"No evidence of God" = Is a bad argument against God

[Wildswanderer]

If I live in an area where there are laws against destroying trees, would you report me if I crushed an acorn under my heel?

I'm glad you understand that you are killing a real life when you destroy the seed of life.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And how does anyone determine objectively what is best for everyone? Ultimately it boils down to someone's opinion, doesn't it? And if it's opinion, then it's subjective.

The "opinion" of an all knowing God isn't anything like a humans opinion.
You obviously don't understand what having perfect knowledge means.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But what if he was super intelligent and had the power to move planets with his mind? THEN is stealing okay if he says so? We could build this person's power up until he was the omniscient, omnipotent ruler of the universe, and he still can't make stealing okay just by commanding that it is.

The only reason you think stealing is wrong is because God gave you a conscience... again without a God it's all relative.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm glad you understand that you are killing a real life when you destroy the seed of life.

That's not what I asked though.

If I crush an acorn, am I guilty of killing a tree? Would it be justified for me to face legal action and criminal charges for violating the "don't kill trees" law?

 

[Tiberius]

The "opinion" of an all knowing God isn't anything like a humans opinion.
You obviously don't understand what having perfect knowledge means.

So all you've got is special pleading? Do you expect anyone to buy that?

 

[rational experiences]

If humans said I'll tell my truth.

No sex.
All bodies human age all die. Humans life gone from earth.

Animals still living....no science.
Garden..no science.
Planet and heavens...no science.
Creation. No science.

Legal human truth exact in thinking first.

So humans prove they personally were involved..the thinker of all science terms. Hence no man is God legal.

Everything however existed in variable types and bodies.

As a teaching model consciousness hence says the state in which everything existed is the same reason.

Which isn't defining anything other than natural observation. First and Only truth human science. To see only.

Legal. The basis of legal is to keep life safe.

Lizard people themed books. Satanic mind vision story themes self possession proven. Of the human theist thinker.

Who said reptile lizard blood type holy and human the holy Inheritor lineage.

Their atmosphere dinosaur was satanic hot dense state. Cold blood.

We'd all be dead as red cell blood life. What sacrifice life warning was about by Jesus terms. A legal human agreement only as temple science no determined other type argument allowed.

It was scientific.

Medical gathering healing building only not any practice.

So conscious teaching said ice the saviour is man's history. Holy blood cell stable biology DNA versus humans lying thinking.

Not any lizard just so confused minds couldn't preach fake science. Or form fake religious gatherings on falsified legal readings.

Why coming to the legal readings you lived just a natural life as nature intended. And you based the teaching on Jesus legality. Life had been hurt yet mother womb had taken it down.

Humans who'd build machines claiming as a lizard person an alien my human self would still exist lying.

By the terms fake holy blood theories and skin body type.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That's not what I asked though.

If I crush an acorn, am I guilty of killing a tree? Would it be justified for me to face legal action and criminal charges for violating the "don't kill trees" law?

Comparing a human to an acorn is absurd. If you don't understand that human life is more valuable than any tree, I feel sorry for you.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The only reason you think stealing is wrong is because God gave you a conscience... again without a God it's all relative.

Fine.

But you STILL didn't answer my question: "Is the golden rule a good principle because God commanded it?" -or- "Did God command it because it's a good principle?"

I want to understand God's role in making morality "not relative."

 

[Wildswanderer]

Fine.

But you STILL didn't answer my question: "Is the golden rule a good principle because God commanded it?" -or- "Did God command it because it's a good principle?"

I want to understand God's role in making morality "not relative."

Nothing is good or bad if God didn't institute it. It just is.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Nothing is good or bad if God didn't institute it. It just is.

So you are going with option #1 then. (Basically, something is good or bad because God says so.)

That means, the reason stealing is wrong is because God says so. God's command is the beginning, middle, and end of what makes something morally wrong. Plenty of Christians and other theists think this way. You are not alone.

But some theists disagree with this. They look at God's commandments and say, God forbade this for a reason. Examples would be the prohibitions against murder and theft. It seems like God decided to forbid these things because there is something wrong with murder and theft. As if God said to himself, "Theft deprives people of their hard-earned property, so I'm going to forbid it"

If this second hypothesis is correct, then God had reasons for saying "theft is wrong." And if that's true, people have reasons to see theft as wrong as well. So by the second model, what makes theft wrong is "the list of reasons that theft is wrong." In the second model, believers say that God prohibits theft because he is just and wise.

So, even a believer could come to agree with the notion that morality exists independently of God's commands, even though they still believe they should follow those commands because of their commitment to God.

I'm not really trying to convince you to change your position. But maybe you can see how an objective moral system may exist without a supreme being. It would be based on reason (and perhaps a few axioms)... but it isn't asinine to propose the existence of such an objective system. Even if you ultimately disagree with me, you might give that some consideration.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a second body involved. He should have the right to decide if he wants to live also.

Then let's give the fetus as much of a say as the person who will die without the perfectly good kidney that's about to be buried with that corpse: no say at all.

Now... do you feel like arguing why your imaginings of what a fetus might say if it was able to say anything should get more weight than someone who is clearly intelligent, conscious, and can express the desire to live?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Then let's give the fetus as much of a say as the person who will die without the perfectly good kidney that's about to be buried with that corpse: no say at all.

Now... do you feel like arguing why your imaginings of what a fetus might say if it was able to say anything should get more weight than someone who is clearly intelligent, conscious, and can express the desire to live?

I have no idea what you are talking about... you can decide if your body parts are used or not, but you imagine a child would not want to live? I guess I shouldn't expect logic...

 

[Wildswanderer]

What you appear to be missing is: the very reason we would argue that theft is inherently wrong is only because God gave us a conscience to understand it's wrong.
I'm not saying we are mistaken about any of that, but I still don't see why it would be wrong in a world without a higher authority.
In other words we have moral intuition because God made us able to understand moral principles.

So you are going with option #1 then. (Basically, something is good or bad because God says so.)

That means, the reason stealing is wrong is because God says so. God's command is the beginning, middle, and end of what makes something morally wrong. Plenty of Christians and other theists think this way. You are not alone.

But some theists disagree with this. They look at God's commandments and say, God forbade this for a reason. Examples would be the prohibitions against murder and theft. It seems like God decided to forbid these things because there is something wrong with murder and theft. As if God said to himself, "Theft deprives people of their hard-earned property, so I'm going to forbid it"

If this second hypothesis is correct, then God had reasons for saying "theft is wrong." And if that's true, people have reasons to see theft as wrong as well. So by the second model, what makes theft wrong is "the list of reasons that theft is wrong." In the second model, believers say that God prohibits theft because he is just and wise.

So, even a believer could come to agree with the notion that morality exists independently of God's commands, even though they still believe they should follow those commands because of their commitment to God.

I'm not really trying to convince you to change your position. But maybe you can see how an objective moral system may exist without a supreme being. It would be based on reason (and perhaps a few axioms)... but it isn't asinine to propose the existence of such an objective system. Even if you ultimately disagree with me, you might give that some consideration.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea what you are talking about... you can decide if your body parts are used or not, but you imagine a child would not want to live? I guess I shouldn't expect logic...

You missed my point. Try reading the post again.

 

[F1fan]

Comparing a human to an acorn is absurd. If you don't understand that human life is more valuable than any tree, I feel sorry for you.

But on another thread you support gun access even though these weapons kill many citizens, including children. You oppose gun safety even though thousands die. So I suggest what you think is valuable about human life is highly problematic.

 

[rational experiences]

The deity in a humans life exact.

O the planet they live on.

It's heavens.

Without either we don't have a place to be human. Basic common sense. Human advice. Use of thinking.

Not needing a theism as thinking consciousness says it naturally. Just as the human.

The difference between Satanism theism to natural human consciousness.

Who science says by human thought Is first human observation only.

As science isn't a practice it was a humans philosophy.

Satanism is the practice and evil by defined don't take gods cold seal away. Exact. Taught. Known.

Science Satanism nuclear Alchemy forbidden. Book shut. Legal status. Known.

Church building owned no spruiking science it was a healing medical practice. Sound resonance for holy water cellular vibration changes using coloured light sound..oil therapies. Brain entrainment meditation prayer three times daily. Routine.

Reason designer of buildings rich man brother was first.

Then came invention science lord brothers of trade. Powers.

Two types of rich men history. Both wrong but one better than the other.

Brain entrainment social order was the church.

Next is the known satanic science lie.

Womb mother heavens vacuum. Immaculate heavens of God entity the earth. Sacrificed by sun. Mother womb kept its place as holy light.

The act with God.

Man science in science of Satanism brought it to the ground. Was NEVER holy light holy mother holy spirit holy light holy sacrifice. Natural light.

Was known exact.

Men of old not liars or ignorant. Knew the holy truth. Implemented it. Forbade nuclear science.

The reason the bible owned old and new legal human family testimonies against Satanism science. Only a choice of human men and evil.

 

[Tiberius]

Comparing a human to an acorn is absurd. If you don't understand that human life is more valuable than any tree, I feel sorry for you.

I'm comparing a fertilized egg to an acorn.

If a human is being compared to anything here, it's the grown oak tree.

 

[rational experiences]

Science says biology ours is mainly water.

We said our parents owned pre living spirit. Eternal. Unconditional love.

Came from the eternal which is on the other side of empty space. Earths heavens change from immaculate into burning forced by pressure upon the eternal for life to be released.

Where we came from. Not the heavens as either body which is just mass.

We were sperm ovary in their body.

So they lived. They never aged. Were healthy died. Memory says so.

They died as the eternal spirit isn't a part of created creation.

So as we now age and die humans said age made you die. Yet babies die too.

So we proved to ourselves we never belonged in created creation.

And spirit had in fact changed its own body.

O gods body the eternal that went to hell as held spirit of language. Why earth can manifest evil spirits as burnt eternal form. By burning mass again reacting to conjuring then cooling.

 

[rational experiences]

Human scientists know they can't use a tree as a topic of not a tree. As they see know the tree first.

Our parents owned the seed in their bodies first.

Had to physically have sex to reproduce. No sex no humans.

No tree no seed no continuance.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But on another thread you support gun access even though these weapons kill many citizens, including children. You oppose gun safety even though thousands die. So I suggest what you think is valuable about human life is highly problematic.

I don't oppose gun safety...I think everyone should be required to learn gun safety in school. And guns save more lives in this country every year than they take, but those stories rarely make national news.