If God does not exist, then everything is permissible

[Mystic_Banana]

This is too busy a thread to have missed a day! Anyway:

If you discount revelation, that’s up to you, It may not count as scientific evidence, but evidence it is, nonetheless

Whether Christian (or any other religious) morality is objective - well, if it’s laid down by the creator of the Universe, who, having constructed our reality, he’d presumably have a good idea of an effective way of dealing with it ethically

Anyway, subjective or objective, the interpretation of reality as being that in which conscious beings are infinite gives a far greater value to each being than one in which each individual is considered finite. The value of our life experiences according to the former can have permanent consequences, for ourselves and others, whereas the net result of life being limited by finity ultimately comes out as zero, because the net result for anyone (and everyone) would be zilch, so even if you talk about morality as being based on personal inclination, mutual self-interest, etc, etc, the net result would still eventually be nothing, making any atheist model of morality worthless

(apologies if anyone has argued against this bit and I missed it… please refer me back if you have!)

Much modern morality is based on humanism - perhaps that’s why it doesn’t neccesarily work so well, and possibly why western societies are becoming progressively less happy ones?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Actually, I’ve found one which covers these things a bit:

Mmh, this too is adaptive in one sense (but not in another); when those who exploit others are found out, there is typically some retribution payed. These people who exploit others are accontable to the general public, who usually punish such behaviour. Things are impermissible in the social-sense but permissible in a relative sense (as I have said).

It does not neccesarily work as a moral system, though does it? I’d think you would need reasons the morality itself before you consider it such, and if the whole basis of that is nonexistent, then all this just becomes a set of rules to bend, cheat or conform to for personal interest

Not like when people do good to get into heaven though, right? It doesn’t matter what the motivations are; behaviour that consistently benefits everyone is beneficial indeed (by which I mean moral - at least in the social sense).

True - but according to any atheist morality, the net gain is always, finally, zero, so there is no real benefit at all, is there?

Not my concern. How you justify the rest of your existence in a morally-relative, finite world is up to you. No truth is imparted by merely* desiring *such things as are begged of religion

Is your assumption – and the question is - is it a morally relative world? And if so, in what way? Moral relativism ultimately can mean whatever you want, to the degree it becomes, as far as I can see, an essentially meaningless concept

“Purpose” is such a loaded and ambiguous term though. If you intend purpose to mean the desired outcome (as per a creator or our own wish-fulfilling desires), then yes, my view of life has no purpose. If ‘purpose’ is to mean the reason for which we exist, then we may have no answer (at least not which validates us humans specifically). If ‘purpose’ is intended to mean the resoluteness of our existence, then indeed, the very contemplation of our life and our eventual death; the never-so-insignificant contribution and teaching we leave with our progeny; our appreciation for having existed at all - is the fulfilment of that purpose.

None of which matter, have any value, in finite existence, in a permanent sense, rendering the fulfilment of this purpose to be ultimately without reasonable purpose. It’s just like, having something distracting to do…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

For those of us who think this life is the only one we get, it’s important to make the best we can of it, for ourselves and our fellows.

But why would it really matter? What would be the value of it, in the end?

 

[Oreoracle]

But consider your tautology: “those things people prefer are valuable to them,” rephrased “those things people prefer, they prefer”. The Christian can agree to this. If you define “value” as “preference”, then I can agree that people prefer what they prefer. In other words, your understanding of morality doesn’t address the issue.

What is the issue?

I might similarly make a claim in economics that “those things people purchase, they buy”. But how would this explain anything?

Like any definition, it provides a synonym (or a synonymous phrase) to help those who don’t understand the term understand it.

The atheist has a choice: A) he may define “value” in his own way, and thus make morality a game of tautologies, or B) he may agree that some things are ultimately valuable, apart from people’s opinions.

Under (B), what’s the definition of “value?” By its common usage, “value” only makes sense in a subjective context. For example, we can say that money is “valuable” because most humans choose to use it as currency, but outside of our respect for it, the value of money is nonexistent.

If he chooses A, he is a nihilist, whether or not he realizes it.

You aren’t using the common definition of “nihilist” then. If you want to play games with idiosyncratic definitions (that you never provide) of inflammatory labels, I guess I’ll call you a satanist and never provide my definition of “satanism.”

There is no such thing as a subjectivist about morality, because anyone who chooses A has admitted that there are no truths about the subject. (To call a truth “subjective” is simply to admit that it is not true.)

Moral subjectivism does not hold that moral statements are true (or that they possess any truth value whatsoever), so I don’t know why denying the truth of moral claims prevents me from being a subjectivist.

 

[AJTheMan]

I fail to see how belief in god is at all related to morality.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

It does not neccesarily work as a moral system, though does it?

Not in the absolutist sense, no. It is a valued system though. At least where values cannot be absolute, they can be largely agreed-upon or refuted collectively.

I’d think you would need reasons the morality itself before you consider it such, and if the whole basis of that is nonexistent, then all this just becomes a set of rules to bend, cheat or conform to for personal interest

Well, it’s not non-existent; it’s foundation is within the people who hold the values. Values and moral precepts held in personal favour are typically held on the collective level as well. Value-making is a democratic process; it’s foundation may be in simple fancy, but most people fancy at least the prospect of continuing existence and in a way that is non-oppressive. It’s a good base, even though there is no aboslute moral position from which to derive such a notion. I say ‘good’ because it’s something that I value, but it’s probably the most ubiquitously held value there is (and so let the democratic value-imputing system continue on, I say).

True - but according to any atheist morality, the net gain is always, finally, zero, so there is no real benefit at all, is there?

I don’t hold that the net gain is always, finally, zero, but that’s only because I find values which produce said gain to be intrinsically good, despite any future reward (obvisouly I do in any event, since I don’t think the reward extends beyond what is here and now).

Is your assumption – and the question is - is it a morally relative world? And if so, in what way?

It is a morally relative world, because there is no higher or absolute authority from which we can first, determine that certain things are essentially moral, and second, what exactly constitutes a moral action. If you worry that one person’s subjective moral authority might trump another’s arbitrarily, you can see my concern of one person’s ancient revelation trumping my own (in fact, I have had no revelation of such a moral authority - which is why I claim moral relativism).

Moral relativism ultimately can mean whatever you want, to the degree it becomes, as far as I can see, an essentially meaningless concept

If notions of right and wrong are whatever you want, then it follows that notions of meaning are whatever you want. Call it meaningless if you want, but it won’t give you any more reason to invent a moral law-giver.

None of which matter, have any value, in finite existence, in a permanent sense,

No, in that sense, **non-permanent **things don’t have permanent value; no, not if that’s your starting point. Thanks for clearing that up for us .

rendering the fulfilment of this purpose to be ultimately without reasonable purpose. It’s just like, having something distracting to do…

If notions of morality are subjective, so are notions of purpose. It’s hardly fair that you reduce everyone elses ascribed meanings regarding values, life, and love as nothing because they one-day cease. Your idea of “purpose” necessitates some absolute law-giver; my idea of “purpose” does not, nor does it entertain any fantasies of eternity for it’s fulfilment.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In response, I refer you to an earlier post in which I said:

I might take a leaf out of Mystic Banana’s book here, and say that I have yet to find an argument for the Judeo-Christian basis of Western morality that holds water.

because G-d said so, what other argument do we need? what other basis for morality can there be? when humans try to form their own morality, you wind up with the genocide of innocents like stalin, mao, pol pot. we have had our fill of non-theistic moral structures. what you espouse is already a failed system, and we have the bodies of a hundred million inocents in jus tthe last century to prove it. human beings left to their own devices are rather vicious.

If we consider the source of Judeo-Christian morals, the Bible, we find that it is full of contradictions and contains plenty of unsavoury dealings.

what contradictions? what unsavory dealings? the "source " of Christain morality isnt the Bible, it is G-d. big difference4.

If we discard the laborious apologetics that endeavour to explain why the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it says, we are left with a moral system that endorses rape, genocide, slavery, incest, misogyny -

what you call “laborious apologetics” is just the rest of the story that people generally ignore when they accuse G-d of some wrong doing. it never seems to occur to the accuser that G-d had a good reason for his actions.

to say nothing of the plethora of rules and regulations that serve no purpose other than to demonstrate reverence for a self-confessedly jealous, vengeful god.

what is wrong with reverence for G-d? what is wrong with G-d being jealous or vengeful? nothing. nothing at all.

I would not want to live with anyone who seriously based their morality on the Bible.

i suspect that you follow the ten commandements and then call it your “value system”. you hang out with us all the time. its not to educate us, you like us. you like what we believe. you want to be one of us. why dont you quit fightinng with G-d and accept Him as He is, not how you want Him to be? whatever happened, G-d is still waiting for you. there is no affront to your dignity to submit to the Divine. you are only human. like all of us.

On the contrary, I think a quick look at Western history will bear out the notion that most of the values we hold today are Enlightenment values, humanist values - not strictly Judeo-Christian values.

values or morals? their is a big difference in the way these two are used by the non-theist community.

One of the criticisms often levelled by religionists is that people who don’t believe in their god just pick and choose their morals based on what works for them. But that is exactly what Christians do - if they hold seriously to biblical morality, why don’t they stone people who blaspheme?

ever hear the story of the prostitute? ye without sin, throw the first stone? (this must be the laboriuos apologetics)

Why aren’t half of them walking around with only one hand after cutting it off for ‘offending’?

how does ones hand literally offend? do you seriously believe that to be literal?

Why don’t they accept slavery? Jesus, according to the gospel accounts, did.

Jesus never accepted slavery. your concept of slavery seems to be chattel slavery, the outright owning of a human being. that has always been wrong.

So please offer your arguments for the Judeo-Christian source of morality. I’d love to see one that has some credibility.

sure. G-d said so.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

G-d said so.

How d’y’figure?

Now ask yourself if the way in which you figure this to be true is acceptable as a form of knowledge.

Now tell us why everyone should find it to be a savory and unquestionably truthful explanation.

Then tell us why the thousands of gods and moral suppositions that have gone before you and your God are unsatisfactory as explanations.

Finally, omit no detail in your reasoning, however slight, that would lead us not to accept your explanation.

We don’t ask much, but we do indeed ask.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oreo,

Before I continue this conversation, I want one thing to be clear. I am not, nor have I ever been, trying to convince you that my moral position is rationally required of you. If I were, I would offer arguments to that effect. Since those arguments rely partially on revelation, you would consider them unconvincing. Let me say this even more strongly: I do not want you to believe in Christian morality until you come to know the Christian God.

What position am I arguing for, then? Simply this: the Christian viewpoint is a coherent system of ethics that makes statements about right and wrong meaningful. There is no other system that I know of with the same result.

Your comments to me in your recent posts approach the level of hostility (or dismissiveness?), and I don’t understand why. If you think that all experiences a person has that might constitute religious revelation are epistemically worthless, please tell me why. Also, tell me what the principled distinction between veridical (truth-bearing) experience and non-veridical experience is, so I can learn what revelatory experiences to discount.

And this standard of “purity” seems arbitrary. How do you derive the ethic “ethics ought to be pure?” Isn’t making ethical statements about your ethical system a tad circular, if not downright redundant?

All disciplines, insofar as they are disciplines, must have “exclusive content” – that is roughly what I mean by pure. Practical ethics asks the question, “How should we live?” There are at least three possible answers: 1) Live morally and rationally, because morality is perfectly rational 2) Live rationally, not according ethical norms, and 3) Live morally, not according to rational constraints. If you pick #2, then moral rules are irrelevant. If you pick #3, then you sometimes have good reasons not to act morally, and you act morally anyway. Both #2 and #3 make the concept of ethics as a non-sociological discipline nonsensical.

It may be noncontroversial, but I want to know how you objectively determine whether an event is a punishment.

I don’t see how the subjectivity of punishment relates to the conversation – perhaps I forgot. If you torture someone who (unbeknownst to you) is a masochist, you are still guilty of torture. (In fact, though, your point relates to a larger point, quite out of context in this conversation … it is quite likely that those who wind up in hell would much prefer it to Heaven, because they would experience Heaven as a punishment).

How deliciously vague.

Really? How so? If I were to tell you that certain things were permitted in a kingdom and other things were not permitted, and I were to tell you that the King could read his subjects’ minds, how would the context of permissibility be unclear? And that is what I am telling you, about the Kingdom of all men. You can call it vague all you like, but the statement just doesn’t make sense to me.

When you’re done with the cop-outs, let me know, okay? You CANNOT exempt yourself from providing evidence and still make a strong case.

I am making a case for an if-then statement. All that is needed is an understanding of the terms; you don’t need to look at the world to check on those meanings. Compare the statement “If determinism is true, then we do not have free will”. What *evidence *is needed to agree or disagree to that statement?

It’s just like with mathematics: you can simplify a problem to the point where only “x=x” is left, but the reflexive property is arbitrary.

The reflexive property is arbitrary?

This cleared things up for me a little, from the Wikipedia entry on arbitrariness:

Nihilism is the philosophy that believes that there is no purpose in the universe, and that every choice is arbitrary.

And here you keep telling me you’re not a nihilist! :tsktsk:

When you’ve heard as many definitions of “rational” as I have, you will understand my reservations on using the term. Please define “rational.”

The main issue is that “rationality” pervades many subjects, and most iterations have nothing to do with ethics.

Yes, most applications of rationality have nothing to do with ethics. My very short definition of “rational” is “believing or choosing that which you have most reason to believe or choose, within the constraints of your own epistemological limitations.”

What’s the difference between a hedonistic desire and a regular desire? You admit that we both do what we think should be done because we want to.

But you’re missing the point, I think. A good person does not do what he wants to, but he does his duty. Sometimes his duty happens to correspond to what he wants, which is all to the good. We do not act according to our desires at all times, nor did I ever admit that we did.

What, then, makes your desire better than mine?

I have no idea if my desire is better than yours! For all I know, you talk the talk about subjectivism, but you actually value the people around you because you think they are valuable.

While I may not approve of how others feel, I’m not going to put blinders on and fail to acknowledge the fact that my opinion is arbitrary, as is theirs. It isn’t based on anything but my preference for others’ happiness.

Are any of your actions, on your view, *not *arbitrary? If they are all arbitrary, then why should they be directed at the truth instead of a lie?

…because they desire to be good.

And this is where I would ask you to substantiate the assertion that all action is predicated on desire.

There’s another interesting ethic you’ve failed to derive. How does one derive the ethic “we shouldn’t be calculating?”

From observing politicians.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What is the issue?

Ethics. You say “those things people prefer, they prefer”, and I say, “Yes, of course”. But you meant to say that I was wrong. Unfortunately, the statement “those things people prefer are valuable to them,” with your definition of value, is perfectly agreeable, and yet it does not go against anything I’ve said.

By its common usage, “value” only makes sense in a subjective context.

Then why do people commonly use the term “intrinsic value”? Your position that value needs a context begs the question. If you were right, of course, then my entire argument would be bogus.

Moral subjectivism does not hold that moral statements are true (or that they possess any truth value whatsoever), so I don’t know why denying the truth of moral claims prevents me from being a subjectivist.

Moral subjectivism is incoherent, for all that I can tell, because it says that “those things that we desire are valuable”, when it simply takes “valuable” as a synonym for our desire. If your best statement of a position is not informative, then your position is a position on grammar, not ethics.

 

[AJTheMan]

Now I’m not generally in favor of “proving the existence of God,” but consider the following argument:

1. If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.
2. Not everything is permissible. (i.e. some things are wrong).

Therefore, God exists.

If this is unsound, which premise is wrong?

Hmm, interesting.

Prodigal Son, what about in my case? In Buddhism, theism is not central to our faith. Some Buddhists are agnostics/atheists while others are theists who don’t see the gods as important. By your logic, we ought to be able to do anything we want, correct? And yet, at it’s most lenient, we still have rules to follow by:

1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

At it’s strictest, for laypeople, the dhamma (“Truth”) can include other prohibitions:

1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.
6. I undertake the precept to refrain from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after noon).
7. I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.
8. I undertake the precept to refrain from lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place.

Buddhist monks follow over 400 rules. Buddhist nuns, over 300.

What’s this about…without a god, everything is permissible?

 

[Ender]

"Oreoracle:

What is the issue?

Ethics.

I disagree: I think the OP is asking whether morality can exist if there is no God. A lot of opinions have been expressed as to whether Christianity makes any sense, or that Christianity solves this problem, but that’s not what is being asked. If Christianity (or any other religion) is right then atheism is wrong but even if all religions were wrong it still wouldn’t mean that morality could exist without God. Arguments about religion (in this context) are irrelevant and merely sidetrack the topic.
Voice of Reason:

It is a morally relative world, because there is no higher or absolute authority from which we can first, determine that certain things are essentially moral, and second, what exactly constitutes a moral action.

If I understand this properly, VoR is answering the question of whether morality can exist (other than subjectively) without God with: No. If that’s his answer, I agree with it.

Ender

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

If I understand this properly, VoR is answering the question of whether morality can exist (other than subjectively) without God with: No. If that’s his answer, I agree with it.

I’m glad that we agree . Though I think we’ve come to this conclusion already as a group. The real discussion is not whether a Godless world is relativistic in morals, but what the implications of a morally relativistic world are (I contend ‘nothing inherently bad,’ but that’s a discussion for another thread).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I disagree: I think the OP is asking whether morality can exist if there is no God. A lot of opinions have been expressed as to whether Christianity makes any sense, or that Christianity solves this problem, but that’s not what is being asked. If Christianity (or any other religion) is right then atheism is wrong but even if all religions were wrong it still wouldn’t mean that morality could exist without God. Arguments about religion (in this context) are irrelevant and merely sidetrack the topic.

Well, the conditional statement, “If God does not exist, then morality cannot exist” is a question about ethics, so I stand by my statement. I tend to agree that Christianity, as such, is not the topic.

(As an aside, some people here have implied the claim that objective morality cannot exist whether or not God exists, which concedes the conditional, but argues that the entire concept of morality is vacuous. Recourse to various conceptions of God is necessary to counter such an argument.)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How d’y’figure?

i know G-d said so, because the Church says so, and it was witness to these events with Christ.

Now ask yourself if the way in which you figure this to be true is acceptable as a form of knowledge.

witness statements are an entirely acceptable form of knowledge, indeed they are the only way that we have knowledge that we didnt witness ourselves.

Now tell us why everyone should find it to be a savory and unquestionably truthful explanation.

everyone should find that to be acceptable, because it would be hypocritical to deny their veracity while not denying the veracity of other knowledge gained that way, i.e. the moonlanding, the magna carta, alexanders conquests, etc.

Then tell us why the thousands of gods and moral suppositions that have gone before you and your God are unsatisfactory as explanations.

because they dont meet the mathematical proof of Christs Divinity as expressed by the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy. i refer you to the various works of Peter Stoner, his son, the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. etc. the fulfillment of these prophecies are the very reason Christ was accepted so widely as the Messiah, it was even prophecied that some would denny him as modern Judaism does today.

no other faith has anything like it. btw, He is your G-d too. you have no more choice in the matter than you do about who your parents are.

Finally, omit no detail in your reasoning, however slight, that would lead us not to accept your explanation.

why? so one can look for any excuse to deny the Truth? i find it hard to believe that there is a more legitimate motivation for such a statement than that. it smacks of truth seeking behavior.

We don’t ask much, but we do indeed ask.

if you have asked before, didnt they tell you the same thing? if not, i just let you know. are you ready now to come back to Christ? i know He is waiting on you. you are here. He is here. only a moment on your knees will bring you into the fold. then you can spend the rest of your life with us, trying to get it right. after all. no matter how you put it. pascal is right. non theism is a losing proposition. if we lose, we have lost nothing, if you lose, we have lost you also. so we can only lose, if you lose. join us.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hmm, interesting.

Prodigal Son, what about in my case? In Buddhism, theism is not central to our faith. Some Buddhists are agnostics/atheists while others are theists who don’t see the gods as important. By your logic, we ought to be able to do anything we want, correct? And yet, at it’s most lenient, we still have rules to follow by:

1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

At it’s strictest, for laypeople, the dhamma (“Truth”) can include other prohibitions:

1. I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
2. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
3. I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity.
4. I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
5. I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.
6. I undertake the precept to refrain from eating at the forbidden time (i.e., after noon).
7. I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.
8. I undertake the precept to refrain from lying on a high or luxurious sleeping place.

Buddhist monks follow over 400 rules. Buddhist nuns, over 300.

What’s this about…without a god, everything is permissible?

I never said that there weren’t rules that people make for themselves, often rules with good reasons behind them. It’s just that, ultimately, if you did one of the above things when no one else could know, you aren’t accountable – unless you are accountable to God.

 

[AJTheMan]

I never said that there weren’t rules that people make for themselves, often rules with good reasons behind them. It’s just that, ultimately, if you did one of the above things when no one else could know, you aren’t accountable – unless you are accountable to God.

What do you mean I’m not accountable? If I do these things, I am accountable to the law of karma. If I kill someone, I could go to hell. (Naraka) If I just totally ignore the rules my whole life, I could be reborn as some sort of angry spirit.

Or, I could be reborn as an undesirable animal instead of something better. All of our actions in this life come back to us in the next life.

But, if practice rightly, and straightly, I could be reborn as a human or even end the cycle of rebirth it’s self.

So, yes, I’m extremely accountable for my actions. If I want to be reborn into a good realm, I need to make sure that I practice rightly.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What do you mean I’m not accountable? If I do these things, I am accountable to the law of karma. If I kill someone, I could go to hell. (Naraka) If I just totally ignore the rules my whole life, I could be reborn as some sort of angry spirit.

Or, I could be reborn as an undesirable animal instead of something better. All of our actions in this life come back to us in the next life.

But, if practice rightly, and straightly, I could be reborn as a human or even end the cycle of rebirth it’s self.

So, yes, I’m extremely accountable for my actions. If I want to be reborn into a good realm, I need to make sure that I practice rightly.

just out of idle curiosity, why dont buddhists and hindus just keep commiting suicide until they are brahmans and the buddhist equivalent?

 

[AJTheMan]

just out of idle curiosity, why dont buddhists and hindus just keep commiting suicide until they are brahmans and the buddhist equivalent?

Private Message’d you.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

i know G-d said so, because the Church says so, and it was witness to these events with Christ. Witness statements are an entirely acceptable form of knowledge, indeed they are the only way that we have knowledge that we didnt witness ourselves.

Well, actually, modern psychology has a lot to say about the frailty of witness statements, not only to the point of discrediting lies, but discrediting obviously false beliefs that the witness believes actually took place as well.

everyone should find that to be acceptable, because it would be hypocritical to deny their veracity while not denying the veracity of other knowledge gained that way, i.e. the moonlanding, the magna carta, alexanders conquests, etc.

The moonlanding has verifiable documentation and was witnessed my millions. I don’t see how the Magna Carta represents knowledge aquired by witness. And Alexanders conquests are as debated as Christ’s (ironically enough). The bible has second, third, and forth-hand witnesses to events that have never been replicated (e.g., miracles) or have ever aligned with the rest of the natural world.

because they dont meet the mathematical proof of Christs Divinity as expressed by the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy. i refer you to the various works of Peter Stoner, his son, the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. etc. the fulfillment of these prophecies are the very reason Christ was accepted so widely as the Messiah, it was even prophecied that some would denny him as modern Judaism does today.

Vague prophecies prooving a vague God, all.

no other faith has anything like it.

No, every faith has something like it. And many more faiths have things exactly like it.

why? so one can look for any excuse to deny the Truth?

Well yes, but only for the benefit of seeing how easily such truth is believed under false premises.

if you have asked before, didnt they tell you the same thing? if not, i just let you know. are you ready now to come back to Christ? i know He is waiting on you. you are here. He is here. only a moment on your knees will bring you into the fold. then you can spend the rest of your life with us, trying to get it right.

I’ve been there a thousand times before; disappointment was my reward for each such endeavour.

after all. no matter how you put it. pascal is right. non theism is a losing proposition. if we lose, we have lost nothing, if you lose, we have lost you also. so we can only lose, if you lose. join us.

No, if theism loses, they will have been vain martyrs for an incorrigibley pedantic cult, subjecting themselves to silly propositions, ordinances, self-loathing, and will have put a kibosh on their otherwise much-enjoyed free-thinking. I don’t consider that such wagers should be made unless the probability of each event is approximately 50-50. If there is an equal chance of death or nothing happening to me as I leave my front door, then I shall stay in today. If the chance of me dying by stepping out my door today is 1 in 1 000 000, I’ll take my chances (although I don’t think the ratios are even that high for believing in a supreme being - but that’s just me).

In any event, I should not have been so foolish as to be even baited into discounting claims such as “God said so.”