Your reason is the very definition of God, omnipotent, all knowing, meaning he knows more than you
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad
- Thread starter serp777
- Start date
Your reason is the very definition of God, omnipotent, all knowing, meaning he knows more than you
jchristopher
Member
I know that God is not relative because it has been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit of God, which is essentially revelation from God. Not some figment of my own imagination. I have tested it all my life. When I defy the teachings of God, it is always the same result: I always end up miserable. When I apply them to my life, I succeed in many ways and find general peace and happiness, even among my hardships.
jchristopher
Member
But how does nature define what is good or bad?
jchristopher
Member
I can demonstrate the changes that have occurred in my life in correlation with my striving to live the teachings of God. So you're saying "good" is completely relative?
jchristopher
Member
So goodness is relative to what people like?
jchristopher
Member
What is the "heart" as you define it?
serp777
Well-Known Member
That doesn't mean he wants to do whats best for the world. Also how do you justify the fact that the bible did change frequently centuries after the fact? Going back to your point about fraud, how can we trust any religion particularly one that changed significantly for a long time, and then was modified in translation, and how do we know it wasn't fraudulent in the first place? Is Mormonism fraudulent?
jchristopher
Member
Well, I certain could "know" if God is absolute if He revealed that to me.
Sure, I don't mean to infer they don't change at all, but the major principles have remained the same for thousands of years. Also we are able to compare it to early translations even now.
And I highly debate that they're secular when it's quoted "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"
Also certain books aren't included because it was proven that they were written well after the new testament was finalized
serp777
Well-Known Member
He claimed to have infinite love for us so I would assume infinite mercy.
I don't think there's any reason to assume heaven or the world is perfect, or that God wanted them to be perfect even if he is omnipotent. I mean I think its evil to torture a baby for three years without purpose just to send it to heaven. But you're just going to argue God defines perfect, and evil, and good since he's God. But God also allegedly accepted genocide against the canaanites. I mean now you're getting into territory where anything is justified because God says so.
And all powerful doesn't mean perfect just to emphasize. He could have made things perfect and removed cruelty entirely, but how do you he even wanted it perfect? Again how do you know we aren't just lab rats for him? That we aren't just interesting biological anomalies to be toyed with and poked and prodded. God defines morality for you so even this would be good and perfect.
serp777
Well-Known Member
But why do you think there are so many sects? And how are you able to know it wasn't fraudulent at the beginning? People like power, and religion tends to get people power as well as money. Now the bible is missing a number of gospels that were in early texts. So comparison tells us its been heavily modified to fit the socio-political-economic climate when it was first being constructed. And major principles have not been the same for thousands of years. Slavery is now abolished. Genocide is no longer acceptable. The pope can no longer declare a holy war. Human sacrifice is now seen as barbaric and much more.
The preambles are written with references to God because it was more convincing to Christians. The constitution and bill of rights was written to be secular and exist in spite of religion. For example, they never put "You shall not covet thy neighbors wife", or "though shall pray to one God, and only one God", or "you shall rest and worship me on the sabbath". So i argue the constitution is in spite of religious morals and reasoning even if some of the language is religious.
Right because now you're reverting to your, I'm assuming atheism? I apologize if that's an incorrect assumption. But that's exactly what is assumed by there being a God. It's logically unsound for you to flip flop between two premises.
And to your first point perfect love doesn't always mean mercy, sometimes love requires an allowed hardship for lessons to be learned. For example people punish their kids to improve their lives in the future, I'd certainly say that could be loving.
The new testament never allowed any of those actions. And which texts were removed early? Also how do you know it was fraudulent? Jesus to this day is the most influential person to ever walk the planet, and is talked about 2000 years after his death, heck we even count our years by his death, surely those merits point more to truth than fraud
Or because they were Christian concepts... But this is a side argument I don't wish to put time into
If something has "revealed" a statement like that to you, it could be lying. It could also just be you with your own expectations. Either way, you're not going to be convincing anyone with that.
It most likely had more to do with Deism than with Christianity. The Founding Fathers were not exactly orthodox Christians. Many of them were Freemasons and Deists.
Good, because you're wrong.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Spiritually that's right, whatever we say is never going to be the truth.
serp777
Well-Known Member
Well it is somewhat flip flopping between premises. There's nothing wrong with that though, its frequently done during arguments. Its like saying Well i don't accept your axioms as being true, but even if they were true I would still see many problems, so ill address the implications and the axioms themselves. So I am questioning both the legitimacy of your axioms as well as what the implications of those axioms would be if they were true. I am really, honestly, not trying to be condescending at all here, so please keep that in mind, but if you can't keep track of both argumentative directions at the same time I can agree to just focus on one, and I think you would prefer the implications. So its not logically unsound but if you don't prefer the way i've been organizing things I can focus on something.
And sometimes you do propose new axioms such as : heaven has to be perfect and so does God's plan. I agreed to your initial axiom that God would be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. However, I never agreed to all the Christian axioms and I don't presume to know what God is thinking--he may have created an imperfect plan to see how it would turnout. I don't think there's any evidence that God has to do things perfectly every time. I also am unsure what your definition of perfect even is. It does have a scientific definition though--identical symmetry . Such was the case at the moment of the big bang, which was the only point where everything was perfect.
But also no need to apologize, check out my profile picture. I don't think people should be even close to the religious debate section if they're easily offended. I'm actually agnostic, which I think is the most scientifically reasonable position, because there is no empirical evidence pointing towards or against the existence of God. But this doesn't mean I think its a 50-50 chance. I don't even presume to know what the probability is.
The problem with this is that God designed us to do what he's punishing us for. It would be like a parent beating their kid because they used a parenting style that encouraged that behavior. it wouldn't be sensible.
Fine it doesn't, but an eternal hell would defeat the entire point (not sure if you believe in eternal hell), because going back to your analogy, it would be like a parent murdering their child as a punishment. Punishment is used to dissuade certain behaviors. Its not completely the same but its fair for the analogy because its a final action that is extremely excessive and clearly defies any kind of love. Parents who love their children don't murder them, and a God that loves its creations wouldn't ,make them burn in hell for eternity.
