Proof that God exists.

and you are correct

Basically, I am agreeing with what you stated. There are unchanging rights and wrongs that supercede societies and cultures inability to live up to the 'rights' and wallow in the 'wrongs.' My take is that there are some easy to define rights that fall under the realm of absolutes. [The wrongness of raping children, for example...and that humans have no right to own one another or to be sold or sell themselves into slavery] These absolutes point towards a God[not the kneejerk name, but an absolute being an creator of all.]
A hypocrite does not invalidate the object of hypocricy. If a police officer shop lifts, he does not invalidate the law against theft or his given ability to legitimately arrest a shoplifter like Winona Ryder. He may be a poor example of adherence to the 'higher law', but his prosecutable inability to abide by the human code of conduct does not diminish the wrongness of stealing.
 
I disagree (I think;)) on two counts:

Originally posted by hippo
My take is that there are some easy to define rights that fall under the realm of absolutes. ...and that humans have no right to own one another or to be sold or sell themselves into slavery]
Click to expand...
A few centuries ago, that wasn't easy to define, many people thought it clear cut they they did have rights to own people, and vv.
These absolutes point towards a God[not the kneejerk name, but an absolute being an creator of all.]
Click to expand...
Whoa there grasshopper, explain how?
 
elaboration

A few centuries ago, that wasn't easy to define, many people thought it clear cut they they did have rights to own people, and vv.
Click to expand...
My contention is that there are rights which are inherent [inherited,perhaps] and an integral part of individual human dignity. These rights may not have been recognized, but they existed as an ideal. This ideal may have taken centuries to attain, but the only reason they were attained is that they cannot be denied indefinitely. This is a skeletal view of the thought, but it is a framework of the idea.
Whoa there grasshopper, explain how?
Click to expand...
Well, Master Po, it may not be a Scholastic development from recognition of absolutes to a God, but there is a link. Either there is a morality independent of human wishes, [i.e., It is wrong to rape children whether you want to or not.] or there is no morality beyond human desire and construct. If there is an independent and consistent morality, a 'right and wrong', then there must be a reason,why. It is not sufficient to say, consensus, just because, fear of punishment, society says not to, it is the current norm, et. al. Any of these reasons fall short. The 'Why shouldn't I' chain of inquiry eventually ends with a matter of societal force stopping the evil act or ethical frameworks based on societial taboos to discourage the evil act. Since these frameworks are subject to the winds of human foibles, then the morality...the absolute 'Thou shalt not' is either a phantom, or it supercedes the desires and actions of an individual or society.
That is the next level of framework of the thought. Many have expounded it better and more thouroughly. Perhaps, time permitting a Germanic logic would be more clear.
 
the basics

Let us walk through a dialogue of short question and answers and I will illustrate how this relates to God. Are you brave enough to give it a go?

Why shouldn't a person you meet at a bar kill you?
 
hippo having read this you still have zero proof whatsoever (or even suggestive evidence) of an absolute moral such as raping children (child prostitution was quite frequent and accepted at one point) or owning slaves. You're just making this up because it fits your ideal.
 
Can I play?

<i>Why shouldn't a person you meet at a bar kill you?</i>

I assume this is a moral question.

Which system of morals are we using? Christianity? Buddhism? Something else?
 
Right in the beginning of your entry you are wrong"1. Cuasality. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, since matter exists, that begs a "first cause". Since matter cannot create itself, there must be a God. Since *something* cannot be CREATED by *nothing*... there must be a creator. Therefore God exists " Of course matter cannot create itself, but matter cannot be created period, by anything nor be destroyed by anything. it merely changes. There does not have to be a "God" to create anything as proved by science planets and evrything form on there own. the universe is just here no one created it. and if there is a god, why couldn't there be more than one, if he has the power to create anything he could create another being just like him, or say that there is a being greater than god that created him. what do you have to say to that?:mad:
 
Originally posted by Increan
...if he has the power to create anything he could create another being just like him, or say that there is a being greater than god that created him. what do you have to say to that?:mad:
Click to expand...
Well, if you're gonna be like that, there are loads of arguments against the existence of God, like the one you touched on; if God is omnipotent, can he create a boulder so heavy he can't lift it?
 
Oh Jesus

Originally posted by Increan
I was just trying to touch on the stupidity of some peoples posts.
Click to expand...

Judging by your signature and comments...another addition to negativism against religion...
 
neg·a·tiv·ism
n.
1. A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
2. Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others

You were basically just saying that I am a skeptic about religion. Which, in my opinion is not negative, so know the definition before you use a word.
 
Tell yourself that.

Originally posted by Increan
You were basically just saying that I am a skeptic about religion. Which, in my opinion is not negative, so know the definition before you use a word.
Click to expand...

A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.

Need I explain more to you? Anger clouds the mind :D
 
Since you like to go all dictionary on me...

Originally posted by Increan
Since when is resisting something negative?
Click to expand...

resist (rî-zîst´) verb
resisted, resisting, resists verb, transitive
1. To strive to fend off or offset the actions, effects, or force of.
2. To remain firm against the actions, effects, or force of; withstand: a bacterium that resisted the antibiotic.
3. To keep from giving in to or enjoying.

verb, intransitive
To offer resistance. See synonyms at oppose.

negative (nèg´e-tîv) adjective
Abbr. neg.
1. a. Expressing, containing, or consisting of a negation, refusal, or denial: gave a negative answer to our request for funding. b. Indicating opposition or resistance: a negative reaction to the new advertising campaign.

You knew what I meant, I think. It was superfluous to get all "dictionary" on me.

Or you are negative towards religion, correct?
 
Then try the dialogue

Tyler,

Because some are pre-disposed to mucky thinking and fear of absolutes, I proposed the question,
'Why shouldn't a person you meet at a bar kill you?'

For you, on a tangent: So tell me how you defend the raping of a child or slavery as being permissible or acceptable, not a a historical fact, but as something you see as possibly being good sometimes and bad in other times. If the word absolute scares you in the context of morals, then use whatever replacement word you wish. There must be a root to a morality, or no one can ever be justified in telling someone else not to do something..

Hippo: Same issue in general...if you are too cowardly to see where the dialogue goes, then so be it.

James R: I thought no religious framework or morality really existed. Why do you see this as a necessity? Can you give an answer to the question, 'Why shouldn't a person you meet at a bar kill you?'
 
Okay, to answer your completely brain dead question..........

1) it's illegal. Most people do not wish to go to jail
2) it is taught to most of us from birth on that killing is morally wrong by our parents and the society around us (note: in no way does this even suggest an absolute moral)
3) the male of a species will often feel the desire to kill when provoked enough, but rarely to never when not provoked


Now, to respond to your absolutely brain dead response....


" So tell me how you defend the raping of a child or slavery as being permissible or acceptable"

Given the option...Tyler, let this child be raped and all wars will end OR this child does not get raped and all wars continue......which would you choose? I choose the child raping. Rape is possibly the most disgusting of human indecencies. But not as horrible or detrimental as war. Therefore - I would choose all wars ending forever for a child being raped.

Now. As for your 'theory' that a child being raped is an absolute moral. Wrongo. The reasons there are so few child rapings are quite simplistic and easy to realize.

1) You are an older male, past puberty. Are you more attracted to girls past puberty or before? The vast majority would say past puberty. Know why? Think in terms of evolution. What purpose would an instinct to have sex with a post-pubescent girl bring? Reproduction. What purpose would an instinct to have sex with a pre-pubescent girl bring? None. There is no evolutionary purpose to having sex with a pre-pubescent girl. Therefore, no human is born with this desire.
2) Extending on that. There are actually a large amount of people who feel sexual desires towards young girls. Often related to childhood problems and family problems, pedophelia has men post-pubescent sexually desiring girls as young as 6 years old. There is no 6 year old out there who fully understands the reprocussions emotionally, mentally or physically of sex. So all those child porn pics on the internet (I take it you have read a newspaper at least once a week so you would know how mnay child-porn distributers get caught) are basically rape. There you have it - tons of child rape.
3) What do men find sexually desirable? Breasts? Hips? How about the ability to actually have sex??? So how many men do you think will naturally desire to lay a girl without any of these???

Your child-porn to absolute morality link is about as thought out as saying 'there is candy, therefore there must be oompa-loompas'.


"There must be a root to a morality, or no one can ever be justified in telling someone else not to do something."

Wrong again. Morals are entirely personal. I can however be justified in telling someone not to do something. I can either be doing it to (a) help them out (b) ensure I am not hurt (c) ensure others are not made victims. You may say that (c) proves absolute morality, but again this is just flawed logic. Others being made victims of is detrimental to a society, neighborhood and such. I do not wish my area to be made worse, so in the best interest of myself I can advise someone not to do something that would be detrimental to themselves, me, or society. Understand?
 
Hippo......
Again about your question 'Why shouldn't someone you meet at a bar kill you?'........

Simply because something is against the majority of people's moral structure does not mean it is an absolute moral that has existed forever.

If I took you in my handy time machine back about 700 years and EVERYONE but a few were 100% certain that the Earth was flat and almost EVERYONE for all known history had thought this way - would it prove that the Earth is flat to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top