What is your god like? (13 Viewers)

[Lawnchair Bes]

Care to enlighten me?

even if there are a billion conditions that need to be right for life to get to this point, with as many planets as grains of sand in all of earth's beaches and deserts, the fact that one or more managed to do it, just by pure chance, should not surprise anyone at all.

notice, i am not saying that chance played the entire role, i am saying that it is entirely possible

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[DelpieroForLife]

even if there are a billion conditions that need to be right for life to get to this point, with as many planets as grains of sand in all of earth's beaches and deserts, the fact that one or more managed to do it, just by pure chance, should not surprise anyone at all.

notice, i am not saying that chance played the entire role, i am saying that it is entirely possible

Evolution process need a starting point, how can life evolve starting from nullity?

 

[rounder]

i do understand it but i dont think its true..
what does your objective moral law say about this?

Objective morality does not apply for every single question, only some.

even if there are a billion conditions that need to be right for life to get to this point, with as many planets as grains of sand in all of earth's beaches and deserts, the fact that one or more managed to do it, just by pure chance, should not surprise anyone at all.

notice, i am not saying that chance played the entire role, i am saying that it is entirely possible

Ofcourse it is possible, it is just largely implausible.

 

[Nenz]

Why almost all religious people here gets very emotional and really offended here when the subject comes to their god of choosing. No one here is offending you, yet you come here like someone just raped your sister. :luckyluke: Is this really such a big problem, when you see something is that challenging your belief system?

Its a matter of respect. Can't put it much more simple then that.

 

[Seven]

Well yeah, they should respect us.

 

[Martin]

Its a matter of respect. Can't put it much more simple then that.

Respect for what?

 

[Hist]

Objective morality does not apply for every single question, only some.



Ofcourse it is possible, it is just largely implausible.

Take me step by step through how we come to know this objective moral truth.
And tell me what it says too i'd like to know what is objectively right or wrong.

 

[rounder]

Take me step by step through how we come to know this objective moral truth.
And tell me what it says too i'd like to know what is objectively right or wrong.

Well, for example, torturing a new born child for pleasure is something that is considered objectively wrong. No society has ever begged to differ. I can give you many other examples, it is not very difficult.

 

[Zé Tahir]

Well yeah, they should respect us.

Respect for what?

You guys should coordinate better

 

[Hist]

Well, for example, torturing a new born child for pleasure is something that is considered objectively wrong. No society has ever begged to differ. I can give you many other examples, it is not very difficult.

Haven't you watched 300 lol?

I don't want examples, just because we can reach agreement about things that doesn't necessitate that it is objectively true.

I dont want examples, give me methodology, how do we know which moral laws are objectively true and which or not? What distinguishes an objective moral law from a subjective one?

 

[rounder]

Haven't you watched 300 lol?

I don't want examples, just because we can reach agreement about things that doesn't necessitate that it is objectively true.

I dont want examples, give me methodology, how do we know which moral laws are objectively true and which or not? What distinguishes an objective moral law from a subjective one?

Subjective morality is debatable depending on a number of factors.
Women being able to drive for example is a subjective moral law. In western culture, it is highly accepted while it is not in countries like Saudi Arabia.

An objective moral law is when morality is not debatable. Altruism for example is considered admirable in all cultures, you will never any culture that objects to altruistic or philanthropical people.

 

[Seven]

There is no objective moral law and altruism is NOT considered admirable in all cultures.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

My God never existed, I (man) made him up because I hadn't the technology to explain my surroundings.

 

[Bjerknes]

The whole "God gave us free will" propaganda is the most fraudulent, nonsensical and idiotic theory I've ever heard.

 

[Salvo]

The whole "God gave us free will" propaganda is the most fraudulent, nonsensical and idiotic theory I've ever heard.

whole lotta bull.

 

[Hist]

Subjective morality is debatable depending on a number of factors.
Women being able to drive for example is a subjective moral law. In western culture, it is highly accepted while it is not in countries like Saudi Arabia.

An objective moral law is when morality is not debatable. Altruism for example is considered admirable in all cultures, you will never any culture that objects to altruistic or philanthropical people.

i dont want examples... i want criteria..
are these moral laws self-evidently objective?

 

[rounder]

There is no objective moral law and altruism is NOT considered admirable in all cultures.

Really? And where is altruism considered immoral? Or torturing a child for pleasure considered moral at any point in time?

i dont want examples... i want criteria..
are these moral laws self-evidently objective?

Some actions are self-evidently objective yes. You want some type of law to be able to identify objective morality? I can't help you there. All you have to do is think about actions that are undisputedly accepted by everyone as moral and immoral.

 

[rounder]

The whole "God gave us free will" propaganda is the most fraudulent, nonsensical and idiotic theory I've ever heard.

No, it's actually not. It's quite a good explanation for "Why does God allow suffering if He is so loving and good?"

Let me explain it in other terms. First of all, there is no such thing as good and evil, good is simply the absence of evil, if you are not a 'bad' person, then you are automatically a 'good' person. Now, if suffering were to be revoked from this world, we would experience no happiness. We would become neutral beings incapable of experiencing anything.

No one is rich, people are only rich relative to other people who are not as rich. It is the same for happiness, no one is happy. People are happy relative to other people who are not as happy. Now you are insinuating that a loving and caring God should give us all happiness.

If everyone was happy, then this would mean that no one is happy. Since extremes fail to exist, we are all by default subject to the exact same emotions thus life would seem meaningless. Since I can not achieve more happiness than you, why should I work my ass off day and night. Human progress would stop right then and there.

This is why we do have freedom. We have the freedom to think, act, and experience the positive and the negative. Since one cannot exist without the other, we are required to experience the negative in order to experience the positive.

Think of how democratic governments in modern times act towards their people. They do not offer all their people the same amount of wealth regardless of occupation and education, this would imply revoking them of their freedom. How is God any different? He too would not revoke our suffering because this would imply revoking our freedom.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

Evolution process need a starting point, how can life evolve starting from nullity?

you really wanna go there? who designed the designer?

 

[Martin]

Let me explain it in other terms. First of all, there is no such thing as good and evil, good is simply the absence of evil, if you are not a 'bad' person, then you are automatically a 'good' person. Now, if suffering were to be revoked from this world, we would experience no happiness. We would become neutral beings incapable of experiencing anything.

This is utter speculative buffoonery.

Or to use a more technical term: rationalization. When bad stuff happens people always try to make themselves feel better by saying it was inevitable and that "it happened for a reason". Yeah, sometimes it does happen for a reason, but sometimes it doesn't. But above all you have no evidence to make a claim saying "without suffering there would be no happiness". That's just you talking out of your ass as the saying goes.