P
PRmerger
Guest
It would be helpful if you could offer all of the arguments for God’s existence that you’ve examined, give us which one you found the most compelling, and then tell us why you find it wanting.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Irrelevant.
No one can sneeze and keep her eyes open at the same time.
But no one thinks sneezing is better than keeping one’s eyes open. Or vice verse.
We think both are good.
It both puzzles and amuses me that atheists can be such fundamentalists.
Either/Or is the mantra that is so often professed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
There is nothing I find more boring that sitting about with people who agree with me and us all patting each other on the back. I like to talk to people who don’t agree with me, to challenge and be challenged. IMO critical analysis is the path to truth.
That is why most people come to a forum. To pose a question, to consider the responses, to refute or accept the positions that have been offered and defended.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Personally, when I am in a discussion with someone with different religious beliefs than I have, I NEVER, ever, ever, ever, say, “Well, I’ll just pray for you”.
I find it to be condescending and falsely pious and I think Our Lord cringes every time a Christian says it (this way).
Instead, I actually do pray for that person, and enjoy the thought of this person’s conversion.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It is absolutely immoral to torture children for fun.
S
Smfm
Guest
It doesn’t matter, atheists will die too, my friend say he’s an atheist thank God.
J
josie_L
Guest
Then there’s adultery, bearing false witness, sexual and verbal abuse, spousal violence. . . etc. There are lots of moral absolutes.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Possibly the best hope for the proof of a divine Goodness I have found might be in the details of moral integrity.
For the atheist may claim to a moral standard, but there is neither a guarantee as to its strength nor an agreed-upon understanding as to its meaning. The atheist claims its morality is based upon a natural empathy that is a result of evolutionary pressures, but the very knowledge of its natural origin seemingly allows the atheist to circumvent his/her moral leanings whenever such might be considered inconvenient.
Naturally the atheist will make a claim to honesty and integrity and possibly even state that his/her morality is superior to that of a theist for it is done without hope of Heavenly reward, but a careful examination must be made of such claims to understand the underlying problem that seemingly differentiates the atheist from the theist:
Whereas the theist is committed by divine fiat to undertake certain arduous rituals to continuously vouchsafe themselves against moral slippage, the atheist commits to no such regimen. If an animalistic desire might place pressure upon the atheist there is nothing stronger than his/her will to aid in the struggle against it. If the atheist has no such leanings or is not interested in such temptations, well and good, but if he/she is so inclined there is little reason to expect a consistent level of restraint. Particularly if such leanings might be considered natural or might be rationalized in some way.
The belief in the superior morality of a Higher Power appears to provide a large measure of regional stability to humanity’s ability to trust in the good and proper actions of its neighbors by having a level of accountability beyond the access of a purely atheistic society that might rely primarily upon government oversight. Essentially, as sometimes has been quoted, “The best deterrence against graft is a fear of Hell.”
Yet here is the difficulty in accepting the reality of God’s existence using morality:
- Morality appears largely regional, rather than universal.
- Standards of morality appear to change with time.
- God’s own original morality does not appear to match the standards of the modern era.
- Jesus’ own morality does not appear to match that of his father, which is paradoxically himself.
- The purported account of the struggle among the angels, which allegedly led to Lucifer’s downfall, seemingly suggests that moral behavior is not guaranteed even in Heaven.
- Holy wars seemingly undermine any substantive purpose to morality.
- The concept of Hell removes a believer’s free choice to choose morality for morality’s sake thereby potentially stripping much virtue from positive action.
- Radical extremists suffer no rebuke by a purportedly moral God.
- Jesus hates the lukewarm, suggesting a love for extremism, which in turn suggests an intolerance towards tolerance, cooperation, and compromise.
- Jesus seemingly offers conflicting messages with regards to morality: eg. simultaneously lauding the peacemakers while equally stating that he, himself, did not come to bring peace.
- The flagrant lack of morality found in the entirety of non-human nature–both before and after the ‘Fall.’
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I do not find using philosophy as a tool for reasoning and explaining belief or disbelief as objectionable. Though, don’t think I’m a trained philosopher. I’m the daughter of a ditch digger, and I have an AS degree from the community college. I read a lot. 
Mainly because I never heard of any of this world of philosophy until I started looking at the Catholic Church. Someone suggested Thomas Aquinas when I was an atheist, and whoa, I discovered religious people can reason. So I added a philosophy course to my GS. I was in my forties at the time. I am the first woman in my family to have any kind of post high school degree. So my people aren’t intellectuals. We’re blue collar and my mom used to say, we wear practical shoes. And we did. My dad used to say, don’t take wooden nickels, so I’m careful not to.Anyway, evil means are not justified by a good end.
Before you go all, Christians did this, Christians do that, well, I’m sure you know already that all people get confused, overwhelmed, self-centered, etc. and act against their own morals.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
D
Doormouse
Guest
Personally, when I am in a discussion with someone with different religious beliefs than I have, I NEVER, ever, ever, ever, say, “Well, I’ll just pray for you”.
I find it to be condescending and falsely pious and I think Our Lord cringes every time a Christian says it (this way).
Instead, I actually do pray for that person, and enjoy the thought of this person’s conversion.
like it or lump it, I say a prayer for them, as well as every one else.I say I’ll pray for people to them if they have a spiritual life style or that way inclined.
I don’t tell every body I do this, because some don’t get it.
J
John_Lazarus
Guest
What gives? I got linked to a NSFW Deadpool trailer?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes. The Argument from Morality. This is definitely a good argument for God’s existence.
Indeed. For if we make the moral laws, then we are absolutely free to break them.
#relativism.
You write the rules. Therefore, you can change them and are not bound by them.
Like when I played “pretend” with my 7yr old DD, who made all the rules when we played. First she’d say, “You have to step on these books laying on the floor 'cause the carpet is hot lava!” Then, suddenly, she’d exempt herself and say, “But now I can step on the carpet 'cause the carpet is not hot lava anymore.”
That’s what relativism is. Playing pretend with the rules of morality.
This is not a correct articulation of theistic beliefs. At least, not Catholic beliefs.
There is no such thing as “arduous rituals” in Catholicism.
And these rituals are not entertained in order to vouchsafe ourselves against moral slippage.
Egg-zactly.
Absolutely not.
Female genital mutilation, for example, is immoral everywhere. Whether it is done in the Sudan or done in the US…it’s always immoral. There is no geographical indulgence given for female circumcision.
Can you give an example of this?
I’m thinking that even though in ancient Greece unwanted infants were left out in the elements, and no one thought this wrong…it* was *wrong, yeah?
Infanticide was wrong in ancient Greece, and it’s wrong today, right?
However, even so, if there is some act that was moral in the ancient world that is immoral today, how does this disprove the Argument from Morality?
Can you please 'splain what you mean here?
Firstly, this is not a correct enunciation of the Trinity. The Son is not the Father.
But what do you mean by Jesus’ own morality does not match that of His Father?
Prior to the Incarnation, this was true.
It is a mistake to appropriate the sinful acts of men to the will of God.
This would seem to indict all moral actions done by atheists as well. Some atheists choose moral actions because it makes them feel good, no?
This, of course, is begging the question.
This limns a fundamentalist’s interpretation of Scripture.
- Jesus seemingly offers conflicting messages with regards to morality: eg. simultaneously lauding the peacemakers while equally stating that he, himself, did not come to bring peace.
Then does the presence of extremely virtuous acts of morality prove God’s existence?
#maximiliankolbe
S
Son_of_Niall
Guest
Keep posting.
The thread will reach 1000 posts and the mod will be forced to close it.
The thread will reach 1000 posts and the mod will be forced to close it.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
A long way to go though, eh?Keep posting.
The thread will reach 1000 posts and the mod will be forced to close it.
I was on a thread years ago, think I might have started it actually, on SSPX. It do go to 1000, was closed, and someone else started a “part 2” thread which went quite a ways.
A big part of whether or not this thread goes that far is the civility of all involved…and staying somewhat on point, of course.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
As does this.Yes. The Argument from Morality. This is definitely a good argument for God’s existence.
Indeed. For if we make the moral laws, then we are absolutely free to break them.
#relativism.
You write the rules. Therefore, you can change them and are not bound by them.
Like when I played “pretend” with my 7yr old DD, who made all the rules when we played. First she’d say, “You have to step on these books laying on the floor 'cause the carpet is hot lava!” Then, suddenly, she’d exempt herself and say, “But now I can step on the carpet 'cause the carpet is not hot lava anymore.”
That’s what relativism is. Playing pretend with the rules of morality.
This is not a correct articulation of theistic beliefs. At least, not Catholic beliefs.
There is no such thing as “arduous rituals” in Catholicism.
And these rituals are not entertained in order to vouchsafe ourselves against moral slippage.
Egg-zactly.
Absolutely not.
Female genital mutilation, for example, is immoral everywhere. Whether it is done in the Sudan or done in the US…it’s always immoral. There is no geographical indulgence given for female circumcision.
Can you give an example of this?
I’m thinking that even though in ancient Greece unwanted infants were left out in the elements, and no one thought this wrong…it* was *wrong, yeah?
Infanticide was wrong in ancient Greece, and it’s wrong today, right?
However, even so, if there is some act that was moral in the ancient world that is immoral today, how does this disprove the Argument from Morality?
Can you please 'splain what you mean here?
Firstly, this is not a correct enunciation of the Trinity. The Son is not the Father.
But what do you mean by Jesus’ own morality does not match that of His Father?
Prior to the Incarnation, this was true.
It is a mistake to appropriate the sinful acts of men to the will of God.
This would seem to indict all moral actions done by atheists as well. Some atheists choose moral actions because it makes them feel good, no?
This, of course, is begging the question.
This limns a fundamentalist’s interpretation of Scripture.
- Jesus seemingly offers conflicting messages with regards to morality: eg. simultaneously lauding the peacemakers while equally stating that he, himself, did not come to bring peace.
Then does the presence of extremely virtuous acts of morality prove God’s existence?
#maximiliankolbe
Good rebuttals, PR. I do feel like this poster is at least trying to understand the Christian faith, rather than simply attacking it, and you answered him most respectfully. He does tend to use verses out of context, but then so do fundamentalists, eh? And Trinitarian theology isn’t understood any better by some who are in the pews on Sunday either, unfortunately.
My simplistic take on the whole absolute morality issue, which I think you echoed here: God dictates what is moral, not man. If it ain’t from God, it ain’t absolute.
Thanks PR!
M
MrEmpiricism
Guest
I have spent literally thousands our hours examining arguments for god, there is no way I could list them all. I have examined the arguments from all the so called big hitters, for want of a better phrase, (Lane Craig, Lennox, Lewis etc) presenting the likes of the kalam cosmological argument, the arguments form fine tuning etc. I have even spent many a jaw dropped hour listening to some of the, well lets just say less sophisticated, Christians, like Hovind, Ham, and Strobel. I have yet to hear any argument that is compelling.
The likes of the kalam cosmological argument and the argument form fine tuning are so full of holes I am amazed anyone would present them…
For example lets take the kalam cosmological argument as presented by Lane Craig, its fails at the very first step…
“Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.” - Here Craig takes a law of this universe and applies it to that which lies outside of this universe when we KNOW the laws of this universe breakdown at certain length scales. Furthermore, we know that time as we understand it is linked to space and this universe (space-time) so what would it even mean to have cause and effect without time???
M
MrEmpiricism
Guest
I totally agree, however you have added a qualifier. A trickier question would be is it absolutely immoral to torture children?
M
MrEmpiricism
Guest
evil means are not justified by a good end
Anyway, evil means are not justified by a good end.
Before you go all, Christians did this, Christians do that, well, I’m sure you know already that all people get confused, overwhelmed, self-centered, etc. and act against their own morals.
Well that is where the grey area is IMO. If someone is threatening to kill 1000 innocent people if I don’t kill one person. What should I do? What if the 1 person is not a good person? What is the 1 person is on death-row and is going to die next week anyway? I have no idea what the answer is tbh. But it is certainly not black and while imo.
M
MrEmpiricism
Guest
Of course I would disagree
, however it is certainly interesting topic of conversation. IMO morality can only be understood through evolutionary psychology, in particular the development of cooperative societies. I understand evolution is a banned subject? Nonetheless, I am sure I can present my side of the discussion without getting into a debate about the theory of evolution.- Status