re: Were Trump & Obama Chosen by God?

quote:

---

God is the very definition of what it means to be good.

---

Well yeah because that's what he says. But I'm sorry I don't find much good in someone who massacres entire cities because they don't bow to him. If God was truly loving he'd care more that someone was a good person and not that they bowed to him

quote:

---

He holds us to a higher standard than you apparently do?

---

Doesn't sound like he does. He wants us to fall in line rather then just be a good person. Which is why I said he sounds more like a dictator. One who wants total obedience and anyone steps out of line will be punished. And anyone who questions such authority will be shot down because the leader is above all even when his logic is faulty at best

quote:

---

He wants us to fall in line rather then just be a good person.

---

What if "fall in line" [i]is what makes us "good" according to God's standard?

I think the issue here is that you don't like what God says is "good" and you want to define it your own way, which is why you think God is a dictator.

quote:

---

Which is why I said he sounds more like a dictator. One who wants total obedience and anyone steps out of line will be punished. And anyone who questions such authority will be shot down because the leader is above all

---

In this case, God really is above all.

The problem with dictators is that they don't acknowledge the mediatorial kingship of Christ and His supremacy as Lord, so they act as if they are gods, able to act according to their own will instead of God's will. A nation that rules according to God's moral law and the principles it provides will not look like a dictatorship at all.

God is God and He has every right to command His creation to do as He wants. Dictators lack the actual authority to play God over people, though that's what they want.

quote:

---

even when his logic is faulty at best

---

Please explain this.

quote:

---

Were Trump & Obama Chosen by God?

---

I'm late to the party on this thread, but here's the definitive answer:

1) Yes, Trump was chosen by God.


2) Obama was chosen, twice, by a bunch of useful idiots.

quote:

---

Doesn't sound like he does. He wants us to fall in line rather then just be a good person.

---

A good person doesn't expect a stranger to help pay for their healthcare.

quote:

---

Subtle, but non-significant difference. You get your objective moral standard through a book which you believe is true because it says it is true.

---

It's quite significant. In my worldview, morality has its origins with God, Himself, not the Bible. The Bible is simply the means by which God communicates this information to humans.

And no, I don't believe the Bible to be true just because it says its true. It has markers that allow me to examine it and come to such a conclusion. The most compelling reason for me to believe the Bible is true (aside from the attestation of the Spirit in me) is the philosophical notion that only the Bible provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility within the universe at the presuppositional level. That which we take for granted as foundations of epistemology only have real meaning within the biblical framework.

quote:

---

Feel free to expand on that.

---

Certainly.

The Bible provides a philosophical basis for the intelligibility of the things I mentioned.

Human value and dignity is based on the notion that we are made in the image of God and we ultimately belong to Him. Our value is derived from God. If you reject God, there is no basis for intrinsic human dignity and worth or value. The only value that exists is the value that each person places on humanity, and as we all know, many people don't place much value there.

Uniformity in nature is based on the idea that God created the world orderly and with the ability for humans to interact consistently with it, with each other, and with God. God upholds the universe and allows for uniformity as the norm so that we can expect tomorrow to be like today. All of scientific pursuit is predicated on this assumption which is something we have no basis for in an atheistic, materialistic worldview.

Reason, likewise, reflects the mind of God, and we can reason because God reasons (and we're made in His image). Laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and invariant which can be accounted for within the biblical framework but can't be accounted for outside of it. In an atheistic framework, laws of logic should be conventional, meaning we can dictate that which is logical and even change it, yet we all understand what the law of non-contradiction is when we experience it.

Morality also falls under this. God's character sets the standard for a moral absolute. Without God, there is no basis for moral absolutes, and without moral absolutes, morality is nothing more than what each individual decides for himself or herself or what a group of individuals (society) determine for themselves. There cannot be a right or wrong moral code, just preferences based on what individuals or groups want. That means there is no basis for condemning any competing moral code as being objectively wrong. Cannibalism, ritual sacrifice, rape, genocide, etc. are just as valid for one society as peace and wellness is for another.

quote:

---

And that. "No objective basis for rationality itself without God", doesn't make sense to me at all. Rationality is adherence to some specific normative model of either judgement/decision-making or some behavior. Deviations from the normative model could be deemed irrational. Science can determine the normative model based on whatever scenario we're talking about and deviations can easily be measured by science, as well.

---

Not to be a stickler, but science can't determine anything, as science is just a tool used by humans to study the natural world. Humans make such determinations if you're addressing the topic from a purely materialistic stand point. But that aside, humans can make any arbitrary determination they want about anything, but that doesn't mean those determinations are rational. Rationality is based on reason, and reason is based on laws of logic.

What I was getting at is that we can't simply define different laws of logic for ourselves, as those laws exist whether we like them or not and our experience becomes unintelligible without them. To be rational, we must depend upon laws of logic that have no basis for existence within a naturalistic, materialistic worldview.

quote:

---

Right, which is all we actually have to go on (and is the actual origin of rational thinking, by the way).

---

This is where I disagree and what I'm trying to point out. If it comes from your own brain, it has to, by definition, be subjective. Since all brains are different, all individual standards are subjective and none "better" or "worse" than any other. When you remove God as the origin of rationality and the basis for ultimate morality, you have no basis for judging one behavior as better than another. If you were logically consistent, you could never condemn anything as being immoral. You can say you don't like something but you can't say it's immoral. The best you could do is say that it's immoral to you, but that doesn't mean anything, since that thing could be moral to the other person who is doing that thing you don't like. Morality would be nothing more than arbitrary preference.

quote:

---

I'd argue that facts about morality and values can be derived from science. As long as we can accept that morality (i.e., good and bad) are inextricably tied to human health and well-being. Science can measure health and well-being.

---

But that's an arbitrary standard (human health and well-being). Why not just say morality is that which destroys human health and well-being? Again, it comes down to individual preference, which may be the basis for societal preference, but that's just one standard among many. How do we judge is objectively right? We can't. We just know what we like and prefer, but that doesn't give us a reasonable basis for condemning or praising any other standard. By default, all standards are equal when there is no single objective standard to judge them by.

quote:

---

Right, I think that science is our best shot of maximizing human well-being. Also, your opinion is no different than mine - you just happen to be under the false impression that your opinion is fact.

---

Again, human well-being is an arbitrary standard for morality and can't be better than a standard that seeks the destructive of humanity when there is no objective standard to go by.

And my worldview provides a basis for thinking that my "opinion" is fact. Yours can't allow you to come to any conclusion as fact if you were to follow it to its logical conclusion. While you think human well-being is a fantastic standard of moral decision making, it's just one arbitrary standard among many, none being any better or worse than any other, at least in a worldview that rejects God.

quote:

---

No, maybe not, but I'd argue that's not what we're after and, given the individual differences seen between people (and cultures). Science will probably show that there are several ways in which well-being can be maximized (and several ways in which it can be minimized).

---

Again, you've settled on human well-being, but you haven't shown why that is the only right standard to abide by. It's a possible standard, but it can't, logically, be better than any other. Just because you like it doesn't make it right. Just because others agree on it doesn't make it right. Others can agree on another standard.

quote:

---

By the way, you'd catch a lot more flies if you didn't speak with utter certainty about something which can never be certain. You do not possess knowledge unavailable to anyone else and pretending you do probably doesn't help your case (and really adds some condescension to your writing). Just a tip.

---

Thank you for the advice, but my worldview allows me to speak with the possibility of certainty while yours doesn't.

quote:

---

Translation: Roger Klarvin is either an agnostic or full-blown atheist who doesn't believe that 1) there is a spiritual realm, or 2) that non-human forces of good & evil exist.

---

It’s more of a “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin” situation.

Debating the nuances of a divine being’s degree of interaction with global political affairs is a completely pointless endeavor.