That’s a meaningless sentence. What do you mean objective standard of moral truth? Even if there was a god, his/her/its perspective would either be subjective, or it would be based on something other than that god.
I’ve asked about that here. I understand “value” as a relational concept between an entity with a mind and something. This of course is subjective even if that entity is God. The explanation that I have received thus far involves switching to a different usage of value (as in property or attribute). While this works fine for physical properties, but I’ve never received an explanation beyond that for this usage of the word “value.” So for me when someone refers to “objective values” I understand it as being the values attributed to a specific entity.
I disagree with the bolded part, but i refuse to explain my position on that matter.
To me it sounds like a position on the Euthyphro dilemma applied to to a general god concept (lower case ‘g’, so Possibly applicable to both Christian God concepts and non-Christian god concepts). Ofcourse I could be interpreting it incorrectly.
That’s it. When the dilemma was first proposed, Plato was responding to the claim that right and wrong was the will of the Greek gods. I have never heard anyone come up with an adequate response.
Well, clearly I think you are wrong. However, if I do meet God, and He really is a loving and rational being, then I figure I will be fine. On the other hand, if God is an vindictive being that will punish people for thought crimes, my comment is the least of my worries.
For the sake of advancing discussion someone can treat God’s existence as a given, even if that person is not convinced of the God-concept being discussed.
Does “blaspheme his father” mean to speak negatively of one’s father? There are valid reasons someone may Speak critically of one’s own father depending on their relationship. I wouldn’t see a child as automatically being at fault for speaking critically.
If “Deny God” is inclusive of “not convinced of God” then there do exists people that in all sincerity have not yet been convinced. If there were a person that is currently convinced that there is a God and says that he had previous in life not been convinced would you question his sincerity? If you’ve met a person that hasn’t yet made the transition from not convinced to convinced would you question their sincerity? Do you think it not possible for someone to stay in one of those states?
So, what you’ve demonstrated to me, is that not only is the God that you believe in not objectively good, he’s simply not good at all.Many atheists think “God can’t other but love, and so (as you think too) I’ll be fine”.
WRONG. As Wrong as can be. For we know of the Bible/Gospel/Evangelium, that God very well can other.
SImly try to think your son/daughter wouldn’t care in the least about you - yes, would even deny you. Then one day this person is broke - just can’t go on and applies at you
Platon’s „Euthyphron-Dilemma“ doesn’t apply here, for to Platon God’s existence was given. The question rather was what’s good and bad. He never denied God.
As limitlessly bad sure you too would name this person who denies and blasphemes his father - until the terrible child in helplessness needs him.
Well, no person on earth is in the state to deny God. Even Gnostics who claim „I don’t know“ are not at all „gnostic“ which seeks for an excuse for disbelief, but atheist, as their ignorance denies what they can’t see. A dog is excused for just believing what he can see. Not so a human. It does take belief to get to God. Much in life we got to accept and do for it’s simply precondition, and consequences if we deny, are absolute and devastating.
Such is the denial of belief.
However. Every single one will see God one day - disregarding if he believed or not. In case of a life in denial of God, I wouldn’t want to be him, for to all the logic of Pauls’s sentence in Hebrews 10:31 is even to atheists graspable a,d not at all spreading of fear, but warning of ever so natural consequences. Such as normal sentences, like „you’ll perish if you refuse to work“ - or „you might suffer, if you keep playing with explosives“.
But ok - go on your way when you know better.
Have a nice time
Bruno
You are a Theist.
How do you figure?
If you don’t like philosophy, it does make sense to stop taking part in philosophical discussions.
Welcome to philosophy! Exchanging ideas with others can be enjoyable. The exercise of doing so can also have effects in how someone approaches other facets of life. The effects of the arguments are not limited to the conversations in which they occur.
Bit of a warning, anything that any of us post here within the philosophy subforum could be subject to being picked apart. That comes with interacting in this forum. Any one that makes a claim here that is unprepared to support or argue for the claim may find that others simply dismiss the claim as unsupported. It is also possible for someone to state a true conclusion but have flawed information or reasoning to support it. Arguments in that category may also be dismissed accordingly.
I’m considering several god-concepts, not only the Christian God-concept.
That’s not true, not all atheist make that claim. You don’t have to look any further then this forum to find evidence of that. Note that all that it takes to show your above statement is untrue is to find a single atheist that doesn’t make that claim. Whether an atheist, monotheist, polytheist, deist, or other position someone could have arrived at their position with much thought or without much thought. Knowing that someone falls into one of these categories doesn’t tell you why the person is in the category or how much the person thought about it.
That’s a topic of debate. Some say God has (ex: misotheist), some say God hasn’t, some will question the premise of the question.
If your grow tired of the discussion as suggested by TheCuriousCat you aren’t under obligation to participate in philosophical discussions and arguments. There are other areas of CAF that have other forms of discussions.
Granting that some part of me survives death I find the concept of emotional states and responses without a body to be an interesting one. But that’s a topic for another thread and another day.
As of yet the premise of this question is not evaluated as “true” by me.
Based on your other statements I think this is a reasonable course of action. I wish you well.
It can’t be just because we are smart. This leaves out those of us who are handicapped with Down Syndrome, Alzheimer’s or many other such problems.
You guys have such a bizarre way of seeing the world. Human love is worthless unless there is a god, but God’s love is worthwhile because…?
Because God gave you the chance to live and to decide for or against Him
Oh, you mean like my parents. Except, my parents were actually around. I have no reason to doubt my parents existence. If someone else’s love makes me valuable, then it should be my parents, they actually did stuff.