Evidence for God from Science

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Proinsias wrote:It seems that in short your answer to the age old question of roughly "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" is "yes".

More accurate would be "If a tree exists and no one is around to see it, does the tree exist?" That is as close to tautology as you could make a statement without actually doing it.

Yes that is it - "If a tree exists and no one is around to see it, does the tree exist?" was Roland's point... who was most likely pointing out human stupidity (which by the way is another Objective Truth)

Anyway - Pros and Waynpii,

How do you know if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and mother ever existed since you were not around to see either? Did they exist?
-
-
-

People get upset, therefore God exists? Really?

Is someone sticking a gun in your face really life going along fine in your opinion? It seems a little like your philosophy has a monopoly on the human condition. Are they borrowing from OM or are you lending out your opinion?

Where did I say people get upset therefore God exists? How do you even conclude that?
You are the one who said life goes along fine w/out OM. My point is that you, Wayne and every other atheist I've met, ALWAYS trespass on the ground of OM. the point is that when someone does stick a gun in your face, I doubt you are going to say, "oh well, it isn't objectively wrong, and there isn't inherent value in my life." No, you are going to see clearly the objective wrong being done to you, and the inherent value in your life. The point being that most who denys OM, will follow through and live like that is the case.

B. W. wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Proinsias wrote:It seems that in short your answer to the age old question of roughly "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" is "yes".

More accurate would be "If a tree exists and no one is around to see it, does the tree exist?" That is as close to tautology as you could make a statement without actually doing it.

Yes that is it - "If a tree exists and no one is around to see it, does the tree exist?" was Roland's point... who was most likely pointing out human stupidity (which by the way is another Objective Truth)

That's the general idea. If there is no one around to define a tree or the meaning of existence, does a tree exist?

The idea, I think, of the old koan is that sound and hearing are complementary. They are not independent. An imagined tree making a sound you didn't hear isn't worth much in the way of hard evidence. It's a question to rise above, not a question to answer with 'I'm really sure it would make a sound".

"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees"

B. W. wrote:Anyway - Pros and Waynpii,

How do you know if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and mother ever existed since you were not around to see either? Did they exist?
-
-
-

I suppose you know by now that I'll answer along the lines of "I imagine they did"

The bigger question being, does it really matter? Evolution, OEC, YEC, the appearance of age argument whilst rather unsatisfying is rather difficult to disqualify. Personally I lean towards a rather shaky theory of evolution, the mechanics of which I'm not sure of and like all good theories when taken to logical extremes it brings up far more questions than it answers.

What I get from this forum is that these things really do matter, often to the point of heaven or hell. It is imperative Jesus existed, was who he said he was, and done what he is said to have done. It is of absolute importance that we are discovering objective truth. Our opinions must stand on rock solid truths. Science, mathematics and logic are not ideas and play things, they are serious works of discovery.

It seems that if it is impossible for me or you to comprehend how I could be here without a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather then we must conclude that I had one. The other assumption being that it has to stop somewhere, an infinite being seems preferable to an infinite regression here.

jlay wrote:

People get upset, therefore God exists? Really?

Is someone sticking a gun in your face really life going along fine in your opinion? It seems a little like your philosophy has a monopoly on the human condition. Are they borrowing from OM or are you lending out your opinion?

Where did I say people get upset therefore God exists? How do you even conclude that?
You are the one who said life goes along fine w/out OM. My point is that you, Wayne and every other atheist I've met, ALWAYS trespass on the ground of OM. the point is that when someone does stick a gun in your face, I doubt you are going to say, "oh well, it isn't objectively wrong, and there isn't inherent value in my life." No, you are going to see clearly the objective wrong being done to you, and the inherent value in your life. The point being that most who denys OM, will follow through and live like that is the case.

Of course in your view plenty of people are trespassing on objective morality. We also appear to be trespassing all over God's objective creation whist actually being part of this creation. I do see value in my life and I do tend to occasionally grade things on a scale right/wrong. I don't claim these thoughts to be objective, I'm not claiming inherent value in anything. Objective wrongs and inherent values are not at all clear to me, perhaps pointing gun in my face would remedy this. To be honest I can't remember what I was thinking when I had a knife pulled on me but afterwards I don't recall thinking I'd been objectively wronged, I'd been approached for drug money by someone who was evidently going though a pretty horrendous time. I imagine if anyone had been objectively wronged it was probably him at some point before hand.
Someone pointing a gun in someone's face is a situation, there is infinite scope for complexity to be piled on the imaginary situation. If pointing a gun in someone's face is objectively wrong then every instance of it would be wrong, correct? No. The only way it stays objectively wrong is if you keep adding clauses which make it less and less applicable to reality. Loaded? Army training? War? Paintball? Raiding Bin Laden's House? Are they pointing one at you?

Being clearly convinced that your life has God given value and that objective wrongs are done to you and others is not proof to me that there is a celestial valuer and moral judge.

Clearly seeing the objective wrong being done to your inherently valuable life is more self absorption than divine objectivity imo. Gaddafi is a pretty glaring example at the moment. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong when all the judges are subjects. In the end we try to go with a sort of general agreement - can we all agree on guns being pointed in peoples faces as wrong? if so then God must also agree with this.......I must be missing something. Should we send soldiers coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq to prison if they have been pointing guns at people or do we invoke circumstance and situation to get around objective morality? Or should we go and ask Taliban fighters who have been shot if they think they have been wronged? Or ask those who really value the Taliban fighters if they think objective wrong has been committed.

The point seems to be that when you really really feel you are being wronged God agrees with you.

I've been thinking about having guns pointed at me for a few days, may I ask that you, for a moment, think that your religion is not the one true path to God and whilst being an exceptionally popular and useful one may only give a glimpse of the divine from a certain angle, a clear path to approach God but merely a path.

Proinsias wrote:Being clearly convinced that your life has God given value and that objective wrongs are done to you and others is not proof to me that there is a celestial valuer and moral judge.

Clearly seeing the objective wrong being done to your inherently valuable life is more self absorption than divine objectivity imo. Gaddafi is a pretty glaring example at the moment. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong when all the judges are subjects. In the end we try to go with a sort of general agreement - can we all agree on guns being pointed in peoples faces as wrong? if so then God must also agree with this.......I must be missing something. Should we send soldiers coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq to prison if they have been pointing guns at people or do we invoke circumstance and situation to get around objective morality? Or should we go and ask Taliban fighters who have been shot if they think they have been wronged? Or ask those who really value the Taliban fighters if they think objective wrong has been committed.

The point seems to be that when you really really feel you are being wronged God agrees with you.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that Jlay is making up what God sees as right and wrong? Or are you trying to say that what God says is right and wrong is subjective? Please clarify, I'm confused.

Proinsias wrote:

B. W. wrote:Anyway - Pros and Waynpii,

How do you know if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and mother ever existed since you were not around to see either? Did they exist?

I suppose you know by now that I'll answer along the lines of "I imagine they did"

I mean seriously, how does one have even a semi-intelligent conversation with responses such as this? 1 + 1 may or may not equal 2, the laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and biology are inventions rather than discoveries, doubt is cast on whether or not one had great grand-parents, and on and on with this absolute nonsense (sorry, I mean relativistic nonsense ).

Chance believers have always unfairly accused Christians with arguing from faith rather than logic and science. Now they've totally abandoned what they cherished the most: reason. But that's the inevitable outcome of discovering reason completely undermines the very foundations upon which they built their faith.

Proinsias wrote:

B. W. wrote:Anyway - Pros and Waynpii,

How do you know if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and mother ever existed since you were not around to see either? Did they exist?

I suppose you know by now that I'll answer along the lines of "I imagine they did".

The bigger question being, does it really matter? Evolution, OEC, YEC, the appearance of age argument whilst rather unsatisfying is rather difficult to disqualify. Personally I lean towards a rather shaky theory of evolution, the mechanics of which I'm not sure of and like all good theories when taken to logical extremes it brings up far more questions than it answers.

What I get from this forum is that these things really do matter, often to the point of heaven or hell. It is imperative Jesus existed, was who he said he was, and done what he is said to have done. It is of absolute importance that we are discovering objective truth. Our opinions must stand on rock solid truths. Science, mathematics and logic are not ideas and play things, they are serious works of discovery.

It seems that if it is impossible for me or you to comprehend how I could be here without a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather then we must conclude that I had one. The other assumption being that it has to stop somewhere, an infinite being seems preferable to an infinite regression here.

You answer and state:

Our opinions must stand on rock solid truths. Science, mathematics and logic are not ideas and play things, they are serious works of discovery.

Yet you say that you do not need a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather or mother to be here.

So does not your statement deny the very science of reason and logic you so advocate?

You exist – whomever you are as a human being you are one who can reason and type words so you do physically exist. You need a human father and mother to become a human being and they too need the same or you would not be here, typing, at all. We all had to have a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and mother to be here even though you cannot see them or know them – they existed.

Existence is an absolute. From such existence we can discover and apply reason, logic, science, mathematics, etc, to help interpret what is all around us and measure what exist by assigning numbers, letters, physics, serve to help us interpret what is out there so we can understand and discover what is out there. Because we can take two objects plus two more means we can deduce we have four objects so we can interpret the world around us.

Even if we did not exist, existence would – this world would, without human beings on it would. Having no human beings to discover and interpret does not mean existence does not exist in a sum total. The universe would still exist and all the planets and two objects plus two more would still equal four objects even without our interpretations. Without a great-great-great-great-grand father and mother you would not exist but we would who had great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- grandparents would exist.

The way human beings interpret the world and universe thru science, etc, does not negate existence if we were not around to apply terms and principles that measure what is.
-
-
-

Of course in your view plenty of people are trespassing on objective morality. We also appear to be trespassing all over God's objective creation whist actually being part of this creation. I do see value in my life and I do tend to occasionally grade things on a scale right/wrong. I don't claim these thoughts to be objective, I'm not claiming inherent value in anything.

Sorry Pros, you are not understanding me. I apologize for not being more clear with the gun example. This isn't about my beliefs vs. yours.
The reality is that people who claim there is no objective morality trespass on OM by not living consistent with what they claim they believe. The stand on the truth of OM when it suits them. Whether one will admit to it or not, you think it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. The gun scenario isn't to determine whether it is objectively wrong to point a gun at someone in any given situation. It is about the life of the person who is being threatened. I doubt someone with a gun pointed at them will conclude, "oh well, there is no inherent value in my life, therefore go ahead and shoot."

Saying, you 'see value' in your life, is arbitrary. The situation you mention totally misses the point. It isn't whether you were objectively wronged, but whether your life has inherent value. Apart from OM, there is no way to claim it. Your life isn't any more valuable than the circumstances which led the man to take it. Life has value. "So what. my desire for your money has value. And since there is no objective value of life, bang, I'm taking your money." Your claim of value is then just arbitrary. I could just as easily say," your life has no value." One claim is no more true than the other. Sure, it might be the subjective preference, but so what? But, that isn't how you live. At least as far as I can tell.

So, you spent a lot of time running down a rabbit trail that totally misses the mark. Which isn't surprising. I often remember this same type of thing in our past conversations.

Clearly seeing the objective wrong being done to your inherently valuable life is more self absorption than divine objectivity imo.

Not at all self-absorbed. This is the same thing that will drive a fireman to risk his own life. A mother to risk her life for her child's. It is seeing the inherent value of life. If you see that as self absorption, I greatly pitty you. To be consistent, you shouldn't see any real value to Ambulance and Fire & Rescue services.

You see, it all has to do with what lens you are looking through. It is clear that you are not open to objective morality. In fact, you seem quite determined to not believe it. And therefore you pursue fallacious arguments that don't even address the crux of the issue. You are starting from denial and trying to make the pieces fit your worldview. With OM, you start with the picture, and you can see how it all fits together.

The point seems to be that when you really really feel you are being wronged God agrees with you.

It is most unfortunate, based on all this converstation that you would come away with such a distorted view of our position. It seems pretty evident that you have determined in your mind that OM is not a reality, and that you will do whatever you have to, to maintain that position.

I've been thinking about having guns pointed at me for a few days, may I ask that you, for a moment, think that your religion is not the one true path to God and whilst being an exceptionally popular and useful one may only give a glimpse of the divine from a certain angle, a clear path to approach God but merely a path.

That is a different topic. This thread isn't about 'my religion.' It is about whether OM exists.
Truth has nothing to do with popularity. And the basic notion of what you present here is based in contradiction. Two contradictory ideas can not both be true at the same time. The 'paths' argument is a prime example.

Hey, if you don't want to believe in OM, that's your perogative. But have some guts and at least live consistent with that view.

jlay wrote:

Of course in your view plenty of people are trespassing on objective morality. We also appear to be trespassing all over God's objective creation whist actually being part of this creation. I do see value in my life and I do tend to occasionally grade things on a scale right/wrong. I don't claim these thoughts to be objective, I'm not claiming inherent value in anything.

Sorry Pros, you are not understanding me. I apologize for not being more clear with the gun example. This isn't about my beliefs vs. yours.
The reality is that people who claim there is no objective morality trespass on OM by not living consistent with what they claim they believe. The stand on the truth of OM when it suits them. Whether one will admit to it or not, you think it is objectively true that there is no objective truth. The gun scenario isn't to determine whether it is objectively wrong to point a gun at someone in any given situation. It is about the life of the person who is being threatened. I doubt someone with a gun pointed at them will conclude, "oh well, there is no inherent value in my life, therefore go ahead and shoot."

You are using "objective" when the real issue is "universally" or "commonly". Most people consider killing "wrong" in most circumstances. This fact in no way proves killing is objectively "wrong". Most societies consider killing "wrong" except in certain, defined circumstances (self defense, capital punishment, people belonging to other societies (aka "war"), people in "subhuman" races, ... ). How do these exceptions relate to OM? How does the fact that the allowable exceptions change over time relate to OM?

Also, the fact that virtually everyone objects to having a gun pointed at them in no way proves objective morality either. An individual's life most certainly has value to that individual (at least), even if it has no value to anyone other than that individual and his loved ones. The fact that most people will try to protect or preserve the life of others they neither are related to or even know doesn't prove OM either.

If you wish to assert OM exists, PROVE IT. Merely pointing to behaviors which are common to many social animals IS NOT PROOF OF OM. I'm not saying OM doesn't exist, I'm asking for credible proof of OM.

Prove it, you say? Will you at least concede that "Objective" things exist? We can't "prove" anything if not.

Also... could you define what you mean by "universal" and "objective". I'm fairly certain that the two terms are being used interchangeably here. The idea being referenced by both is: Something that is true regardless of the existence of anything else.

Now, remember, earlier in this thread (I believe) I pointed out to you that some words do mean different things and should be used properly. It may not have been you, but whoever it was kept using "Proof" (like you just did) to mean "evidence". A proof is a logical thing. Proofs exist for a lot of different things.

Evidence, on the other hand, is what was meant; something tangible and 'scientific' to demonstrate the validity of something. That's what was given - some evidence.

Absolute justice is an Objective Moral in that such a sense of absolute justice must permit free moral reasoning in a morally designed being in order to be absolutely just.

Waynpii and Pros, you are morally reasoning beings and can freely exercise moral reason; therefore, absolute justice exists because there is a divine being who is absolutely just...

...Absolute justice exists because God himself is absolutely just by permitting human beings to be free moral agents, as you yourselves are.

Your acceptance or rejection of a divine being only proves you are free moral agents and his allowing acceptance or rejection from free moral agents proves that a such divine being's justice is absolute. For you to state that human beings create our own morals is correct as that proves that human beings are free moral agents.

But how do we really know what is right and wrong? For a morally perfect divine being to be morally perfect would thru divine intervention reveal what standards make right-right and wrong-wrong to those whom made (created as) free moral agents. Acceptance or rejection of these standards by free moral agents only proves God’s morally objective standard of justice is supreme.

Can you freely morally reason, Waynpii - Pros?
-
-
-

It's amusing watching people try to explain away objective morality.

waynepii wrote:Also, the fact that virtually everyone objects to having a gun pointed at them in no way proves objective morality either. An individual's life most certainly has value to that individual (at least), even if it has no value to anyone other than that individual and his loved ones.

That would be an objective wrong. Thanks for illuminating that.

waynepii wrote:The fact that most people will try to protect or preserve the life of others they neither are related to or even know doesn't prove OM either.

Then what does it prove? What does pure, unadulterated altruism prove?

waynepii wrote:If you wish to assert OM exists, PROVE IT. Merely pointing to behaviors which are common to many social animals IS NOT PROOF OF OM. I'm not saying OM doesn't exist, I'm asking for credible proof of OM.

It is evidence of objective morality. What do you call it then? Social consensus? Do you act as though objective moral truths do not exist? Your line of reasoning seems to me to be desperate and flimsy, if you don't mind me saying so.

You can never convince one of OM if they are determined in their mind it doesn't exist.

Wayne and Pros are proving that point. Wayne, I just explained in my post how Pros missed the crux of the argument. Yet, after reading you make the same mistake.

The point in my post that you quoted was correcting Pros regarding the fact that the issue is the inherent value in life. Are there subjective conditions that determine whether killing is right or wrong? Yes. You are trying to defend your stance against OM by using an illustration that is not in conflict with OM. The reality of OM, doesn't mean that there isn't SM, or circumstances that might impact whether something is morally accepted. I would never make a statement like, "It is objectively wrong to kill." That isn't my argument. For example, if someone breaks in my house to harm my family, and I kill them to defend my family. This is called a moral dilema. However, the fact that there is a dilema only demonstrates that morality does have an objective standard. Otherwise it really wouldn't matter if I let the person kill my family, stopped the killer, or killed my family myself.

Also, the fact that virtually everyone objects to having a gun pointed at them in no way proves objective morality either.

Marcus already addressed the 'proof' issue. I wasn't saying that having a gun pointed at you proves objective morality. I am saying that having a gun pointed at you, awakens a the person having it pointed at them, that their own life has inherent value. And that it isn't simply a subjective preference.

As I said before. You are welcome to reject OM. I just think you should be consistent and live like it. I grow so tired of hearing Atheist boast that they are moral people. Yet, there is absolutey no reason to boast about living up to a standard, when you in fact reject the notion of standards. How can one say they are moral, when morality is simply personal or societal preference? If you've ever gotten an 'A' on a math test, you know that you met a standard. There was a right answer. Not multiple answers that could be deemed right, but only one, correct answer. Now imagine that the teacher decides that all answers are right, because they reject objective truth. Or, that no one is right for the same reason. If you are consistent you would have to conceed that you could only object based on your preferences. And thus the same goes for lying, murder and theft.

B. W. wrote:You answer and state:

Our opinions must stand on rock solid truths. Science, mathematics and logic are not ideas and play things, they are serious works of discovery.

Yet you say that you do not need a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather or mother to be here.

So does not your statement deny the very science of reason and logic you so advocate?

Sorry, I was trying to reflect what I feel is your point of view. I don't feel it necessary that these things be built on rock solid foundations, and I don't feel that they are.
I've not been advocating science and logic. They are useful and interesting but not ideas to cling to. It mystifies me that people are so sure the universe and God is reasonable and logical. Different people have different ideas as to what is reasonable, what is logical and to what extent these feelings matter.

The general idea I get from most on either side of the line is that at some point non-human, or perhaps even non-physical, parentage is required if one is to remain logical and reasonable. Infinite regression of humanity seems unsatisfactory so we introduce pre-human, God or a bit of both.

Existence is an absolute doesn't really mean much to me. That existence is illusory and temporal seems an equally valid, and meaningless, mode of thought. Counting things is no more a statement of reality than loving things. And the great thing is that you have absolute authority on what constitutes a thing.

B. W. wrote:Even if we did not exist, existence would – this world would, without human beings on it would. Having no human beings to discover and interpret does not mean existence does not exist in a sum total. The universe would still exist and all the planets and two objects plus two more would still equal four objects even without our interpretations. Without a great-great-great-great-grand father and mother you would not exist but we would who had great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great- grandparents would exist.

Do you think this universe would exist if God had no plans for humans in it? If God started resting on the afternoon of day six seems like a rather dubious thought experiment.

Again it's back to the tree in the forest. The certainty that things would be as they without being there to verify it. I've been mulling over it for years, your answer is a flat yes and it appears the height of folly to even entertain. Horses for courses and all that. Even physics recognises the importance and impact of observer. The observer has an impact on the situation, it's hard to be to sure of the extent.
An endless regression of humans doesn't cut it for most people. A nonhuman is always introduced at some point in the regression, be it some sort of proto/pre-human, some sort of infinite being, or some sort of odd extraterrestrial happenings.

B. W. wrote:The way human beings interpret the world and universe thru science, etc, does not negate existence if we were not around to apply terms and principles that measure what is.

It doesn't prove it either, a leap of faith in one's own interpretation is required.

....

jlay wrote:Sorry Pros, you are not understanding me. I apologize for not being more clear with the gun example. This isn't about my beliefs vs. yours.

You're arguing for the existence of objective morality, it's a belief as is the God that sustains it. If you're right then you're objectively right and I'm objectively wrong, if you're wrong then we're just two people sharing opinions on a message board.

jlay wrote:I doubt someone with a gun pointed at them will conclude, "oh well, there is no inherent value in my life, therefore go ahead and shoot."

I doubt that too. If one doesn't believe in objective morality, or possibly even God, then why on earth would they not fight for life? It's the world religions that are littered with people calmly accepting death in the knowledge that it'll all be fine. An ego clinging to life is not proof of inherent value.
The major incident involving guns and faces that comes to mind is Bin Laden being shot in the face, the objective wrong of shooting an unarmed man in the face is mitigated by the circumstances of the situation.

You see, it all has to do with what lens you are looking through. It is clear that you are not open to objective morality. In fact, you seem quite determined to not believe it.

I'm not determined not to believe it. It's a reasonable model but it's not one I have total faith in. You're committed to wearing the lenses of classical theism, it's how you view the world, it's what you believe in. Contrary to your opening line, this is about beliefs.
That people place arbitrary values on their own life and the lives of others does not prove that an objective standard of value exists.
If chocolate ice cream makes your stomach turn but vanilla puts a smile on your face it's your own preference, if a rather nasty murder turns your stomach and a fireman risking his life to save a child makes you smile you've stolen the idea from God. Again it's on a scale, you get to choose where opinion ends and trespassing on objective morality commences. Murder may be objectively wrong but the definition of murder is rather elastic. Jainism seems far more in line with the idea that life is inherently valuable than Christianity, Christianity views human life as far more valuable than anything else we choose to call life, Jainism attempts to use a wide angled lens on what is considered alive and valuable.

Saying, you 'see value' in your life, is arbitrary. The situation you mention totally misses the point. It isn't whether you were objectively wronged, but whether your life has inherent value. Apart from OM, there is no way to claim it. Your life isn't any more valuable than the circumstances which led the man to take it. Life has value.

Yes, but deciding that value is beyond the value of the circumstances which built up to and surrounded the event is opinion. Your opinion on the circumstances versus the life isn't worth much without objective moral backing. US & UK soldiers shooting guns at people on the other side of the planet = brave and taking the morning after pill = murder. That's the issue with objective morality, you can fit it into any situation, it helps if you are skilled in logic and reason.

Not at all self-absorbed. This is the same thing that will drive a fireman to risk his own life. A mother to risk her life for her child's. It is seeing the inherent value of life. If you see that as self absorption, I greatly pitty you. To be consistent, you shouldn't see any real value to Ambulance and Fire & Rescue services.

I think I am being consistent. I don't see any real value, as I don't see any real value in money. As with most things I value them more at some points than others. It also drives firemen not to risk their lives in many situations and mothers to not bother risking their lives.

That is a different topic. This thread isn't about 'my religion.' It is about whether OM exists.
Truth has nothing to do with popularity. And the basic notion of what you present here is based in contradiction. Two contradictory ideas can not both be true at the same time. The 'paths' argument is a prime example.

It is about your religion, your religion demands objective morality. If truth is nothing to do with popularity then why demonstrate objective truth using examples that are popular - firemen risking their lives and whatnot.
It may be the case that two contradictory ideas cannot be true at the same time but two contradictory ideas could both be a bit wrong. Clashes do not mean that one must be correct and the other false.

Hey, if you don't want to believe in OM, that's your perogative. But have some guts and at least live consistent with that view.

In what way am I not being consistent? It appears the only way I could convince you is if I was consistently demonstrating behaviour you label as objectively bad, the moment I do something you label objectively good is the same moment your worldview is confirmed. The trouble with objective morality is that it can't be consistent, it always has to adapt to the situation.

jlay wrote:As I said before. You are welcome to reject OM. I just think you should be consistent and live like it. I grow so tired of hearing Atheist boast that they are moral people. Yet, there is absolutey no reason to boast about living up to a standard, when you in fact reject the notion of standards. How can one say they are moral, when morality is simply personal or societal preference? If you've ever gotten an 'A' on a math test, you know that you met a standard. There was a right answer. Not multiple answers that could be deemed right, but only one, correct answer. Now imagine that the teacher decides that all answers are right, because they reject objective truth. Or, that no one is right for the same reason. If you are consistent you would have to conceed that you could only object based on your preferences. And thus the same goes for lying, murder and theft.

I got few A's in mathematics. That's not too tough. Living an objectively good life is impossible, you may as well plead on God for mercy.

Atheists are not instrinsicly immoral people. There just ignorant because they have never been blessed with divine revalation, and never will because they won't even except the possibility of god. Like I don't believe that Christ was the son of god but I'm atleast open to the possibility. So my heart is open to Christ and there is a chance I'll hear him one day, just hasn't happened yet, if it does then I'll believe.

That's not too tough. Living an objectively good life is impossible, you may as well plead on God for mercy.

Hey! you finally get it.
congrats