The moral argument for the existence of God

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Science Fan wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:52 am Prove that morality is an absolute law of nature. That's absurd.
There's simply no logical alternative.

It is not logical to create a world and then subject it to harm and destruction. Man instinctively knows that morality is natures natural absolute state. God already proved His unchanging absolute character in the Logos .. ''The divine word or reason incarnate in Jesus Christ'' what more proof do you want? God proved that no harm comes to those who walk with him. I believe that, because how can that which is absolutely GOOD ever not be good or be harmed. In the same context a shadow can never exist separate from the light, a shadow has no place to hide. Same applies to evil, evil simply cannot win out over goodness which has absolute authority over all it's creation which is a reflection of that light.

The human being is a created reflection of the light, a gift it gives to itself, human is also given free will to walk with it's creator or turn away and walk it's own way. If it turns away from it's creator, then it's creator will do everything it can in the attempt to invite it back to it's original source...if that fails, the creator will un-create it simply because it's not living up to the absolute standard of it's true self which is love, and goodness.

That which is created can and will be un-created. Therefore, the responsibility is ultimately left up to you to choose how you want to use your free will, will you treat your free gift of life you have been given with disrespect, or will you be filled with gratitude?? ..All unwanted gifts are returned to sender...do not underestimate the power of the creator of the universe.

As for the alternative to absolute morality, if ''moral relativism'' is all there is. Then each individual or group of individuals will dictate ultimate authoritarian power to impose their own moral framework on everyone else.. with often dire consequences. That's not what the creator wants for you.

Always believe what you want to believe, knowing full well that how ever you choose to perceive the world ..that world will appear to you as perceived absolutely as it is perceived.

I personally trust only in the one that created me. I personally know that morality is an absolute law based on the unchanging Creator. I personally walk with God and not with man. Man's morals are based on his whim and is not to be trusted.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Harbal »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:06 am I personally trust only in the one that created me.
To put trust in one who can screw up that badly sounds a bit foolish to me.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:10 pm
Who is more likely to demand and accept the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty? Satan or Yahweh?
I can't answer, because I do not understand what you mean in reference to what's being discussed. I understand that topics often go off on a tangent away from it's original message it intends to convey.


Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:10 pmAnswer my last question and then I will look at why you adore a genocidal son murdering p****.
I don't know what you mean by a a genocidal son murdering p****

What the heck is that??
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:14 pm

but you might have noted that your guy in the sky is not popping up to tell us if he is moral or not.
As God is One...in that there is only God..he can only reveal himself when his ''ego self'' dies...becomes one with his Father...be in relation to his original Father only.
God is what's looking out of every single eye...his moral character is known through the Logos..expressed through every single mouth.
God's Characteristics cannot be seen, they are only known ...by their actions/fruits are they known.
Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:14 pmDo you think genocide is a moral practice?
God being all powerful limits his power as and through the creation of himself in the form of man...it is man that abuses that power given to him as a gift... The giver does not do that..the giver is just giving and giving...and is prior to the receiver....the receiving or rejecting of your gift is not God's will...it's of a free will to choose one over the other....ultimately, you choose the right thing to do, else face the consequences of wrong doing .... I hope you understand.

Notice the universe has to work right...for it to work at all...if it were working wrong, then how dreadful would that be?
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Science Fan »

Logic does not even address moral issues. So, the claim that there is no logical alternative to some mythical moral laws is unsupported by the most basic understanding of logic. For example, it's impossible to assign a truth value to a moral statement.

It's a spineless tactic of the religious that they claim there are moral laws. Why? Because they want to use this metaphor to try to justify their divine-command theory. Moral laws allegedly require a moral law giver, i.e., a god or gods. Logic tells us otherwise, and epistemology tells us the claim cannot be verified. Even if we assume that there is an objective morality, that does not mean that it was dictated by a moral law-giver, any more than it means that conservation of energy required a law-giver. Moreover, the only way we could verify that a supposed law-giver was giving us a moral command is if we could verify, independently of any alleged god, that the alleged moral command was indeed moral. But, since the divine-command theory states that the only reason a command is moral is because god said so, by its own terms, the divine-command theory excludes such an external reference. Therefore, the claim admits that it remains unjustified, by its own terms.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Science Fan wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:52 am Prove that morality is an absolute law of nature. That's absurd.
I just did with that link.

Morality and ethics are just human words that we have put to human actions and thought.

If you do not recognize our selfish gene that shows us the best route to survival, then tell us what that baby was using.

Regards
DL
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Science Fan »

No, you most definitely did not provide any such proof. You merely assume things, and take your assumptions as proven laws.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:06 am
Science Fan wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:52 am Prove that morality is an absolute law of nature. That's absurd.
There's simply no logical alternative.

It is not logical to create a world and then subject it to harm and destruction. Man instinctively knows that morality is natures natural absolute state. God already proved His unchanging absolute character in the Logos .. [i
I agree with your first but not your last.

Good morals and ethics cannot come from a genocidal son murdering God.

Intelligent thinkers will come to the following conclusion.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Science Fan wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:08 pm No, you most definitely did not provide any such proof. You merely assume things, and take your assumptions as proven laws.
I will leave you to argue with the results of the experiments shown in that link.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:23 am
Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:10 pm
Who is more likely to demand and accept the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty? Satan or Yahweh?
I can't answer, because I do not understand what you mean in reference to what's being discussed. I understand that topics often go off on a tangent away from it's original message it intends to convey.


Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:10 pmAnswer my last question and then I will look at why you adore a genocidal son murdering p****.
I don't know what you mean by a a genocidal son murdering p****

What the heck is that??
Why am I not surprised that when the questions get tough, you suddenly can't understand English.

This is a simple question that an 8 year old could answer.

Who is more likely to demand and accept the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty? Satan or Yahweh?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:25 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:16 pm
Science Fan wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:48 pm
Moreover, we know how the human brain is structured and develops that morality precedes religion ---- in fact, no religion could establish any moral claim if this was not the case. If the human brain was not wired for morality, how could anyone accept any moral claim? One couldn't. It would be impossible.
Morality is an absolute law of nature.
I will agree with this, when it applies to sentient life.

Have a look at this link and tell us what religion the babies in this link are following when they have no idea of what a God is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIc-4h9RIvY

Regards
DL
Thanks DL..for your input here.


Babies are not religious...neither is there a baby there in what does appear to look like a baby....baby is just a concept, and concepts don't know anything.
The baby is being a perfect example of how Life is totally living itself without claiming or attaching any labels to it...Life never claims it is living... life is without concept just like the baby, all the while there is an innate knowingness that lies hidden deep within nondual aka concept-less life....when all labels are dropped life is functioning perfectly well on it's own back...it is functioning as a total absolute nondual life...but when concepts arise...nonduality becomes the world of opposites...aka dual in nature, the one becomes two, made up of the knower and the known. The concept is the known, known by the unknowable awareness of that concept.

This video is the perfect example that proves awareness is all knowing. Awareness being the original self before self awareness of other (ego kicks in...

Knowingness is absolute...but knowing you know is relative...which is illusory.

One of the comments from that video says...Genesis 2:13, knowledge (consciousness) of good and evil,.................... We will surely die. No one have defy death, except for one.

What this comment means is that ''Absolute Knowing'' is tacit aka Awareness......whereas knowing you know as in being ''self-aware'' is relative aka(conscious of) knowledge.
It is true that consciousness comes and goes, appears to be born and appears to die...but that is all appearances within AWARENESS which never changes or dies.Awareness is the Absolute Knowing...prior to anything known....known cannot know, ''relative knowns'' are already known in the moment they appear one with the absolute knowing. Therefore, relative knowns are illusory appearances of the Absolute.



My point is you cannot have Relative Knowing without Absolute Knowing. If everything is just relative..then the opposite is also true. Demonstrated by the babies preference to like one idea, while having an aversion to the opposite.

Opposites have to exist in the same moment. Absolutism makes that possible. Then it is free will that chooses to favour one idea over the other. Aversion to what is not preferred does not imply HATRED towards it, it simply means, that it is not conducive with the natural absolute law of nature which is essentially neutral, peaceful, and harmonious...

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Science Fan wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:20 pm Logic does not even address moral issues. So, the claim that there is no logical alternative to some mythical moral laws is unsupported by the most basic understanding of logic. For example, it's impossible to assign a truth value to a moral statement.

It's a spineless tactic of the religious that they claim there are moral laws. Why? Because they want to use this metaphor to try to justify their divine-command theory. Moral laws allegedly require a moral law giver, i.e., a god or gods. Logic tells us otherwise, and epistemology tells us the claim cannot be verified. Even if we assume that there is an objective morality, that does not mean that it was dictated by a moral law-giver, any more than it means that conservation of energy required a law-giver. Moreover, the only way we could verify that a supposed law-giver was giving us a moral command is if we could verify, independently of any alleged god, that the alleged moral command was indeed moral. But, since the divine-command theory states that the only reason a command is moral is because god said so, by its own terms, the divine-command theory excludes such an external reference. Therefore, the claim admits that it remains unjustified, by its own terms.
Thanks for your views.

The truth I'm trying to get to here.. is the truth prior to all concepts known. For the purpose of discussion though, we have no choice but to use concepts which can often defeat what it is we are trying to understand here...but concepts / words are all we've got nonetheless...but to understand what's really being pointed to here, we must try to look beyond the concept known, to that silent tactic place of this immediate pure un-known knowingness that is Nondual life living itself... And try not to get too literally wrapped up in false conceptual beliefs ..remember concepts are not real, they are simply appearances aka an illusory story including the divine command theory...running on the blank screen of awareness known only to that awareness...Only the awareness is real here..not the story.

Now..If everything is relative which is what Science Fan appears to believe, then the human being which is just a concept is the author of life.

Which means nothing is authoring life, simply because concepts are not real. The word God is not what God is...just as the word water is not water.


If we are the authors of our lives then we have no right to judge another persons world-view.

If everything is relative, then the opposite of one particular world-view must also be true...therefore, if a person likes killing innocent people and that person does not see a problem with that.. then we just have to accept that because they have the right to their own personal world-view ... we cannot then say to that person that killing innocent people is wrong, simply because according to their world-view it's okay to do so. If we are to hold our own personal world-views, it does not matter what those are, because we are the authors of them.We cannot hold to our world-view and then deny another theirs. There must be an absolute way or no way at all. Who would we be to deny another their world-view?...there is a problem here straight away... by denying someones world-view in favour of a better or different way cannot be fair, simply because if everything is relative then we are each entitled to our own world-view.



Do you see a problem here? if everything is relative then everything including evil is permitted...so we have no right to condemn evil acts, and yet we do...why?

And don't say it's a survival strategy hard wired into our biological make-up...because that simply is a lie if you understood the enlightened masters what they have to say about death....Jesus already proved to us that nothing dies...science already has confirmed nothing can be created or destroyed....so lets be honest here...the idea that there is an individual self here living a life is just a conceptual story that comes and goes in YOUR ETERNAL INFINITE AWARENESS.

.

Now ain't that a kick in the ass ? :P
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:14 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:23 am
Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:10 pm
Who is more likely to demand and accept the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty? Satan or Yahweh?
I can't answer, because I do not understand what you mean in reference to what's being discussed. I understand that topics often go off on a tangent away from it's original message it intends to convey.


Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:10 pmAnswer my last question and then I will look at why you adore a genocidal son murdering p****.
I don't know what you mean by a a genocidal son murdering p****

What the heck is that??
Why am I not surprised that when the questions get tough, you suddenly can't understand English.

This is a simple question that an 8 year old could answer.

Who is more likely to demand and accept the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty? Satan or Yahweh?

Regards
DL
Nothing is too tough for this one here, as I rest in the pure place of the I Am Awareness.

Having transcended the dual nature of the mind.

No one dies here, it was all a mentally constructed narrative, a story. His Story. I'm over it...I dwell Only in the pure pristine present of now - it's my real home, it's the only place that's alive.


.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:10 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:06 am
Science Fan wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:52 am Prove that morality is an absolute law of nature. That's absurd.
There's simply no logical alternative.

It is not logical to create a world and then subject it to harm and destruction. Man instinctively knows that morality is natures natural absolute state. God already proved His unchanging absolute character in the Logos .. [i
I agree with your first but not your last.

Good morals and ethics cannot come from a genocidal son murdering God.

Intelligent thinkers will come to the following conclusion.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Regards
DL
Wow, old dicky dawkings certainly had a way with words didn't he? ... :wink:

The real self is always prior to the ideas imprinted upon it...that is the real self has to exist for any thought to appear at all...in other words, whatever it cares to think about itself ...cannot defile or possibly effect that self....simply because what real self really is..is this eternal all allowing/knowing ..real blank screen on which everything it thinks about itself comes and goes as a fiction leaving without a trace...while I the screen remain.

. ain't that a kick in the arse? :wink:
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:03 am
Greatest I am wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:25 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:16 pm

Morality is an absolute law of nature.
I will agree with this, when it applies to sentient life.

Have a look at this link and tell us what religion the babies in this link are following when they have no idea of what a God is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIc-4h9RIvY

Regards
DL
Thanks DL..for your input here.


Babies are not religious...neither is there a baby there in what does appear to look like a baby....baby is just a concept, and concepts don't know anything.
The baby is being a perfect example of how Life is totally living itself without claiming or attaching any labels to it...Life never claims it is living... life is without concept just like the baby, all the while there is an innate knowingness that lies hidden deep within nondual aka concept-less life....when all labels are dropped life is functioning perfectly well on it's own back...it is functioning as a total absolute nondual life...but when concepts arise...nonduality becomes the world of opposites...aka dual in nature, the one becomes two, made up of the knower and the known. The concept is the known, known by the unknowable awareness of that concept.

This video is the perfect example that proves awareness is all knowing. Awareness being the original self before self awareness of other (ego kicks in...

Knowingness is absolute...but knowing you know is relative...which is illusory.

One of the comments from that video says...Genesis 2:13, knowledge (consciousness) of good and evil,.................... We will surely die. No one have defy death, except for one.

What this comment means is that ''Absolute Knowing'' is tacit aka Awareness......whereas knowing you know as in being ''self-aware'' is relative aka(conscious of) knowledge.
It is true that consciousness comes and goes, appears to be born and appears to die...but that is all appearances within AWARENESS which never changes or dies.Awareness is the Absolute Knowing...prior to anything known....known cannot know, ''relative knowns'' are already known in the moment they appear one with the absolute knowing. Therefore, relative knowns are illusory appearances of the Absolute.



My point is you cannot have Relative Knowing without Absolute Knowing. If everything is just relative..then the opposite is also true. Demonstrated by the babies preference to like one idea, while having an aversion to the opposite.

Opposites have to exist in the same moment. Absolutism makes that possible. Then it is free will that chooses to favour one idea over the other. Aversion to what is not preferred does not imply HATRED towards it, it simply means, that it is not conducive with the natural absolute law of nature which is essentially neutral, peaceful, and harmonious...

.
Now I see why you refused to answer my other question above, you could not B S your way out of it the way you tried with your response here. Your B B will not baffle the good minds here.

"life is without concept just like the baby,"

You began with that foolishness and went to full idiocy by the time you finished.

If that baby and other babies did not have some kind of concept, their reactions would be chaotic. They are not as all babies react the same way. You have been refuted but are so mentally lost you will not recognize that fact.

It seems that you have, unfortunately, lost the ability to learn new things.

Perhaps that fear based loss is why you ran from my moral question above.

Regards
DL
Post Reply