Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

...evolution is just a branch of science to me,...

Well, you could at least examine your own worldview, and ask the question, "Would it be any different for me IF God existed?" That would be a good exercise. You might find that you have more invested in a blind faith in Evolutionism than you thought you did.

You seem to assume that the only alternative to not believing in God is to believe in your God.

And no, it wouldn't be any different for me if God existed.

I don't have "blind faith" in evolution. I believe the theory to be true because it makes sense to me, not because I want to believe it, or want to put "faith" into something. and it has absolutely no bearing on how I live my life, and why on earth would it? Just so you know, I don't have absolute faith in anything; that would be foolish.

Also, I dismiss the Bible as a load of old rubbish because it is a load of old rubbish. My attitude towards the theory of evolution makes no difference to that, and if evolution were suddenly removed as a possibility, I wouldn't start believing in God in response, particularly your ridiculous biblical God.

You can have no idea of how boring this God thing is getting for me. Wherever you are, everything has to be about bloody God. Morality can't be subjective because God; evolution isn't true because God, blah, blah, blah because sodding God. Give it a rest, for God's sake.

[FlashDangerpants]

You can have no idea of how boring this God thing is getting for me. Wherever you are, everything has to be about bloody God. Morality can't be subjective because God; evolution isn't true because God, blah, blah, blah because sodding God. Give it a rest, for God's sake.

Or perhaps take it to the religion sub where it is relevant and not selfishly drowning out all worthwhile discussion of that actual topic.

[Immanuel Can]

...evolution is just a branch of science to me,...

Well, you could at least examine your own worldview, and ask the question, "Would it be any different for me IF God existed?" That would be a good exercise. You might find that you have more invested in a blind faith in Evolutionism than you thought you did.

You seem to assume that the only alternative to not believing in God is to believe in your God.

Do you think there's ever any genuine "alternative" to believing the truth? Isn't it because you believe humans actually did evolve that you believe in Human Evolutionism? And if you believe that's the truth, then what would be the meaning of an "alternative"?

But if all you mean is, "Why don't you let people just believe whatever they want," the answer is simple: I do. They have a right to be wrong. But their believing it won't make it true.

And no, it wouldn't be any different for me if God existed.

How much are you willing to wager on that?

I don't have "blind faith" in evolution.

I didn't realize you had the evidence the other Human Evolutionists insist they don't have. I had no idea you were an expert above Ernst Mayr.

I'm going to show you more deference, then. I'd be happy to see what you've got.

You can have no idea of how boring this God thing is getting for me.

Then you should stop bringing it up, maybe. You could argue with somebody about something else, for a change.

[attofishpi]

And no, it wouldn't be any different for me if God existed.

How much are you willing to wager on that?

Listen you yourself, with your threatening attitude.

You honestly believe that God would punish Harbal, someone that has likely lived as vituously or moreso than you, just because he doesn't believe in the life of Christ.

You once claimed I don't know God, I assure you IC I do know God and FAR more than you where it comes to this matter of 'requirement' in belief in Christ.

[Immanuel Can]

And no, it wouldn't be any different for me if God existed.

How much are you willing to wager on that?

Listen you yourself, with your threatening attitude.

I?

I threaten nothing. I would have no power to do so, either...we're only connected by email.

So what's the "threat"? The only possible "threat" is that God will do what God has said He will do; in which case, it is God who is warning. And when God warns, you can be sure we should all take note.

[attofishpi]

How much are you willing to wager on that?

Listen you yourself, with your threatening attitude.

I?

I threaten nothing. I would have no power to do so, either...we're only connected by email.

So what's the "threat"? The only possible "threat" is that God will do what God has said He will do; in which case, it is God who is warning. And when God warns, you can be sure we should all take note.

So in the life of a man that has lived a more virtuous life according to God than you but doesn't believe in God & Christ, do you think God will have you at an advantage when it comes to salvation?

[Immanuel Can]

So in the life of a man that has lived a more virtuous life according to God than you but doesn't believe in God & Christ, do you think God will have you at an advantage when it comes to salvation?

What does God say is the case?

My opinion counts for nothing, if it's just my opinion. That should be obvious, not "threatening" at all. But if God says it, you can bank on it.

[attofishpi]

So in the life of a man that has lived a more virtuous life according to God than you but doesn't believe in God & Christ, do you think God will have you at an advantage when it comes to salvation?

What does God say is the case?

My opinion counts for nothing, if it's just my opinion. That should be obvious, not "threatening" at all. But if God says it, you can bank on it.

Oh, God said so in the bible. Cite the verse(s) I think you are taking such things out of context.

[Immanuel Can]

Cite the verse(s) I think you are taking such things out of context.

Check the context and find out, then.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him." (John 3:16-17)

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." (Rom. 3:21-23)

"So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31)

"If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed." (I Cor. 16:22)

I can give you many, many more. These will do, for now.

[attofishpi]

Cite the verse(s) I think you are taking such things out of context.

Check the context and find out, then.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him." (John 3:16-17)

Eternal life? Harbal for one doesn't care about such a thing, so no problem on that one.

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Again, many people don't care about eternal life. Also, I believed in Christ since I was old enough to comprehend him, yet I have endured the wrath of God many times for crossing a certain line set by God\sage. So belief in Christ certainly wasn't a simple binary switch to turn off the wrath of God, unlike what most short of sight "Christians" believe.

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." (Rom. 3:21-23)

All have sinned, God and Christ included, so what?

"So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31)

Is this "Man" Christ that has been appointed to do the judging? I only ask because in the verse (John 3:16-17) you have further up states that Christ was not sent to the world to judge. What a major contradiction.

(John 3:16-17)"If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed." (I Cor. 16:22)

Accursed? Woopy doo!

I can give you many, many more. These will do, for now.

At least we agree on something.

[Immanuel Can]

Cite the verse(s) I think you are taking such things out of context.

Check the context and find out, then.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him." (John 3:16-17)

Eternal life? Harbal for one doesn't care about such a thing, so no problem on that one.

Care or not, we all end up somewhere for eternity. We're deciding that now: so big problem on that one.

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." (Rom. 3:21-23)

All have sinned, God and Christ included, so what?

No, not "God and Christ included." In fact, the opposite is said in Scripture. The "all" refers (in context) to all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, not to "all entities," as you might suppose...go and check it out, if you doubt that.

"So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31)

Is this "Man" Christ that has been appointed to do the judging? I only ask because in the verse (John 3:16-17) you have further up states that Christ was not sent to the world to judge. What a major contradiction.

That's because there's a time for judging, and a time not for judging. Christ made it quite clear that his first coming into the world was for salvation. But when he comes again, it will be for judgment.

And that's only right. For if God does not judge, then God cannot be righteous. But if God did judge, and provided no way of escaping judgment, then He'd not be merciful. But God is both righteous and merciful.

(John 3:16-17)"If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed." (I Cor. 16:22)

Accursed?

The word is literally "anathema" in the Greek. It means, "devoted to destruction."

But you're not open to this, I can see by your conclusions. I shall spare you making yourself more "anathema," therefore, and slip you right back on my ignore list.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No: that's what Atheism requires its logical adherents to believe.

On whose authority is that?

I'm not arguing based on authority. I'm pointing out what logic requires of them. (See? It's in blue, to remind you. )
I have already pointed out that many of them behave illogically, since they don't follow their Atheism to its logical conclusions, just as you are not doing. But that's their mistake. They've misunderstood, or refused to believe, what their own ideology requires them to believe.

You simply jump to place too much credibility on 'logic' without taking into consideration that the strength of any logic is its limitation, making facts stripped naked and bald.

• That Logic should have been thus successful is an advantage which it owes entirely to its Limitations, whereby it is justified in abstracting indeed, it is under obligation to do so from all Objects of Knowledge and their differences, leaving the Understanding nothing to deal with save itself and its Form. Kant CPR Bix

Kant spent >40 years lecturing on logic. He differentiated between General Logic and Transcendental Logic. It is within the latter, that theists are led into believing an illusion as God.

Rational non-theists whilst acknowledge the use of logic which is limited, rely more on critical thinking and rationality with wisdom as reinforcements.

As such the Kalam Cosmological Argument which relies heavily on logic and its form without solid critical thinking, is at best 'half-cooked' and can never be realistic.

No: the problem is that mathematics can't. There can be no such thing, and maths demonstrates it decisively. You may not like that, and may wish it weren't true...but you can test it yourself, and you'll find I'm right, if you can do a basic mathematical operation.

Perhaps if we are doing certain mathematics,

No...THE mathematics. The only real one there is.

I presented;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The human-based FSK Sense
2. The philosophical realist and theistic mind-independent sense.

It is 1 above which is the most realistic and objective, but not mind-independent, while, the realists and theistic mind-independence sense of reality is grounded on an illusion.

Why Philosophical & theistic Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is conditioned upon on theistic realism of mind-independence and thus grounded on an illusion, i.e. it is half-cooked and unrealistic.

You need to read up on the current research around the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. Then you'll actually have a chance of being right.

Any references for the current [within the last 2 years] research?

Why "within the last two years"? Do you think truth changes when time passes?

Here's a reference, from the foremost expert on the Kalam today -- shortened, simplified for a general audience, but still on point: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... l-argument.

You are the one who said 'current' then by convention 'current' must be at the present or at most within the last 12 months.
At present, I have a project on proving why it is impossible for God to be real.
I have read Craig's argument elsewhere and now the above article.
The last time your refer me to "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" William Craig , Moreland [..I read the relevant chapters].

I will post something on the Kalam Cosmological Argument vs Kant in the Religious Section later.

[attofishpi]

Check the context and find out, then.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him." (John 3:16-17)

Eternal life? Harbal for one doesn't care about such a thing, so no problem on that one.

Care or not, we all end up somewhere for eternity. We're deciding that now: so big problem on that one.

Where for eternity do you think Harbal is going if he has lived a more virtuous life according to God than you?

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." (Rom. 3:21-23)

All have sinned, God and Christ included, so what?

No, not "God and Christ included." In fact, the opposite is said in Scripture. The "all" refers (in context) to all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, not to "all entities," as you might suppose...go and check it out, if you doubt that.

How is drowning most of humanity not a sin, and yet someone that has lived a more virtuous life than you a sinner?

"So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30-31)

Is this "Man" Christ that has been appointed to do the judging? I only ask because in the verse (John 3:16-17) you have further up states that Christ was not sent to the world to judge. What a major contradiction.

That's because there's a time for judging, and a time not for judging.

It's still a contradiction, or at least a change of 'heart' by God since "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world", maybe God should have appended, that, well not yet everyone he's going to pop back and judge the everyone in the world within ONE day (quite a feat for anyone actually, impressive).

(John 3:16-17)"If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed." (I Cor. 16:22)

Accursed?

The word is literally "anathema" in the Greek. It means, "devoted to destruction."

But you're not open to this, I can see by your conclusions. I shall spare you making yourself more "anathema," therefore, and slip you right back on my ignore list.

How odd. The sage many years ago told me (from the aether) that crying is how we show our love (I have attested that to be true)

I'd wager with you that I have shed far more tears for what Christ did than you, Immanuel, so shove your "anathema" where it belongs.

RE: Your slipping me back onto your ignore list, that displays:
1. A lack of faith in your own convictions regarding Bible scripture confronted with the light of my very reasonable questioning.
2. That that you are the type that closes of information because you find it troubling (in your case, to that 'faith')
3. You are so afraid of God that you dare not question the contents of the Bible to conclude any of it as irrational, contradictory.

You are afraid of God more than anyone on the forum and mostly for the wrong reasons. You are so afraid, that you will not question rationally, reasonably, what is written in that scripture. You take it all as if God scribbled every word within it, and are so fervent caused by your fear that you are almost as short of sight as an atheist regarding God.

[Walker]

Because of IC's demonstrable clarity in presenting concepts concerning how to be clear, and because he is clear, I listen.

I am that you find that you like his style and feel he is clear and makes sense. But you, too, are pretty expert at avoiding what people bring to your attention — views and perspectives that are incommensurate with your orientation — just as IC is.

So you might want to consider that even if you do not like my style, or anyone’s style, you are fully capable of extracting from it what is meant — and commenting fulsomely and honestly on that content.

You’ve said nothing (and you generally say nothing because you haven’t much content) and, like IC, wasted a post.

Can you try instead to deal with some ideas?

Interesting.

If this standard of ignoring style was applied to Trump, there would be no reason to criticize him.

[Iwannaplato]

Interesting.

If this standard of ignoring style was applied to Trump, there would be no reason to criticize him.

How about for fast tracking the Covid vaccines and bragging about it and standing behind them.