Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ BR IX

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mighty_duck
    Only a God that sent [H]is [S]on to be sacrificed to himself can be the ontological foundation for [m]orality because...
    ... this is what is demanded by the immutable moral law. In so doing He demonstrates that morality isn't arbitrary yet is an aspect of his immutable nature, demanding both the justice of the full penalty of the violation of His character, yet demonstrating his love by becoming a man and accepting the full penalty upon Himself. In the Cross is found both the unchangeable love and justice of our Creator, love and justice being the very essence of morality.

    SS

    Comment


    • Originally posted by sentientsynth
      ... this is what is demanded by the immutable moral law. In so doing He demonstrates that morality isn't arbitrary yet is an aspect of his immutable nature, demanding both the justice of the full penalty of the violation of His character, yet demonstrating his love by becoming a man and accepting the full penalty upon Himself. In the Cross is found both the unchangeable love and justice of our Creator, love and justice being the very essence of morality.

      SS
      As long as there is breath there is Hope...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by sentientsynth
        ... this is what is demanded by the immutable moral law. In so doing He demonstrates that morality isn't arbitrary yet is an aspect of his immutable nature, demanding both the justice of the full penalty of the violation of His character, yet demonstrating his love by becoming a man and accepting the full penalty upon Himself. In the Cross is found both the unchangeable love and justice of our Creator, love and justice being the very essence of morality.

        SS
        I am begining to lose interest. If you don't want to make a rational argument, then we can just agree to disagree. I'm trying to understand your argument, but this conversation is useless if you won't make sense of it.

        I didn't ask why God was possible, or why He is internally justified.
        I asked why the Christian God is necessary. Why couldn't a god that didn't send His Son down here be the ontological foundation for morality?

        And I am guessing you don't have a reason to object to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a possible foundation for all axioms. If you are just going by what feels right, or makes the most sense, that's fine. The FSM does sound silly, and I am all for selecting the most reasonable option. TAG and Hilston just make a stronger claim, and I was hoping someone would be able to back it up.
        "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

        "The best things in life aren't things"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mighty_duck
          I asked why the Christian God is necessary.
          To provide ontological bases for the axioms of knowledge and the aspects of existence..
          Why couldn't a god that didn't send His Son down here be the ontological foundation for morality?
          Because that God wouldn't be moral (just and loving.)
          And I am guessing you don't have a reason to object to the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a possible foundation for all axioms.
          FSM cannot provide an ontological basis for justice or love, as neither are essential to her eternal character (random murder, arbitrary law.)
          If you are just going by what feels right, or makes the most sense, that's fine. The FSM does sound silly, and I am all for selecting the most reasonable option.
          True, I value both intuition and reasonability. Your presentation of the nature of FSM has been protean, making it up as you go along. The true Living God has testified for all mankind and his Book is the world's bestseller ever. Bringing up silliness such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes people not take you seriously. As a fallible human being, you ought not think you are clever enough to make up a god that will pass the test.
          TAG and Hilston just make a stronger claim, and I was hoping someone would be able to back it up.
          I still have yet to find out what TAG means, but if you carefully read what I've written thus far, I too have supported that the inexistence of God is impossible to defend rationally, as reason itself must have an ontological basis, the only possibility of which is a rational God. If you deny a rational God then you have no basis for assuming the uniformity of nature, just as Bertrand Russell correctly pointed out. I'm sorry if you've become disinterested. It is the advantage of the Christian that he knows he is fighting for a worthy cause, even if he must put up with such nonsense as a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

          SS

          Comment


          • Originally posted by sentientsynth
            Because that God wouldn't be moral (just and loving.)
            So God was not moral before He sent his Son here?

            And why CAN'T a God who didn't send His Son be moral?

            Originally posted by sentientsynth
            FSM cannot provide an ontological basis for justice or love, as neither are essential to her eternal character (random murder, arbitrary law.)
            Why must Her character be the same as what She created? I can create a virtual world on my computer, which would be very different from my nature. I'm sure an all powerful entity like the FSM or God could do the same with our universe.

            The FSM provides a perfect ontological basis for everything, since we presuppose She created everything according to Her whim. Why does logic work? Because the FSM made it that way, Why do we love? Because the FSM made it possible. Its as flasifiable as your so called ontological basis.
            "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

            "The best things in life aren't things"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mighty_duck
              So God was not moral before He sent his Son here?
              Right when sin entered the world, God had this plan. He is eternally righteous.

              And why CAN'T a God who didn't send His Son be moral?
              He would either be completely just and thereby unloving or completely loving and thereby unjust. The problem of man's evil must be resolved without a violation of either of these. The true Living God is perfectly balanced in His justice and His love.

              Why must Her character be the same as what She created?
              It doesn't have to necessarily. However, if she is amoral, then how does she establish morality? Morality would be a product of her fiat, which as you yourself have demonstrated, is completely arbitrary. The nature of the moral law found in the Bible is of the essence of God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." His decrees are righteous because He is righteous. Your FSM murders indiscriminately. Therefore her decree for man to not murder is arbitrary, being neither moral nor immoral.

              The FSM provides a perfect ontological basis for everything, since we presuppose She created everything according to Her whim. Why does logic work? Because the FSM made it that way, Why do we love? Because the FSM made it possible. Its as fasifiable as your so called ontological basis.
              The problem is that you don't believe this. Also, from the info you've provided about your FSM, she is internally incoherent. If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love. (And of course any being the indiscriminately murders isn't love.) Either that or love does not truly exist, but is an illusion.

              m_d, you seem pretty stuck on this contradictory FSM of yours. If you are willing to defend an idea that you yourself deem as silly, why on earth will you not acknowledge the true Living God?

              SS

              Comment


              • Bringing up silliness such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes people not take you seriously. As a fallible human being, you ought not think you are clever enough to make up a god that will pass the test.
                No, bringing up the such silliness as the flying spaghetti monster reveals just how silly your entire argument is. Frankly, I'm disappointed Hilston is still pushing this crap.

                No one is convincing anyone that the Christian God is the only one who can "provide ontological bases for the axioms of knowledge and the aspects of existence.." As I said before, my digital camera does, if I have blind faith that it does. Even as a Christian, I find this argument's legs made of straw.
                “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

                Comment


                • Also, from the info you've provided about your FSM, she is internally incoherent. If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love. (And of course any being the indiscriminately murders isn't love.) Either that or love does not truly exist, but is an illusion.
                  FSM says you're using the Christian defintion of love. If you would read her book and use it as your foundation for love, as you do the Bible, then you would find that she is internally coherent and is qualified as the ontological basis for love.
                  “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Johnny
                    FSM says you're using the Christian defintion of love. If you would read her book and use it as your foundation for love, as you do the Bible, then you would find that she is internally coherent and is qualified as the ontological basis for love.
                    Johnny, do you know what blasphemy is? Don't you see how you have just profaned God? You are utterly dispicable to me.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Metalking
                      If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model.
                      Simpler? In what possible way is god simpler than an emergent universe? A few basic laws of behaviour vs. a being of infinite power and wisdom?

                      The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe.
                      So what? I used to be Christian, now I'm an atheist - does that mean every Christian should become an atheist? Just because I did? People have differing views, what matters is understanding why they hold those views.

                      Found this interesting..There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses.
                      Again, so what?
                      If you're really a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by sentientsynth
                        Johnny, do you know what blasphemy is? Don't you see how you have just profaned God? You are utterly dispicable to me.
                        Actually, please show us just how Jonny has profaned God. I don't see it myself.
                        Using no way as a way
                        Using no limitations as a limitation

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by m_d
                          Why couldn't a god that didn't send His Son down here be the ontological foundation for morality?
                          Originally posted by sentientsynth
                          Because that God wouldn't be moral (just and loving.)
                          This presupposes that violent and painful punishment is the only way to render "justice." And in my view, that presupposition is questionable. It also overlooks the fact that there might be any number of other ways for a loving God "ultimate being" to demonstrate love and "balance" or "justify" the order of the world.
                          "Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something that needs our love" ~ Rainer Maria Rilke

                          Comment


                          • Johnny, do you know what blasphemy is? Don't you see how you have just profaned God? You are utterly dispicable to me.
                            I have not blasphemed God. I was pointing out your fallacy of thinking. You said "If the FSM is not love (as the Living God is love), then she is disqualified from being the ontological basis for love." I was pointing out that since you base your definition of love on the attribute of God, then of course FSM doesn't qualify as the basis of love as defined by God. But if a believer based their definition of love on an attribute of FSM, then FSM would clearly qualify as an ontological basis.

                            My faith does not require intellectual prostitution.
                            “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

                            Comment


                            • SS,
                              I am not sure if the problem is my inability to convey the idea, or your inability to grasp it. I am not asking why The Christian God makes sense, I am asking why every other permutation of a god makes no sense. That is a difficult position to refute, when a fake god is also all-powerful.

                              You have not backed up this premise that you claim refutes the FSM. Your premise goes something like this:
                              If A exists in the world, then A is part of the creators nature.

                              For example:
                              If morality exists, then the FSM must be moral.
                              If love exists, then the FSM must be love (that is almost nonsensical, all loving may be more appropriate.).

                              I have explained time and again that this premise is unwarranted, as an all powerful creator can create something that is very different from their nature. The purpose of the FSM is to show how wrong your arguments are, since they apply equally well to a very silly creator.

                              I thank you for this exchange, but it has become mutually useless. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better than I can.
                              "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                              "The best things in life aren't things"

                              Comment


                              • SS,
                                I am not sure if the problem is my inability to convey the idea, or your inability to grasp it. I am not asking why The Christian God makes sense, I am asking why every other permutation of a god makes no sense. That is a difficult position to refute, when a fake god is also all-powerful.

                                You have not backed up this premise that you claim refutes the FSM. Your premise goes something like this:
                                If A exists in the world, then A is part of the creators nature.

                                For example:
                                If morality exists, then the FSM must be moral.
                                If love exists, then the FSM must be love (that is almost nonsensical, all loving may be more appropriate.).

                                I have explained time and again that this premise is unwarranted, as an all powerful creator can create something that is very different from their nature. The purpose of the FSM is to show how wrong your arguments are, since they apply equally well to a very silly creator.

                                I thank you for this exchange, but it has become mutually useless. Maybe someone else can explain it to you better than I can.
                                "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                                "The best things in life aren't things"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X