Morality and Belief in God

[RAMOSS]

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beli...erally-not-post1068785696.html#post1068785696

Well, how about the content. For example, in his interview with Edwin Yamauchi, he discusses Josephus. Although Yamauchi admits that it was tampered with, he does not mention there is a signifigent number of people who say the entire passage is an interpolation. He also exaggerates the significance even if the passage was genuine, because it would not repeat any of the religious dogma about Jesus.

(Page 75)

 

[Logicman]

Well, how about the content. For example, in his interview with Edwin Yamauchi, he discusses Josephus. Although Yamauchi admits that it was tampered with, he does not mention there is a signifigent number of people who say the entire passage is an interpolation. He also exaggerates the significance even if the passage was genuine, because it would not repeat any of the religious dogma about Jesus.

(Page 75)

Yada yada yada

Quotes from pages 85-86 – 2016 edition, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel

Yamauchi’s conclusions on Josephus:

“Yamauchi: ‘But today there is a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations.’ …

Yamauchi: “…Josephus corroborates important information about Jesus: that he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders.”

And before you start calling Edwin Yamauchi a flake or something, here is his impressive academic record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_M._Yamauchi

 

[RAMOSS]

Yada yada yada

Quotes from pages 85-86 – 2016 edition, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel

Yamauchi’s conclusions on Josephus:

“Yamauchi: ‘But today there is a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations.’ …

Yamauchi: “…Josephus corroborates important information about Jesus: that he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders.”

And before you start calling Edwin Yamauchi a flake or something, here is his impressive academic record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_M._Yamauchi

Yes.. that is Yamauchi's position.. however, there is a signifigent number of people that disagree with him. For one, there is a large number of people that say that the entire passage is the interpolation. Since that is the case, the passage he is saying is a total forgery to begin with.

 

[devildavid]

Sin and redemption are indeed religious concepts, and they are indeed not shared (or viewed equally) by all religions. Why? Idk... Differing moral epistemology I guess... But how does that make those things "made up concepts"? Disagreement about something doesn't mean that the something doesn't exist...

Sure it does. It calls into question the basis of it. Makes it look more like a subjective belief, rather than something that can be assumed as a fact. You treat it as if it is a commonly accepted fact. It is not. It is the particular made up belief of a particular made up religion. It can't be treated as an accepted fact in this debate without establishing its factual basis.

 

[Logicman]

Yes.. that is Yamauchi's position.. however, there is a signifigent number of people that disagree with him. For one, there is a large number of people that say that the entire passage is the interpolation. Since that is the case, the passage he is saying is a total forgery to begin with.

I don't take you seriously, Ramoss. I've posted his conclusions, and he is a top notch scholar.

Now don't bother me anymore with your anti-Jesus nonsense.

 

[calamity]

I don't take you seriously, Ramoss. I've posted his conclusions, and he is a top notch scholar.

Now don't bother me anymore with your anti-Jesus nonsense.

Scholar and Jesus is an oxymoron.

 

[rhinefire]

Watching a science show about the Hubble and coming Webb telescopes it was a general consensus among the scientists that there is probably no intelligent life anywhere out there while they all believed there is life out there. As a life long denyer of man made religions it got me to believing even more that a creator in some form does exist. However, I will never yield in my conviction that organised religion is a catastrophe for the stupid.

 

[Logicman]

Scholar and Jesus is an oxymoron.

But only to the uninformed.

 

[calamity]

Watching a science show about the Hubble and coming Webb telescopes it was a general consensus among the scientists that there is probably no intelligent life anywhere out there while they all believed there is life out there. As a life long denyer of man made religions it got me to believing even more that a creator in some form does exist. However, I will never yield in my conviction that organised religion is a catastrophe for the stupid.

Pretty much agree on the latter, and I'm open to the idea of the former.

I read recently that intelligent life, if it exists, has to be in one of the star systems far from the center of galaxies, like ours, due to the incredible levels of cosmic radiation in those systems near the center. If true, that takes trillions of stars out of the equation.

 

[RAMOSS]

I don't take you seriously, Ramoss. I've posted his conclusions, and he is a top notch scholar.

Now don't bother me anymore with your anti-Jesus nonsense.

Well, he's a top notched apologist. He lets his religion get in the way of his analysis. And, like I said, there are plenty of others that disagree. Of course, this also shows that the concept of 'the case for Christ' is a fraudulent title, since there is no cross examination. There is enough opposing opinion out there that one person's opinion is not the end all. THe 'interview' did not show on how weak that claim is, nor did it even mention there are many who thing the entire passage is an interpolation. That makes the book and Strobel a fraud.

 

[Logicman]

Well, he's a top notched apologist. He lets his religion get in the way of his analysis. And, like I said, there are plenty of others that disagree. Of course, this also shows that the concept of 'the case for Christ' is a fraudulent title, since there is no cross examination. There is enough opposing opinion out there that one person's opinion is not the end all. THe 'interview' did not show on how weak that claim is, nor did it even mention there are many who thing the entire passage is an interpolation. That makes the book and Strobel a fraud.

That's just another foul-smelling load of your usual anti-Christianity rubbish.

 

[Angel]

Let's see where we are.

1. Hamlet's Question is a moral question. Check?

2. The answer to Hamlet's Question is a moral answer. Check?

4. Hamlet's Question, according to biological science, receives an answer in and by the very nature of all living things. Check?

3. The nature of all living things, therefore, yields a universal and objective answer to Hamlet's Question. Check?


Now, before moving on to Man's unique relation to Hamlet's Question, can we say that a universal and objective moral imperative discloses itself in the very nature of living things?
...

...The rest of creation not being moral agents is irrelevant to this point, like you assert, because something doesn't have to be a moral agent in order for it to be moral. If God saw that it was good, then it was moral because good is a measure of morality against a standard of some sort. Humanity separating from the rest of creation on Earth in being "moral agents" is where I think the responsibility to act morally ("good"), and to have dominion over creation on Earth to oversee it's original "goodness", comes into play.

I'm delighted and unsurprised to see us agree on the moral goodness of the universe given its Divine provenance. Of course our moral relativist, materialist, naturalist and atheist friends will neither understand nor accept that premise. And so we're at a delicate point in the argument we are preparing for their benefit.

Man, as they acknowledge, is free to override the universal and objective moral imperative to self-preservation. Man, as a voluntary moral agent, may choose, of his own free will, to ignore the moral prompting against self-destruction. And just here, in the moment of moral choice, lies a key distinction.

Man's decision either way must be considered subjective. There's no disputing this. However, the alternate moral choices Man faces, the two options on which he must make his considered (and subjective) moral decision -- to be or not to be -- are contained in Hamlet' Question. These two alternatives are already part of the moral question -- indeed these two alternatives comprise the moral question, and the moral answer to this moral question, qua answer, that is to say, in order to be considered an answer to that question, must both semantically and logically contain these alternatives as considered.

Therefore, in the form of the universal objective moral imperative to preserve life, the extinction of life is rejected.

Therefore, although Man's decision as between these alternatives is subjective, the two alternatives are themselves objective.

As moral agent Man chooses one alternative over the other, but either choice is a choice of an objective alternative.
One objective choice is the choice to follow the universal objective moral imperative; the other choice is against the universal objective moral imperative. The one is the moral choice; the other, the immoral choice.

Man's scrupling in this scenario is a scrupling prompted by the objective imperative at work in his decision.
Man's freedom, however, allows him to choose against the moral imperative.

Please tear apart the reasoning or improve on the expression of the above. I feel we're close to getting this down, but I'm not lighting my cigar yet.

 

[devildavid]

I'm delighted and unsurprised to see us agree on the moral goodness of the universe given its Divine provenance. Of course our moral relativist, materialist, naturalist and atheist friends will neither understand nor accept that premise. And so we're at a delicate point in the argument we are preparing for their benefit.

Man, as they acknowledge, is free to override the universal and objective moral imperative to self-preservation. Man, as a voluntary moral agent, may choose, of his own free will, to ignore the moral prompting against self-destruction. And just here, in the moment of moral choice, lies a key distinction.

Man's decision either way must be considered subjective. There's no disputing this. However, the alternate moral choices Man faces, the two options on which he must make his considered (and subjective) moral decision -- to be or not to be -- are contained in Hamlet' Question. These two alternatives are already part of the moral question -- indeed these two alternatives comprise the moral question, and the moral answer to this moral question, qua answer, that is to say, in order to be considered an answer to that question, must both semantically and logically contain these alternatives as considered.

Therefore, in the form of the universal objective moral imperative to preserve life, the extinction of life is rejected.

Therefore, although Man's decision as between these alternatives is subjective, the two alternatives are themselves objective.

As moral agent Man chooses one alternative over the other, but either choice is a choice of an objective alternative.
One objective choice is the choice to follow the universal objective moral imperative; the other choice is against the universal objective moral imperative. The one is the moral choice; the other, the immoral choice.

Man's scrupling in this scenario is a scrupling prompted by the objective imperative at work in his decision.
Man's freedom, however, allows him to choose against the moral imperative.

Please tear apart the reasoning or improve on the expression of the above. I feel we're close to getting this down, but I'm not lighting my cigar yet.

Don't dislocate your shoulder.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm delighted and unsurprised to see us agree on the moral goodness of the universe given its Divine provenance. Of course our moral relativist, materialist, naturalist and atheist friends will neither understand nor accept that premise. And so we're at a delicate point in the argument we are preparing for their benefit.

Yeah, they would have to accept the reality of God's existence for starters, which they don't, so while we agree on that assertion, and it is a correct and logical assertion, it unfortunately won't benefit our "target audience" any.

Man, as they acknowledge, is free to override the universal and objective moral imperative to self-preservation.

This is firmly established, not only through Hamlet's Question, but also to their own admission.

Man, as a voluntary moral agent, may choose, of his own free will, to ignore the moral prompting against self-destruction. And just here, in the moment of moral choice, lies a key distinction.

Man's decision either way must be considered subjective. There's no disputing this.

Correct on all accounts.

However, the alternate moral choices Man faces, the two options on which he must make his considered (and subjective) moral decision -- to be or not to be -- are contained in Hamlet' Question. These two alternatives are already part of the moral question -- indeed these two alternatives comprise the moral question, and the moral answer to this moral question, qua answer, that is to say, in order to be considered an answer to that question, must both semantically and logically contain these alternatives as considered.

Agreed.

Therefore, in the form of the universal objective moral imperative to preserve life, the extinction of life is rejected.

Correct.

Therefore, although Man's decision as between these alternatives is subjective, the two alternatives are themselves objective.

Correct. I wouldn't be surprised to see a rebuttal asserting that, since subjectiveness is involved before arriving at the conclusion, then the conclusion itself is subjective. That assertion is not true, as I have tried explaining to numerous people, because [trusting] our sensory experience (something that is subjective) can lead us to objective truths that were are justified in believing (such as the reality of the external world).

As moral agent Man chooses one alternative over the other, but either choice is a choice of an objective alternative.
One objective choice is the choice to follow the universal objective moral imperative; the other choice is against the universal objective moral imperative. The one is the moral choice; the other, the immoral choice.

Couldn't have concluded it better myself.

Man's scrupling in this scenario is a scrupling prompted by the objective imperative at work in his decision.
Man's freedom, however, allows him to choose against the moral imperative.

Absolutely correct. Again, couldn't have said it better myself. That's the conscience at work...

Please tear apart the reasoning or improve on the expression of the above. I feel we're close to getting this down, but I'm not lighting my cigar yet.

I'm trying to quickly roadmap the whole conversation... I think it went something like this...

1) Behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts) exist.

2) Volition supersedes such behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts).

3) Given #1 and #2, one can conclude that agency is involved.

4) Mankind can make moral decisions, can discern right from wrong, and can be held accountable for said moral decisions (regardless of whether one believes morality is subjective or objective because both beliefs equally assert that morality exists).

5) Given #4, one can conclude that mankind are moral agents.

6) Given #5, one can conclude that Hamlet's Question is a moral question with a moral answer.

7) Hamlet's Question, according to biological science, receives a universal and objective answer in and by the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.

8) Suicide and self-preservation are complete polar opposites.

9) Given #6, #7, and #8, one can conclude that the absolute and objective moral answer to Hamlet's Question is "to be" and the absolute and objective immoral answer to Hamlet's Question is "not to be".



Hopefully I didn't miss too much... I went through all the exchanges pretty quickly...

 

[Angel]

...I wouldn't be surprised to see a rebuttal asserting that, since subjectiveness is involved before arriving at the conclusion, then the conclusion itself is subjective. That assertion is not true, as I have tried explaining to numerous people, because [trusting] our sensory experience (something that is subjective) can lead us to objective truths that were are justified in believing (such as the reality of the external world).

Theirs is a convenient but untenable form of ad hoc idealism or even solipsism on their part. All they are claiming is that any idea or decision is in the mind. This is trivially true and, while they don't recognize this, makes all objectivity impossible, including the so-called objectivity of science, materialism, atheism, an so on. All the ideas or claims of these views are in the mind in the same way. They are extremely, but conveniently confused.

1) Behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts) exist.

2) Volition supersedes such behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts).

3) Given #1 and #2, one can conclude that agency is involved.

4) Mankind can make moral decisions, can discern right from wrong, and can be held accountable for said moral decisions (regardless of whether one believes morality is subjective or objective because both beliefs equally assert that morality exists).

5) Given #4, one can conclude that mankind are moral agents.

6) Given #5, one can conclude that Hamlet's Question is a moral question with a moral answer.

7) Hamlet's Question, according to biological science, receives a universal and objective answer in and by the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.

8) Suicide and self-preservation are complete polar opposites.

9) Given #6, #7, and #8, one can conclude that the absolute and objective moral answer to Hamlet's Question is "to be" and the absolute and objective immoral answer to Hamlet's Question is "not to be".

Well done! There's our argument.


Thanks.

 

[gfm7175]

Theirs is a convenient but untenable form of ad hoc idealism or even solipsism on their part. All they are claiming is that any idea or decision is in the mind. This is trivially true and, while they don't recognize this, makes all objectivity impossible, including the so-called objectivity of science, materialism, atheism, an so on. All the ideas or claims of these views are in the mind in the same way. They are extremely, but conveniently confused.

Beautifully worded! You have such a good way of expressing these things; I feel that my expressions are rather clunky in comparison. --- Although I'm still awaiting an adequate answer to my question to them of "Why do you trust your sensory experience but not your moral experience?" But that probably dives too deeply into WHY they believe what they believe...

Well done! There's our argument.


Thanks.

Thanks! ... I'd have to look over it to make sure that it all flows correctly... my only question after my quick glancing over it was whether #6 can be logically concluded from #5 (which is claiming that since mankind are moral agents, it can be concluded that mankind's actions all have moral implications) ... If that logically follows, great... If it doesn't logically flow, then the argument would have to be amended in a way that establishes suicide as a moral action, which I believe can be done.

 

[Angel]

Beautifully worded! You have such a good way of expressing these things; I feel that my expressions are rather clunky in comparison. --- Although I'm still awaiting an adequate answer to my question to them of "Why do you trust your sensory experience but not your moral experience?" But that probably dives too deeply into WHY they believe what they believe...

Thanks! ... I'd have to look over it to make sure that it all flows correctly... my only question after my quick glancing over it was whether #6 can be logically concluded from #5 (which is claiming that since mankind are moral agents, it can be concluded that mankind's actions all have moral implications) ... If that logically follows, great... If it doesn't logically flow, then the argument would have to be amended in a way that establishes suicide as a moral action, which I believe can be done.

You're being both modest and generous in your self-criticism and praise. I think we make a good team.

As for the transition from #5 to #6, we have their acknowledgement going in (blarg's anyway) that taking a human life is a moral action. That's why I wanted Quag and devildavid to answer my "Unanswered Question," and no doubt why they wouldn't.

 

[blarg]

You're being both modest and generous in your self-criticism and praise. I think we make a good team.

As for the transition from #5 to #6, we have their acknowledgement going in (blarg's anyway) that taking a human life is a moral action. That's why I wanted Quag and devildavid to answer my "Unanswered Question," and no doubt why they wouldn't.

hmm unless you don't care about taking a human life 1 way or another then its morally neutral

dose that still count as a moral matter?

if so choosing which pair of socks to put on between identical looking pairs is also a moral action

 

[Angel]

hmm unless you don't care about taking a human life 1 way or another then its morally neutral

dose that still count as a moral matter?

if so choosing which pair of socks to put on between identical looking pairs is also a moral action

Shane didn't come back, blarg. Remember? I remember. I'm like an elephant in that way. Do you get the reference? Either one?

 

[Angel]

The GFM7175-ANGEL Argument From Instinct

Evidence! Proof! Objective Morality Exists!



Coming Soon To This Thread​

 

[AGENT J]

The GFM7175-ANGEL Argument From Instinct

Evidence! Proof! Objective Morality Exists!


Coming Soon To This Thread

coming soon?

awesome let us know!!!

because we are still waiting! Almost 300 posts in this thread and 1300+ in the other thread and so far not one piece of factual proof or evidence have been presented that supports the false claim that morals are objective or objective morals exist . . .not one

SO when you or ANYBODY can do so please let u show and provided this factual evidence..heck just list one of the objective morals and prove its objective...just one, thanks!!

 

[gfm7175]

coming soon?

awesome let us know!!!

because we are still waiting! Almost 300 posts in this thread and 1300+ in the other thread and so far not one piece of factual proof or evidence have been presented that supports the false claim that morals are objective or objective morals exist . . .not one

SO when you or ANYBODY can do so please let u show and provided this factual evidence..heck just list one of the objective morals and prove its objective...just one, thanks!!

See the end of post #289 for starters... I welcome your comments/critiques concerning the "drafted" version of the argument from instinct.

 

[AGENT J]

See the end of post #289 for starters... I welcome your comments/critiques concerning the "drafted" version of the argument from instinct.

LMAO uhm 289 is EXACTLY one of the posts i was talking about
I saw that post and when it all that started in post 273 and i already responded. Its EXACTLY has I pointed out... more feelings and subjective opinions, guesses and theories but ZERO FACTS that do anything to change the fact morals are subjective. It doesnt even come close on any level to amount to anything more than feelings and subjective claims with no actual merit. It not even an "argument" in any valued sense. Its those "arguments" that actually further prove morals are subjective because your best so called arguments are all based 100% on subjective opinions and what ifs and feelings and subjective beliefs and nothing factual. Its exactly entertaining to watch that fact be over looked by you and what 1, 2 others over and over again.

By all means like i already requested though and it keeps getting dodged over and over again if you disagree when you or ANYBODY can do so please let us now and provided this factual evidence that morals are objective..heck just list one of the objective morals and prove its objective...just one, thanks!!

 

[Atheist 2020]

There can be thousands of books written at the college level dealing with the subject of god or no god. Still, when I walk into a book store, I am willing to look at books about god. The vast amount of the books are really a self help book telling you god is supporting you.

 

[gfm7175]

I have amended the argument very slightly, in red text, to hopefully make it a bit better by clearly establishing Hamlet's question (suicide) as a moral question with a moral answer. Let me know what you think. I think all the premises are pretty solid and logically follow from each other...


1) Behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts) exist.

2) Volition supersedes such behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts).

3) Given #1 and #2, one can conclude that agency is involved.

4) Mankind can make moral decisions, can discern right from wrong, and can be held accountable for said moral decisions (regardless of whether one believes morality is subjective or objective because both beliefs equally assert that morality exists).

5) Given #4, one can conclude that mankind are moral agents.

6) Moral issues are those actions which have the potential to help or harm others or ourselves.

7) Given #5 and #6, one can conclude that Hamlet's Question is a moral question with a moral answer.

8) Hamlet's Question, according to biological science, receives a universal and objective answer in and by the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.

9) Suicide contradicts the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.

10) Given #7, #8, and #9, one can conclude that the absolute and objective moral answer to Hamlet's Question is "to be" and the absolute and objective immoral answer to Hamlet's Question is "not to be".

...