Is Morality possible without God

[Vonsalza]

Separable.

“Individually separate and distinct” per my dictionary.

 

[STT]

Separable.

“Individually separate and distinct” per my dictionary.

Your mistake is that you personify an abstract object as a being.

 

[Vonsalza]

Which object? God or morality?

Just trying to understand your objection a little better. As I’m probably best described a theist that participates in Christian orthopraxy, I’m usually not one for personifying or anthropomorphizing god.

 

[STT]

Which object? God or morality?

Morality is an abstract object. It exists in mind of a thinker when it is experienced. God is a being. We have ability to create and hold ideas in our minds, ideas which are intrinsically different from a being since God is not an object in our mind.

 

[hmikell7]

It depends on how you define morality. As a former self-professed atheist I sure used to think so. Now? Not so much.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Which object? God or morality?

Morality is an abstract object. It exists in mind of a thinker when it is experienced. God is a being. We have ability to create and hold ideas in our minds, ideas which are intrinsically different from a being since God is not an object in our mind.

Bit circular, there. Morality is subjective because people decide what’s moral, so it’s subjective.

The problem with subjective morality as an axiom is that morality no longer functions.

Why am I robbing you? Robbery is wrong!
Because I believe in the right of might. I don’t share your moral view.

 

[Bradskii]

E.O. Wilson’s Social Conquest of the Earth is the best book I’ve read on eusociality. Strongly, strongly recommend it.

Ditto recommended. He’s the grandfather of evolutionary psychology. You may not agree with what he says but at least you’ll be able to gather some ammo with which to shoot my views down.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

E.O. Wilson’s Social Conquest of the Earth is the best book I’ve read on eusociality. Strongly, strongly recommend it.

Ditto recommended. He’s the grandfather of evolutionary psychology. You may not agree with what he says but at least you’ll be able to gather some ammo with which to shoot my views down.

He’s on your team too. Says so in the text.

 

[TheOldColonel]

You seem to be under the impression that the Old Colonel owes you an explanation. But I don’t owe you anything. I do not need to defend or prove my faith. No one here does.

Indeed, you come here demanding that those who believe in God either prove it or admit there is no God. But you hold yourself to no such standard of proof. You make claims that you know there is no God. But where is your proof?

But let’s get to the truth of the matter. No matter what proof you would be given, you would find a reason to deny it. In fact, such denial is at the heart of what it means to be a good atheist. Isn’t it?

Jesus, Himself, healed the sick, raised the dead and rose from the dead, Himself. Still, the confirmed doubters refused to believe. So, what proof can satisfy atheists who trusts more in their college professors and text books than in God’s Word or the overwhelming evidence before their very eyes?

I can tell you without a doubt there is not only a God, but that He is quite real and present to us. All creation proclaims it and life itself makes that knowable to us!

On this thread, I’ve noticed that you seem to oscillate between claiming you know there is no God and claiming you don’t know there is a God. Perhaps you haven’t decided which yet. But let me tell you this. When God asks you on Judgement Day why you didn’t believe in Him, you won’t be able to say you didn’t know… because I just told you.

 

[Damian]

If you can’t demonstrate your claims at all, how can I tell the difference between your claims and a comic book hero? Both stories reference actual places in the world, historical events, etc. but the characters have magical powers it seems with logically consistent back stories as to how they got their powers.

I do not need to defend or prove my faith. No one here does.

So claims about reality don’t need to be justified?

Indeed, you come here demanding that those who believe in God either prove it or admit there is no God.

Not admitting there is no god, just admit their reasons for holding that belief is not justified to others. It may be for you, but not to me. Just like the kid who believes in santa is justified to believe that based on their culture and the evidence of presents and their parents telling them this. That justification to believe in santa won’t work for me though.

You make claims that you know there is no God. But where is your proof?

I make claims that I don’t believe the supernatural exists for the same reason I don’t believe fairies exist. There is currently zero evidence of it at all and from the evidence we have of how reality operates, magic isn’t actually possible it seems.

No matter what proof you would be given, you would find a reason to deny it.

False - new information changes my understanding of reality all the time, just I don’t jump on the bandwagon as quickly as you do apparently. Just like how Einstein mathematically concluded gravity waves should exist, but we didn’t detect them until 2015. You are coming across as only needing a logical conclusion to believe something about reality is just as valid as an actual demonstration of its existence. I withhold updating my model of reality until you can actually demonstrate its existence. Also belief isn’t a choice you make. Example: sit in a chair and choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. You can’t. It’s not possible. We can argue over the langue used to describe that experience, but no one can deny the actual experience of sitting in a chair.

So, what proof can satisfy atheists who trusts more in their college professors and text books than in God’s Word or the overwhelming evidence before their very eyes?

Demonstrate one piece of evidence of the supernatural then.

When God asks you on Judgement Day why you didn’t believe in Him, you won’t be able to say you didn’t know… because I just told you.

I’d say, you sent that guy as evidence of your existence instead of just showing up yourself? Seriously spirit, how inept are you at understanding people?

 

[TheOldColonel]

So, what proof would you accept for the existence of God? If people won’t even accept Jesus raising people from the dead is enough, I don’t think there is anything that will convince an atheist.

You have the same things I do. Beautiful, intricate and diverse nature that has God’s signature written all over it, and you also have access to the Bible as God’s written revelation and the Sacred Tradition of His Holy Church. You have everything you need to see there is a God.

There’s nothing more that I could show or give to you as proof that God exists than what God has already given you. I am not so presumptuous to think I can give you proof that God didn’t think of and give to you already.

We have the same evidence. You reject it - yet you did not ask me first to approve your faith that no God exists yet demand it from me.

It’s never due to a lack of evidence that people reject God. It’s due to a lack of will that they reject God. They choose freely to reject Him because they don’t want to believe in Him. No one needs to study epistemology to see that is true.

If you want to reject God, go ahead. I’m going to heaven regardless of what you do. Atheists always act like that denying God affects me in some way- and they are spiting me by saying they won’t believe. It doesn’t. Truth be known, I don’t care in the least what you do or do not believe. So, do what you want. Nobody cares.

 

[rom]

If people won’t even accept Jesus raising people from the dead is enough, I don’t think there is anything that will convince an atheist.

You are right. That’s why I don’t go around trying to convince people that there is a God. We just need to pray for them.

 

[rom]

I make claims that I don’t believe the supernatural exists for the same reason I don’t believe fairies exist. There is currently zero evidence of it at all and from the evidence we have of how reality operates, magic isn’t actually possible it seems.

There is an old principle, “The absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.” In the case of the supernatural, the absence of evidence that the supernatural exists is not an evidence for the absence of the supernatural. Maybe the evidence is there, but you just have not found it yet? Some people find God just by looking at the wings of a butterfly. Some find Him in the colors of the rainbow. Some discover Him in the kindness of a friend. While others find Him in the misery and disorder of their own lives. One philosopher said that there are as many approaches to God as there are paths leading to the human heart. In any case I think that it is a very personal thing. No one will be able to find God for you; you will need to find Him yourself.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m going to heaven regardless of what you do.

Really?

If that is not the most presumptuous quote of the week I don’t know what is.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I’m quite convinced you don’t know what is.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m quite convinced you don’t know what is.

I’ll rephrase: It’s the most presumptuous quote I have seen this year.

Could you let us know how you know? It could be the most important news we have ever heard.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I find your rephrasing a great improvement. Let’s discuss the matter once we’re both there. That way I will have won the argument with the least amount of effort.

 

[Wesrock]

What do you mean by Natural Law theory?

I’m sure if we go deep enough we’ll have significant disagreements. But “natural law theory” stands as a third way for a real measure of goodness. The other two alternatives are thinking of goodness as (1) a Platonic form or (2) a divine command. These two are the two horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma. With natural law theory, what is good for a thing depends upon the nature of a thing. In that sense, it’s an intrinsic principle to the being in question and not something imposed by something external to it.

Let me start over again. Natural Law Theory claims that human nature is an objective reality which can be observed. (There’s no claim that we can totally comprehend it). If human nature is a real thing that can be learned about by observing beings who have this nature (particular humans), then we can make reasonable truth claims about it, and study what it means to fulfill human nature, to dignify it, what it means to act in accordance with it (morally good or neutral actions), what it means to act contrary to it (morally evil actions), and what the ends of human nature are.

I’m not feeling like my writing is very coherent right now. My point can probably be stated in a more concise and readable way.

 

[Bradskii]

Not only do you know that you will be there, it seems that you know that I will be as well.

Perhaps it’s time ro readjust your certitude. The phrase ‘I don’t know’ can be quite liberating.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m quite convinced you don’t know what is.