, I haven't seen Osaba or the other leaders wearing explosive vests or flying aircraft into building, so assert "do unto others" still holds so far.

The "do unto others" test is still valid as long as those being murdered don't want to be murdered. That those doing the murders don't use the test is of no consequence.

Wayne I GAVE you a scenario!!

wayne wrote:

I will respond concerning my objective morality when you can successfully respond to that scenario above.

I've been trying to respond to your requests. How about some responses from you. Or do you just throw stones?

YOu haven't responded to my scenario!!!

zoegirl wrote:
YOu still aren't getting the example, in this society, they see that those humans that have low quality of life or that are a burden to others can be sanctioned to be killed. Why? Because in THIS society, it MAKES sense (just as "do unto others" does to you) that those who are not living a life of quality shoujldn't be a burden to society. THose that are old and elderly or have been diagnosed with a terminal illness are appointed a time to die, to relieve society of the burden to care for them. We know they will die, we know that they are not living a life of quality, better to die with dignity.

IN this society, the majority see this as MAKING SENSE (they reply to your "do unto others" with a smirk and to your questions they answer with a "duh!") and even those that have appointed to die have been brought up with this morality see this as perfectly fine. IN fact, when you bring up do unto other" they tell you that they would WANT their rlatives to die a painless death. When they ponder this "do unto others" they tell you that this IS their reasoning. They want a society where all are contributing t society and not to be a burden. If this is the morality that hs provided the advantage, then WHO AER YOU to DECLARE THIS MORALITY AS WRONG?

Actually, I did respond to this but you must have missed it.

Again "do unto others" applies. Those being murdered (presumably) don't want to be, therefore the practice is "wrong". That no one in the society uses the test doesn't change the fact that "do unto others" determines the practice "wrong".

Does your "objective" morality find the practice "wrong" even if the society doesn't follow your objective morality? If no one follows your morality, is your objective morality invalidated?

And you know, there are some dangerous ideas already wth this notion. Peter Singer,a moder ethicist, believes tat babies up to 3-4 years old can be killed.

petersinger wrote:
You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents. Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely.

This is a complex subject and I would rather defer discussion to another thread.

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn't your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that's a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

I agree.

Q. Elderly people with dementia, or people who have been injured in accidents, may also have no sense of the future. Can they also be killed?

A. When a human being once had a sense of the future, but has now lost it, we should be guided by what he or she would have wanted to happen in these circumstances. So if someone would not have wanted to be kept alive after losing their awareness of their future, we may be justified in ending their life; but if they would not have wanted to be killed under these circumstances, that is an important reason why we should not do so.

I believe a person should not be forced to sustain life against their wishes in certain circumstances. For example, a terminally ill patient should be able to end their life to avoid extended, extreme and uncontrollable suffering. The process should be controlled by the patient, and have appropriate controls and safeguards, and be as humane as possible. The process should be strictly controlled by safeguards to ensure the patient is truly terminal and the pain cannot be controlled, etc.

Also, patients should have the right to specify DNR protocol.

wayne wrote: Have you read Mere Christianity?
Nope. Give me some reason to do so.

Merely that for someone who earnestly asks questions and yet criticizes the Bible, one should be reading up on those they criticize. It is a good book explaining a lot of our apologetics. Even if you don't end up agreeing with it, it is a nice read. I would encourage reading about it if you are interested.

If I give you a selected atheist article to read, would you do so with an open mind?

Wayne, just to clear the air, I DO want to explain (and I did in a previous e-mail, maybe that e-mail slipped by?

An email? It may have been missed, when was it sent?

==========
EDIT I went thru my email and didn't find anything from you or that seemed related. Could you resend it when you get a chance. Thanks
==========

zoegirl wrote:AS to how we as CHristians understand morality? We read....the Bible, Bible commentaries, Sermons, Historical studies of the cultures invovled...so how many of these have you read in order to criticize the morality of the Bible? Have their been mistakes....absolutely...doesn't negate, as JAc pointed out, that the measuring device is wrong.

) I don't want to just throw stones. I just feel like you aren't getting my points. I understand your test of do unto others. I understand that you are moral....I am not criticizing these things. My point has always been that once morality is simply a matter of selective fitness, then we cannot create and hold to moral absolutes. YOu saying over and over again that "do unto others" is a good test is a futile exercise when the class changes. ie, that test is ONLY as strong as the people holding to THAT test. If society changes, if our brains changes, if the deranged people are in charge, then THEIR moral test changes and that is perectly FINE in a naturalistic world. (it sounds as if you are proclaiming that there are moral absolutes, which is really strange coming from an atheist.)

If God wrote The Bible, or caused it to be written on His behalf, shouldn't it be infallible? If The Bible contains errors, wouldn't that be more consistent with non-divine authorship? If The Bible was written by men, how are sure that they truly are speaking on God's behalf? Who were the men that selected the writings that should be included in The Bible and which were to be excluded? How do we know they were doing the editing as God intended? In short, what sets The Bible apart from other ancient texts with historically verifiable content such as the Illiad and others?

By the way, thanks for the discussion, I am really appreciating the exchange. If I have come across as throwing stones, I don't mean to be, I just want to settle this point before progressing.

Your welcome! And thank you.

If God wrote The Bible, or caused it to be written on His behalf, shouldn't it be infallible? If The Bible contains errors, wouldn't that be more consistent with non-divine authorship? If The Bible was written by men, how are sure that they truly are speaking on God's behalf? Who were the men that selected the writings that should be included in The Bible and which were to be excluded? How do we know they were doing the editing as God intended? In short, what sets The Bible apart from other ancient texts with historically verifiable content such as the Illiad and others?

Not bad questions. They have been asked and answered. Mere Christianity would be one book of study. Lee Strobel's, Case for Faith would be another. As he wrote from the perspective of an atheistic journalist setting out to investigate the claims of the bible.

The bible is full of mistakes. The first one was when Adam disobeyed God.

So you are bailing out?

I don't insist on having an epistemological debate. I DO insist on getting answers that are clear and understandable.

If you want to call it "bailing out," feel free to do so. I have answered your question twenty seven times over in clear and understandable terms. Your problem is that you are looking for an epistemological answer to an ontological question.

For the sake of any late readers, I'll summarize my position. In any case, I am finished:

My fundamental point has always been that if atheism is true, there is no such thing as morality. So your "moral compass" doesn't even exist. All that does are your preferences. My point is ontological. You keep responding with questions about how we KNOW right from wrong, which is epistemological. Why should I bother saying the same thing to you over and over again if you are just going to ignore my basic point?

You are making an ontological claim, even if you don't see it. When you say that morality is relative, you are saying something about what reality IS. That is an ONTOLOGICAL claim. What I am saying is based on that ONTOLOGY, then there is no such thing as a moral compass. In order for a moral compass to exist, morality must BE (ontology!) objective. How we KNOW (epistemology) morality is objective (ontology) is the fact that we are aware of the obvious fact that morality is not mere preference. You don't just PREFER people to be free. You know that they SHOULD be free, and if I say otherwise, then I am WRONG.

But since obejctive morality requires God's existence, we know God exists. In fact, we know a moral God exists. This proof for God's existence is based on what morality IS, not based on how we know right from wrong. And if you reject God's existence, then you must also reject the possibility of morality, truth, beauty, purpose, etc.

I've made myself abundantly clear. You've never stopped to address my basic point--which is the point I originally made about the story, and the same point I still stand by--and I have no reason to believe you will address it now. I have no reason to believe that you are at all interested in an honest discussion, and I have every reason to doubt your intellectual honesty.

So, bailing out? Call it what you want. I call it realizing when I'm wasting my time. Feel free to carry on, though, with whoever else wishes to be so gracious with theirs. Mine has to be earned.

wayne wrote:I dont' think that is the issue at all. Your intellect has been addressed ad-nauseum on this board. Sadly, many here want to argue you into the faith

Just for the record, I didn't say this (it was quoted as mine). In fact, I would never say anything like this. As I recall, this was directed at me.

My fundamental point has always been that if atheism is true, there is no such thing as morality. So your "moral compass" doesn't even exist. All that does are your preferences. My point is ontological. You keep responding with questions about how we KNOW right from wrong, which is epistemological. Why should I bother saying the same thing to you over and over again if you are just going to ignore my basic point?

And as I've innumerable times, there IS an objective standard of morality that doesn't rely on the divine - "do unto others".

I've asked several times what you use as a moral standard (I'm actually interested in how you "read" it - how does it indicate "bad" or "good"), and you never answered. OTOH I have given a number of examples of how "do unto others" works, even when society chooses to ignore it.

You are making an ontological claim, even if you don't see it. When you say that morality is relative, you are saying something about what reality IS.

I'm not even going to get into your misuse of "ontology" and "epistemology".

That is an ONTOLOGICAL claim. What I am saying is based on that ONTOLOGY, then there is no such thing as a moral compass. In order for a moral compass to exist, morality must BE (ontology!) objective.

Does a real magnetic compass always point to true north? No, it almost never points to true north. In fact, it periodically will point south(ish - it won't point exactly south either). Just like a magnetic compass, a moral compass will point the way to various "norths" over time.

How we KNOW (epistemology) morality is objective (ontology) is the fact that we are aware of the obvious fact that morality is not mere preference. You don't just PREFER people to be free. You know that they SHOULD be free, and if I say otherwise, then I am WRONG.

This is a weak argument at best. You're relying on people's "awareness" of morality to prove objective morality. People's awareness of morality is a pretty good definition of relative morality.

But since obejctive morality requires God's existence, we know God exists.

As pointed out above, objective morality doesn't require a divinity. And even if it did, this argument could only be made after first proving that objective morality exists, which you haven't done. If you accept my definition of an objective morality, that doesn't prove God's existence since it doesn't rely on God.

True, if God exists and if He defines the moral code, then He would be the basis of an objective morality, but the objective morality cannot be used to prove God's existence.

Ignoring the non-divine definition of an objective morality for the time being, to prove objective morality exists requires God exists. If you then attempt to use the "existence" of objective morality to prove God's existence, you have a circular argument, which may sound good but proves nothing.

In fact, we know a moral God exists. This proof for God's existence is based on what morality IS, not based on how we know right from wrong. And if you reject God's existence, then you must also reject the possibility of morality, truth, beauty, purpose, etc.

This "proof" proves nothing since its premise is flawed.