- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stephen Hawking Dead - Hawking Radiation Proves Existence of God
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:14 pm to lsufanz
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:14 pm to lsufanz
quote:Yes, I believe there's a generally accepted right and wrong.
In your view, is there no "generally accepted" right/wrong? We both know the answer to that. This carries much more weight than ones favorite flavor of ice cream.
If moral relativism is a true moral paradigm, every moral issue is a matter of preference. Preference isn't something that can be right or wrong because there is no objective standard to judge it by. There is no objectively "right" flavor of ice cream and if moral relativism is true, there is no objectively "right" view of morality; everyone is free to think how they want.
quote:Because consensus is just multiple people with shared preferences. If morality is nothing more than a preference, it doesn't matter if 51% of a particular society agrees with that preference, it doesn't make that preference objectively right because there is no "right" standard to judge it by. Consensus changes because individual opinions and preferences change. Like I said before, without an objective source of morality, it just boils down to who holds the biggest stick to make everyone else follow their particular moral preference.
why can't we? I can say it and believe it. If enough people agree then we decide to live our lives with these as rules/regulations/laws, whatever term.
Because of that, there is no objective basis for judging other cultures, religions, nations, etc. that hold to different moral preferences. If we don't like their preferences, we can try to beat them with our big stick and try to get them to conform to our own preferences, but that's all it is. Moral relativists who think we shouldn't go all over the world trying to impose democracy or western values are being inconsistent with their professed moral worldview. Likewise for individuals who say we shouldn't "judge" others for various reasons.
quote:You're right, which is why Christians go around telling people to repent and obey God, so that they can avoid the judgement to come where God lays down the hammer for those who spent their lives not living by His moral standard.
and yet we obviously don't.
quote:I think we can better conform our legal systems to something more absolute and perfect.
Should we dispose of the legal system in deference to something more absolute and perfect that will eventually sort it all out?
quote:Any system run and operated by humans is going to be flawed and imperfect but we should strive to align ourselves with a more objective standard or else we should except to change every time the wind changes course and have morality, itself, change with whoever comes up with a bigger stick.
For all of human history we've attempted to have others conform to our beliefs and have prescribed consequences for behavior that doesn't conform to what is typically acceptable. Even the tyrants have typically received their comeuppance. The system is obviously flawed, however, and people get away with things that others believe deserves punishment, the punishment doesn't fit crime, disagree on guilt/innocence, etc. It is reasonable for flawed humans to also look for divine intervention or a supernatural karmic cleansing that makes it all Right in the end. This is repeated throughout history and across the globe.
0
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:14 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
...in relation to humanity.
This doesn't matter, and until you accept that, everything else in the discussion is relatively meaningless. A god who exerts authority over the faithful is doing so subjectively. The amount of authority claimed or believed is irrelevant to that. What you claim to be an objective morality is in reality nothing more than an opinion, one that you simply regard as divine.
That isn't objective morality. It's opinion, backed by superstition.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:19 pm to Argonaut
I haven't read through all 46 pages has God been proven real?
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:19 pm to DavidTheGnome
Has he been proven not real?
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:20 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
has God been proven real?
Take a look around. Whether you see Him or not is up to you.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Yes, "if". If God doesn't exist, anything goes. If God exists, it's His way or the highway. There are consequences for worldviews.
And yes, if God existed as the Bible says He does and with the characteristics that He does, then that absolutely creates an objective standard for morality that all humans are subjected to because it would be a standard that originates outside of the human mind and is applied to every person. It would be the opposite of moral relativism.
Wrong. If God exists, we're left to figure out who is correct in their interpretation of his guidelines. What says yours is the correct translation?
Also, no, that still doesn't give an objective morality. Objective morality does not exist.
quote:
I believe you are wrong and He has all the power in the world to stop you from doing anything.
Yet, it hasn't happened once in known history...
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:22 pm to Lg
quote:
Him
God is male?
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:25 pm to Tigahs78732
quote:
Has he been proven not real?
Has Thor or Ra or the Mothman?
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:29 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Has Thor or Ra or the Mothman?
No and you are more than welcome to worship them.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:31 pm to Tigahs78732
quote:
No and you are more than welcome to worship them.
I'll stay unaffiliated but thanks.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:45 pm to Argonaut
quote:God's moral standard is based on His very existence, so it's not simply a matter of opinion that could change from time to time; God isn't capricious.
This doesn't matter, and until you accept that, everything else in the discussion is relatively meaningless. A god who exerts authority over the faithful is doing so subjectively. The amount of authority claimed or believed is irrelevant to that. What you claim to be an objective morality is in reality nothing more than an opinion, one that you simply regard as divine.
That isn't objective morality. It's opinion, backed by superstition.
"In relation to humanity" is important to note, because to humans, the only way to have an objective moral standard is to have one imposed on us from outside ourselves. If one isn't imposed on us, then it is up to us to create our own moral standards. If we create our own, then it's nothing more than our own preferences competing against one another.
How we understand objective and subjective is in relation to each other. Subjective is how each individual experiences something. Objective is what is, in spite of how we may experience it; it's independent from our subjective experiences. Whether God's "opinion" is subjective to Himself is immaterial in how it relates to our own experiences. His authority makes His standard objective as it relates to us.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:49 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If we create our own, then it's nothing more than our own preferences competing against one another.
Which is what morals are....
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
God's moral standard is based on His very existence, so it's not simply a matter of opinion that could change from time to time
Where did that originate?
quote:
God isn't capricious.
Only if you ignore the writings of the Bible, which is something I'm more than willing to do. I think it'd make for a more useful conversation.
quote:
the only way to have an objective moral standard is to have one imposed on us from outside ourselves.
That still wouldn't give objective morality. That only gives a different opinion.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:54 pm to Argonaut
quote:Our interpretation is immaterial to God's intention just like our interpretation of our federal laws is immaterial to what the legislators and judges have determined to be true in regards to the law.
Wrong. If God exists, we're left to figure out who is correct in their interpretation of his guidelines. What says yours is the correct translation?
quote:I disagree. I believe that God exists and His morality as it relates to us is objective, as it applies to all people since we are all made in His image and are required to obey.
Also, no, that still doesn't give an objective morality. Objective morality does not exist.
quote:Wrong. The Biblical history describes many examples of it.
Yet, it hasn't happened once in known history...
Posted on 3/22/18 at 3:58 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:Morality is simply a standard of right and wrong action. I'm arguing that there is an objective morality that all people are held accountable to rather than only subjective morality that is nothing more than human preference rather than an obligatory standard that is universally true. I'd wager that most people are probably moral relativists when pinned down but live their lives inconsistent to that philosophy.
Which is what morals are....
Posted on 3/22/18 at 4:01 pm to Argonaut
quote:Where did what originate? His character? The notion that His moral standard is based on His character?
Where did that originate?
quote:Not at all. It's taking the Bible seriously that leads me to understand that God is not capricious.
Only if you ignore the writings of the Bible, which is something I'm more than willing to do. I think it'd make for a more useful conversation.
quote:Objectivity is a relational term. God's standard is independent of humanity and applicable to all humans, making it an objective source for us.
That still wouldn't give objective morality. That only gives a different opinion.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 4:28 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Our interpretation is immaterial to God's intention just like our interpretation of our federal laws is immaterial to what the legislators and judges have determined to be true in regards to the law.
Wrong. Our interpretation is all that matters just like our interpretation is all that matters in law. Surely you understand why that is not a good comparison...
quote:
I disagree. I believe that God exists and His morality as it relates to us is objective, as it applies to all people since we are all made in His image and are required to obey.
You're allowed to do that. There is no objective morality. The existence of a god would not change that.
quote:
Wrong. The Biblical history describes many examples of it.
I said known history.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 4:31 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Where did what originate? His character? The notion that His moral standard is based on His character?
"God's moral standard is based on His very existence..."
quote:
Not at all. It's taking the Bible seriously that leads me to understand that God is not capricious.
The God of the Bible is nothing if not capricious. You can assign blame to interpretations, but that remains true.
quote:
Objectivity is a relational term. God's standard is independent of humanity and applicable to all humans, making it an objective source for us.
No. God's standard is an opinion that you believe carries more weight, and nothing more.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 5:11 pm to Argonaut
quote:Our interpretation is not all that matters, though it is important.
Wrong. Our interpretation is all that matters just like our interpretation is all that matters in law. Surely you understand why that is not a good comparison...
In this analogy, God is the law-giver and law-enforcer while we are the law-breakers. This is comparable to our three branches of government making, interpreting, and enforcing the law. We the people are the law-breakers, either through willful disobedience or through ignorance. We may very well misinterpret the law but the only interpretation that matters is that of the government (or God, in the case of objective morality). Misinterpreting the law or not knowing it at all is no excuse if we break the law, either in a court of law or in the heavenly tribunal. If God is the law-giver and law-enforcer, our interpretation is definitely not all that matters since our fate is in His hands, not our own.
quote:In terms of application to humanity, God's law is most certainly an objective moral source because it comes from outside of us. This is going back to the definitions of objective vs. subjective. God's moral standard is objective to us, which is what matters when talking about a moral standard that humans follow.
You're allowed to do that. There is no objective morality. The existence of a god would not change that.
quote:Biblical history is known history. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "known" as it seems you have a different standard.
I said known history.
Posted on 3/22/18 at 5:29 pm to Argonaut
quote:God exists and God's character is perfectly holy. God's law is based on His character. Therefore God's moral standard is based on His very existence as (a perfectly holy) God.
"God's moral standard is based on His very existence..."
quote:The Bible teaches that God is not capricious but acts according to His holy will and plan for eternity. He doesn't act on a whim but in accordance to what He has planned to do from eternity past.
The God of the Bible is nothing if not capricious. You can assign blame to interpretations, but that remains true
quote:If God is God, it's not just an opinion but the only reality that can exist (based on His character) and it does carry more weight based on His ability and the necessity for Him to judge disobedience.
No. God's standard is an opinion that you believe carries more weight, and nothing more.
Page 46 of 48
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News